Отдел второй. Внутренняя жизнь церкви: выяснение догматического учения и начал церковной дисциплины и обряда.

I. Disclosure of the doctrine of the God-man (“theological” stage par excellence: the doctrine of the Holy Trinity) 1. The doctrine of Christ as God and the theory of Logos During the period under review, a beginning was made to clarify those issues, disputes over which constitute the main content of the next era - the era of ecumenical councils. If one synthesis were enough, then the history of theological thought of the period of the Ecumenical Councils, up to VI inclusive, could be defined in a couple of words: this is the experience of the church interpretation of the word θεάνθρωπος (“God-man”). The entire task of the activities of councils and church literature was reduced to the explanation of this word. In the history of the explanation of this word, two stages are distinguished: theological and Christological. By “theology” (θεολογία) we mean the doctrine of Christ as God, as the second person of the Holy Trinity, as can be seen from the word itself; by “Christology” is what the ancients expressed with the word οικονομία (“economy”), that is, the doctrine of the incarnation and what was the result of it: the unity of divinity and humanity in Christ. The difference between these two stages was not immediately determined. At first, the theological and Christological elements were presented together, and it is difficult to isolate a strictly theological element from this complex. In essence, what we call the doctrine of the Trinity boiled down to the question of what to think about Christ? This question is Christological, but since it brought to the fore the divine side of Christ, reasoning about this was called “θεολογία”, theology. It is easy to imagine that in the time of the apostles and those closest to them there was no reason for dogma. There are enough individual cases preserved in the apostolic writings from which we know how baptism was performed. They saw into the inner man, assessed the seriousness of the assurance, and on this basis baptized, without going into any lengthy announcements. There were cases when faith was kindled in a minute and in the next minute they were baptized, while the understanding of the teaching about Christ was left to the further time spent in church. Those who were baptized were predominantly those of Jewish origin or those affected by Jewish views, and for them the most important question was whether the Messiah had come, and when one of them who was baptized said “I believe in Christ,” he thereby confessed that the Messiah had come and that life should be different. In the New Testament, “theology,” the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, is formulated in the concluding words of Matthew’s Gospel: “Go and teach all languages, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). But when an explanation is made in the apostolic writings regarding the person of Jesus Christ, then the connection of theology with Christology is already noticed. Jesus Christ is thought of as God made man. “There is one God and one Advocate for God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). Obviously, here Christ is placed next to the one God as the Redeemer. 1 Corinthians 8:4–6 contrasts Christian monotheism with pagan polytheism. The pagan concept of God branches out here and gives two shades: “bozi” and “lord”. Historically this is quite understandable; The martyrs were asked to make sacrifices to the gods and say: κύριε καΐσαρ. Thus, the following system was established in paganism: gods in heaven and gods on earth, that is, emperors. Therefore, the apostle states: “but we have one God the Father, from Him are all things, and we are with Him, and there is one Lord Jesus Christ, by Him are all things, and we by Him.” The difference is signified by the names: God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, and is supplemented by particles - from Him, from Him, by That (έξ ου, εις αυτόν, – δι᾿ ού, δι᾿ αύτοϋ). The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is outlined in a similar way at the end of 2 Cor. 13:13: “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” Thus, Christians who believed in God and Christ were accustomed to connect with the name “God” the concept of God the Father, and to think of Christ as “Lord.” But “Lord” - Syriac JLo marja - is a substitute for the Hebrew “Iehova”, and this word acquired the meaning of a term meaning God, because the Jews understood the commandment: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain” (Deut. 5:11) in the sense that you should not pronounce the name “Jehovah” at all, and this name became unpronounceable. When the time came to translate the sacred books into Greek, the translators rendered the word “Jehovah” not through o ών (“Existing One”), but through “Κύριος”. So, undoubtedly, when Christ was called Lord, they at the same time recognized him as God; and the fact that this name was predominantly adopted by Christ gave some shade of thought in the direction of clarifying their personal relationships while preserving the unity of the Father and the Son. Without going into the study of the purely ontological nature of Christ, they spoke of Him only as the God of revelation. When we had to talk about His pre-worldly existence, we essentially talked about His relationship to the world, they said that He, being in God from eternity, comes from God to create the world. The first believers were mostly simple people, without scientific education. The first experiments in theological science among Christians could only appear when philosophically educated persons, such as Justin the Philosopher, entered the church. The generation of church apologist writers, starting with Justin the Philosopher, is known in German literature under the name Logoslehrer, “teachers of the Word.” Indeed, the doctrine of Christ as Λόγος᾿ε constitutes the main subject of their works. In the philosophical literature of the previous time, indications were given of a doctrine of this kind. There, pantheism is based on philosophical monotheism. In this case, the concept of Logos is placed next to the absolute unit. This concept is not exhausted by either the Russian “word” or the Latin “verbum”. “Ἐν άρχη ήν ό Λόγος” (“In the beginning was the Word”) cannot be accurately expressed in the words “in principio erat Verbum.” Verbum is actually ρήμα. Tertullian already noticed that the main point in the concept of Λόγος is not “word”, but “reason” = ratio, and tried to introduce into use more than verbum the corresponding “sermo”. The Greek language also means the proportionality of parts, the mutual relationship between them with the word λόγος. Λόγος in philosophy means the reflection of the divine in the world. Λόγος is not only a reflection of the Absolute, but also an ideal world, the totality of the “Theological stage” of the disclosure of the doctrine of the God-man of ideas that are realized in the world. The Greeks used the name Λόγος to understand that this is an expression of the Absolute in action. Addressing the preaching of Christian truth to pagans with philosophical training, these Christian teachers naturally drew attention to that point of philosophical speculation that could be a useful propaedeutic means. Explaining the world near God, the finite near the infinite, philosophers did not allow the possibility of a direct relationship between the Absolute and the finite, between existence (το δν) and matter (υλη). It was necessary to have a lower divine, above the world, but below the Absolute, in order to be a mediator between God and the world. This lower divine reflects in its being the features of the infinite and the finite and is called Λόγος. If on this side the philosophical teaching about Λόγος᾿ε could bring pagans closer to the understanding of the Christian teaching about the Son of God, “In Him were all things,” then other elements of this philosophical intermediate concept were unfavorable for the assimilation of Christian dogma in all its purity. 1. Philosophical Λόγος is inevitably (this is his rai-son d'etre) lower divine (subordinationism, subordi-natio secundum substantiam). 2. Λόγος – for the world. Among Christian writers, this was reflected in the theory of the dual Word: a) Λόγος ένδιάθετος, the immanent Word existing in God, and b) Λόγος προφορικός, the Word in appearance, revealed in the world. According to Theophilus of Antioch, “in the beginning was the Word and the Word was to God” = Λόγος ένδιάθετος, “and God was the Word: all things were made” = Λόγος προφορικός. In this regard, there is a special idea of ​​​​the birth of the Word pre-mundane, but not pre-eternal (not άίδιος). Tertullian has from eternity Sermo in Deo, intra Deum, cum Deo, and this being of the Word is in a sense His generatio. However, "nativitas perfecta Sermonis" followed in the pre-worldly moment, when "God spoke" (i.e. miserat Sermonem suum): "Fiat lux", and Sermo, lux vera, "prodeundo generatus est", and "procedendo" became "Filius". Therefore, pre-worldly existence for Tertullian is existence “before the birth of the Son,” being nondum Filio apparente. Hence, in this being, God was not yet the Father: fuit tempus, cum Filius non fuit, – qui Patrem Deum faceret. The same idea in Hippolytus is resolved already in three moments - in the triple birth of the Word, as a) Λόγος ένδιάθετος, b) τέλειος Λόγος μονογενής, “perfect only-begotten Word" (= Λόγος προφορικός), and c) εις Yιός τέλειος Θεοϋ, "the one perfect Son of God" (from the moment when Λόγος σαρξ έγένετο, “The Word became flesh”). Views complicated by such shortcomings could provoke a reaction against themselves. This reaction, however, came from the circles of very dark, shallow theological minds. When the teaching of Montanus about the coming revelations of the Holy Spirit-Comforter began to spread in Phrygia and Asia, in the same area there were determined opponents of Montanism (they did not want to recognize the Montanists even as Christians) persons whom polemicists ironically call alogs (άλογοι unreasonable, dumb). In Montana, as is known, they saw that Paraclete-Comforter whom Christ promised. But the Comforter is spoken of only in the fourth gospel. Those who polemicized against the Montanists naturally might have come up with the sly thought: “What if we abandon the fourth gospel?!” “Then the pillars on which Montanism rested would fall. But at the same time a blow would be dealt to the doctrine of the Logos. On this basis, the “Alog” sect arose, based on anti-Montan tendencies. Since Montanus relied in his teaching on the writings of the Gospel of John, the Alogians recognized both his Gospel and the apocalypse as fraudulent (Cyrinthos wrote them under the name of John), and at the same time they rejected the very teaching “about the word preached from John” as unknown to the apostles. The alogs also did not recognize the eternal existence of the Son of God, finding that the Gospel only says that the Holy Spirit descended on Christ on the Jordan and at that moment Jesus was proclaimed “the Beloved Son.” But not only to the anti-Montanists-alogs, but also to other “simple” people, the doctrine of Christ as Λόγος᾿ε, as the eternal Son of God, seemed a strange doctrine of a “second God”, inconsistent with the Christian doctrine of the one God. A peculiar movement appeared, known under the name of monarchianism. The common name for this movement is the “anti-Trinitarian” heresy. But, in essence, the name is wrong; only philological misery could allow the combination of the Greek αντί with the Latin trinitas. The term “monarchians” is the oldest. Tertullian, when he denounces them as “the most evil and vain monarchians,” he conveys that their war cry and banner was “we adhere to the monarchy” (monarchiam tenemus), and this Greek word μοναρχία was pronounced even by ignorant Latins. Monarchy meant the doctrine of one God. This word was used to show that Christian teaching is opposite to the teaching of the ancient world with its polytheistic tendencies. Christians needed to express that they recognize only one God, and for this purpose the term “monarchy” was developed. When dogmas, recognized by everyone, become the banner of the party, then something is wrong. Something went wrong with this whole movement, and this is because people with poor philosophical training took up the solution of theological issues. When they began to carry out operations with the numbers one, two, three, this work turned out to be beyond their strength, and a dark suspicion crept in that the doctrine of “οικονομία” was in internal contradiction with “monarchy”; it is paralogical and inconceivable to the mind. To get out into the clear light, it was necessary to sacrifice one thing: to renounce either “μοναρχία” or “οικονομία”. It seemed easier to do the second. Firstly, “μοναρχία” is a teaching that represented a direct oppositum against the pagans, and “οικονομία” is a teaching that was held within the church. Secondly, the doctrine of “μοναρχία” - the doctrine of one God is so bright that even the best pagans have thought of it. Therefore, adherents of the “monarchy” began to say: “we stand for the monarchy, no matter what you think.” The term "οικονομία" was not clear enough. In a special sense it meant the incarnation of Christ; in a broad sense - the whole relationship of God to the world and the very embodiment, as a part in this whole. This doctrine of Logos, with its shortcomings, was bound to contribute to complications in the course of this dispute. In the usual teaching about “οικονομία” they operated with the concepts of “God” and “Lord”, “Father” and “Son”. The term "Father" presupposes the existence of a "Son"; where there is no son, there is no father. But if this is so, then this inevitably indicated the path of thought from “μοναρχία” to “οικονομία”. And, indeed, we find this in Tertullian. “We believe in one God, with the limitation, however, that this God has a Son,” he says. That's how they presented the matter simply. And suddenly a certain craving appeared, an upper intellectual current, which set itself the goal of illuminating this teaching with the help of philosophical means. They began to use the term Λόγος as a term that explains a lot, talking about the pre-worldly existence of the Son. When common people were accustomed to encountering a certain expression, the new one, naturally, should have seemed strange to them, and the Christian world responded to this strangeness with a peculiar movement, which was primarily expressed in the protest of the alogs against the writings of St. John. For a simple monarchian, who was more capable of shouting “monarchiam tenemus” than of reasoning, the very concept of “Λόγος” seemed sophisticated. To preserve the monarchy, it seemed necessary to reject this teaching. The denial itself proceeded in two ways. 1) Firstly, they crossed out “θεολογία” - theology in relation to Christ, they said that Christ is a man, and if He is a man, then there is no need to theologize about Him; thus the monarchy remains. 2) Others found a way out of the difficulty not through putting a minus instead of a plus (that is, not through denying the Divinity), but through replacing the plus with a sign of mathematical equality, that is, through recognizing the identity of the Father and the Son, and then there is no reason to theologize specifically about the Father and the Son; Thus, there remains again only one monarchy. Thus, the monarchians, accepting the doctrine of one God, rejected, as inconsistent with it, the doctrine of Christ as the second Person of the Holy Trinity. The forced logical formula of the monarchians could only be the following: Jesus Christ is not δεύτερος Θεός, is not God next to God the Father, either because Christ is not God in essence, but is only a man filled with the power of God, or because God Himself is Christ, that the Father and the Son differ from each other only in name, in concept, in that image, modus, in in which they are revealed to us (hence, in the end, they differ only subjectively, although we have an objective basis for such an idea of Them), in essence, by being itself, the Father and the Son are one. In the first sense, the dilemma is solved by monarchian dynamists, in the second – by monarchian modalists 9 10. The first movement is associated with the name of the Byzantine Theodotus the Tanner (c. 190 in Rome). The continuators of his teachings were Theodotus the Banker (c. 200) and Artemon. Theodotus the Tanner renounced Christ during persecution 11. Whether reproaches of conscience or reproaches of Christians brought him into confusion, only he had the need to find an excuse for himself: he began to say that he had not renounced God, but had renounced Christ, and Christ was a simple man. With the concept of Christ as a simple man, he did not think of going far. He did not deny that Christ was born supernaturally, but it was not God who was born, in his opinion, not “Λόγος,” but a man whose advantage over other people was his “αρετή.” “Αρετή means virtue. But we think little about the meaning of this word, for us αρετή seems to be an ethical concept, so it sounded strange to us would be such a phrase: a “virtuous” person can rob. In reality, by “αρετή” we need to understand skill, the correspondence of a given thing to its nature and purpose. Be that as it may, by attributing “αρετή” to Christ, Theodotus recognized something higher in Him, namely primary deification. By his nature, Christ is not Θεός, but άνθρωπος: nowhere in Scripture is it said that Christ is God. “The Holy Spirit will come upon you” (Luke 1:35), but it is not said: “he will be born of you.” He was born, therefore, ψιλός άνθρωπος, a simple man, although he was also born in a supernatural way from the Virgin. But the Spirit of God dwelt in Him predominately; He was more fully deified than the other prophets. This movement essentially boiled down to the negation of all Christianity. In its continuation it found a mitigation; the thesis that Christ is a simple man was abandoned, they began to say only that He is not the greatest phenomenon in history, and when they began to argue for this position, the question of Melchizedek was put forward, they began to say that, firstly, the genealogy of Melchizedek is unknown, while the genealogy of Christ is known, and secondly, Melchizedek was a priest of the Most High God, and Christ is a priest only “according to the order of Melchizedek.” Comparing Melchizedek and Christ from these two indicated sides, we came to the idea that Christ is lower than Melchizedek, that Christ is a mediator between God and people, and Melchizedek is between God and the angels. Unable to present their teaching as an ideal for the common people, the dynamists tried to win over the Christian intelligentsia and therefore acted through scientific methods, processing the Holy Scriptures critically. In the person of their last representative, Paul of Samosat, they later put forward a remarkable dialectician, over whom it cost Christians great difficulty to defeat. Along with the movement associated with the name of Theodotus the Tanner, another movement arose, the representative of which was Praxeus, a confessor who arrived in Rome from Asia (probably under Eleuthera 175–189), hated by Tertullian for his energetic and successful struggle against Montanism. The name of Praxea disappeared from history to such an extent that the most outlandish assumptions were possible. It was even assumed that the name Praxey is a common noun, meaning “businessman”; it was attached by Tertullian to Noit of Smyrna. The basis for such an assumption was seen in the fact that Praxeus, according to Tertullian, acted in Rome, but Hippolytus does not mention his activities. But the latter is not at all surprising, because Praxeus was in Rome for a very short time, was not successful, and when Hippolytus entered the field of literary activity, he represented a figure already forgotten. And if Tertullian did not forget him, it is because at the end of his life the latter was seduced into Montanism, and Praxeus was the most prominent fighter against Montanism and therefore, therefore, a person unpleasant to Tertullian. Tertullian speaks very harshly about him. “Praxeus has no right,” he says, “to be called a confessor; his whole martyrdom consisted in the fact that he was bored in prison, then, appearing in Rome, expelled the Comforter and crucified the Father” (Adv. Prach. p. 1). Actually, the views of Praxeus, as they are set out in the only source, Tertullian, cannot seem clear. The polemical head of Tertullian is to blame for this. In our scientific discipline we demand to be told exactly what the enemy is saying; Meanwhile, Tertullian thunderously opposes his theses to his opponent’s objections, assuming that he will answer them. The confusion of the presentation comes down to this feature of Tertullian’s polemics. According to Tertullian, the entire Old Testament for Praxeus came down to the words: “I am God and there is no other besides Me” (Is. 45:5), and the New Testament - to the words: “he who has seen Me has seen the Father also,” “I am in the Father and the Father in Me” (John 15:9,11), “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). Thus, the essential thing in both Testaments agrees is the doctrine of one God. But when Tertullian begins to expound in more detail these provisions of Praxeus, it turns out that the latter supposedly allowed modalism. Tertullian asks Praxeas about the expression “let us create” (Gen. 1:26) and other plurals and thinks that he will answer in the sense that there is some plurality in God. We find the most characteristic expression in the supposed explanation of the words of Scripture by Praxeas on the question of by whom the revelation was given to Moses. Tertullian believes that Praxeus will be forced to attribute the words: “I am this” to the Son; But if we take this point of view, Tertullian objects to Praxeus, then it is incomprehensible how Moses could see the God who called Himself invisible. Tertullian branded this entire movement with the word “patripassiani” (patripassiani) and wants to impose on them theo-paschytism in the crudest form: the Father Himself was crucified and suffered. But this conclusion is, in any case, incorrect. According to Praxeus, “ipse (Pater) se Filium sibi fecit” (“The Father himself made himself his own Son”), and, therefore, took on the “image” of the Son (modus). In a strict sense, Praxeus cannot be called a patripassian: if he assumes that the Father, being invisible, became visible, then he is no longer a patripassian, because he thereby admits that some incomprehensible metamorphosis took place in God: before suffering, He brought himself into such a state that he became visible. Patripassianism would have resulted only if Praxeus had admitted that Pater passus est Himself, that the Father Himself became man without changing His modality; and if Praxeus had said that the Father became incarnate, but in modo Filii, then the term “patripassiani” would no longer be applicable to this doctrine. What this modus consisted of is unclear. The Praxeans, according to Tertullian (p. 27), asserted: “Filium carnem esse, id est hominem, i. e. Jesum, Patrem autem spiritum, i. e. Deum, i. e. Christum" (“The Son is flesh, that is, man, that is, Jesus; the Father is the Spirit, that is, God, that is, Christ”). Apparently, they wanted to call humanity itself in Christ with the word Filius. They argued: “Filius quidem patitur, Pater vero compatitur” (“The Son suffers, but the Father has compassion”) (p. 29). Verbally they are therefore not patripassiani. According to them, the suffering of mankind was only not indifferent to Christ the Father and therefore “Pater compassus est Filio” (“The Father had compassion on the Son”). They do not even think of allowing theopaschity: the Father died not according to Divinity, but according to humanity. The difference between them and the Catholics at this point is only that the Catholics say: Christ the Son died, and the Praxeans: Christ the Father died. When assessing Praxeus’s position that “Son” is only the name of the human side in Christ, and according to the divine, Christ is the Father Himself, one must not lose sight of the possibility that Praxeus could represent the incarnation itself as a necessary consequence of the internal determinations of God, as if the genetic development of the Divine. In this case, the very fact that the Father Himself made Himself the Son-Man-Jesus will contain a hint of some new modality and Praxeus will escape the charge of contradictory patripassianism. Thus, the nickname “Patripassians” is an invention of Tertullian. If Praxeus consistently understood by “Filius” humanity and only humanity in Christ (not “divine humanity”), then, of course, his modalism was still very vague - if, indeed, he believed that Deus quo Pater (not Pater quo Filius) took on the flesh and suffered in it. Of the other monarchians, the most energetic exponent of modalism was the Smyrna heresy teacher Noit. His followers acted in Rome and embarrassed the Roman bishops, who were not outstanding theologians, but nevertheless had to take part in theological disputes. And Noites, like Praxeus, ended in such a way that his teaching involuntarily raised the question whether by the Son he meant the humanity of Christ? God, in his opinion, is an essence that subdues contradictions and appears in two categories: as invisible and visible, hidden and manifest, impassive and suffering. The first category is the Father, the second is the Son. God, who wanted to suffer, appeared as the Son, but He did not hide from those worthy and able to bear the fact that He is the Father. Thus, in God the unity of the substratum of the Father and the Son is strictly maintained. When in Smyrna they asked him why he was introducing false teaching, he answered: “What harm am I doing by wanting to glorify Christ?” The Noitians propagated their teachings in Rome. Here Sabellianism degenerated from Noitianism. The transitional moment was probably expressed in the formula “Yίοπάτωρ” (Son-Father); this word was, so to speak, a summary of the original teaching of Sabellius. By analogy with other words (θεομήτωρ), Πατήρ is the main name here; therefore, ό Πατήρ is Yιός, Yιός is only the mode of the Father. However, the God-man already gives a warning against the confident interpretation that Yίοπάτωρ is the “Father”, Who Himself is also His Son. But, of course, the concept of “Father” even among the Noitians preceded the concept of “Son.” This concept of Yίοπάτωρ expresses the confidence that the One who appears as the “Son” in the Gospel is also the “Father,” that the names “Father” and “Son” mean the same “subject,” ύποκείμενον. The fact that Yιός and Πατήρ in the term Yίοπάτωρ seem to be balanced with each other (notiones coordinatae) contains a protest of monarchianism against subordinate theology, which subordinated the Son to the Father not only in hypostasis, but also in essence. On this side, modalistic monarchianism was a historical ferment that contributed to the purification of theology from subordinationism. The Roman bishops had to take one position or another in relation to the bickering that took place in Rome. Bishop Zephyrinus (199–216) said this: “I know the only God, Jesus Christ, and besides Him I do not know anyone else who was born and suffered.” At this time, three persons were distinguished in Rome (all presbyters?): Hippolytus, Callistus and Sabellius. The first was a decisive opponent of the monarchians, Sabellius sided with the Noitians, Callistus wanted to stay in the middle. According to his instructions, Zefirin spoke in the above manner. When, after the death of Zephyrinus, Callistus (217–222) became his successor, one part of the Roman Christians remained dissatisfied with him. Wanting to reconcile the dissatisfied with himself, Callistus even excommunicated Sabellius from the church (“fearing me,” says Hippolytus) and thereby incurred reproaches from Sabellius for betraying his former convictions. Callistus himself taught as follows. The Word (τον Λόγον) Himself is the Son, Himself and the Father; these are different names, but one indivisible Spirit; the Father is not another and the Son is another, but one and the same. It is essentially the same. “God is Spirit,” says Scripture, “[The Spirit] is not other than the Word, and the Word is not other than God.” This is a single person (πρόσωπον), different in name, but not in essence. This Word is the one God, incarnate and made man*. Philosopher XI, 12: τον Λόγον αυτόν είναι Yΐόν, αυτόν και Πατέρα, ονόματι μεν καλούμενον, εν δέ δν τό Πνεΰμα άδιαίρετον. ούκ άλλο είναι Πατέρα, άλλο δέ Yίόν, εν δέ και το αυτό ύπάρχειν. Χ, 21: ουσία δε [εν] είναι – Πνεύμα γάρ, φησίν, ό Θεός οΰκ ϊτερόν έστι παρά τόν Λόγον ή ό Λόγος παρά τόν Θεόν . b ούν τουπρόσωπον, ονόματι μέν μεριζόμενον, ουσία δέ οΰ. Τούτον τόν Λόγον ίνα είναι Θεόν ονομάζει και σεσαρκωσθαι λέγει . Consequently, a) Πνεύμα is the synthesis (primary concept, prius) of the Father and the Son, b) Ό Λόγος is a more primary concept than the Father and the Son: ό Λόγος is the subject, Πατήρ and Yίός are predicates. Hippolytus and Callistus had a peculiar fate in history. Callistus's teaching was unclear, to say the least. If we take the testimony of the Philosophumen literally, we will have to admit that this Roman bishop was close to monarchianism. This circumstance is inconvenient for papistic claims. The Roman ambassadors in the east always trumpeted that the teaching of the Roman see was never overshadowed by the attack of any heresy. And they tried to forget about Callista. Only Theodoret (Haeret. fabul. coll. Ill, 3), on the basis of the Philosophumena, placed Callistus among the heretics, without calling him a bishop of Rome (and, apparently, without realizing it). And when the Philosophumenae was published in 1851, Roman Catholic scholars began, without much success, to discern extraordinary theological merits in Callistus’s words (the firm doctrine of the “consubstantiality of hypostases,” den hypostatischen Homousianismus). Hippolytus is also a forgotten face. He was sometimes mistaken for the bishop of the city of "Porta" - near Rome, then for the bishop of "Port" of Arabia = Aden, then for a missionary bishop in partibus. Despite the fact that no less a figure than Mommsen spoke out in favor of the Portus Romae in 1891, it must be admitted that Hippolytus was the Bishop of Rome - an antipope, opposed to Callistus by the strict party. In the same way, it was forgotten that he wrote the Philosophumena, which remained unknown until the half of the 19th century. As a result of this last circumstance, there were unclear ideas about the beginning of Sabellianism. Eusebius apparently knows nothing about the fact that Sabellius lived in Rome around 215. He only knows about the subsequent spread of Sabellianism in Libya and Pentapolis. Therefore, the question of the origin of Sabellius is not indisputable. Later writers call him a Libyan; but one may suspect that this is only their guess on the basis of Eusebius’s report in the “ecclesiastical history” about Sabellianism in Libya. It is recognized as indisputable that in Sabellianism the modalistic trend found its fullest expression and completion. But the question of the content of Sabellius’s doctrine is one of the controversial ones. This is essentially a question about the sources of our knowledge of Sabellianism. Sources are: Epiphanius of Cyprus, Basil the Great, Theodoret, Athanasius the Great. The essence of Savelliev’s teaching, on the one hand, lies, as already noted, in the word “Yίοπάτωρ”. But it is difficult to connect other data on this subject with this. There is a need, so to speak, to build on the system of Sabelli's teaching. Schleiermacher managed to do this (based on data from Epiphanius). (1822). Neander objected to this reconstruction. Baur (1841) sided with Schleiermacher. Baur's merit is that he presented a complete reconstruction of Sabellius' teachings. Methodologically, it boils down to the fact that Baur, in the words of Athanasius the Great, guessed the truth that Sabellius distinguished the “Father” from the “monad”, and did not identify them, as Athanasius was inclined to assume. A new opponent against this presentation was Zahn (77 Zahn, Marcellus von Ancyra. Gotha 1867). He believes that the writers of the 4th century did not know the true teaching of Sabellius, and when they polemicize against him, they are actually fighting against Marcellus of Ancyra and, under the guise of Sabellianism, they present the views of Marcellus, that Athanasius the Great in the IV word against the Arians 12 sets out very diverse views of the “Sabellianists”, deals with a whole direction, and not with the teaching of Sabellius in its true form. But this opinion of Tsan, that Athanasius the Great, Basil the Great, Epiphanius, under the guise of Sabellius, refuted only Marcellus and, therefore, expounded Marcellianism, and not Sabellianism, is implausible, a) It is incredible that Athanasius, Basil, Epiphanius could not know the true teaching of Sabellius and were forced to draw analogies from Marcellus; c) they, Basil the Great in particular, would not have found it difficult to refute Marcellus under his own name. The followers of Tsan (Harnak and others) no longer adhere strictly to his views and, recognizing a significant amount of truth in the testimony of Athanasius the Great, argue that the teaching of Sabellius was reworked and the history of its changes is difficult to restore. According to the testimony of Epiphanius (haer. 62), Sabellius imagined that in God there is one hypostasis and one being, God is an unconditional unity and is trinitarian not in hypostases, but in πρόσωπα, personae, guises, under which one God is revealed. He indicates that a person consists of body, soul and spirit: the Father, according to him, is, so to speak, the body, the Son is the soul, the Holy Spirit is the spirit. It also points to the sun: it appears sometimes as a spherical body, sometimes as a luminous one, sometimes as a warming one. The spherical body is the Father, light is the Son, heat is the Spirit. Sabellius also exploits to his advantage the words of the Savior: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). According to Athanasius, Sabellius also refers to the apostolic teaching: “the divisions of gifts are, and the same is the Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:4). He associates the Trinity with the history of the economy: the prerogative manifestation of the Father was the Old Testament Sinai teaching, the Son - the incarnation, and the Holy Spirit - His descent on the apostles. The Πρόσωπον of the Father ceases to exist when the πρόσωπον of the Son appears, and the Son ceases to exist when the πρόσωπον of the Holy Spirit appears. The presentation of the teachings of Sabellius by Basil the Great (ep. 210. 214) is in the main and essential identical with those given by Epiphanius. From the words of Basil the Great, it is not clear that Sabellius timed the revelation of God in three πρόσωπα to the history of revelation in the Old and New Testaments. God according to need (νυμεν – νυν δέ) manifests himself in one or another πρόσωπον. These words can also be understood in the sense that God can manifest himself in three πρόσωπα in one day. A more serious difference in the data in St. Athanasius the Great. According to the consistent testimony of Basil the Great and Epiphanius, the πρόσωπα of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are concepts coordinated with each other (notiones coordinatae) and subordinate to the highest logical prius - “God”. On this side, the doctrine of Sabellius constitutes, as it were, a protest against those subordinate systems that placed the Son below the Father, and represents the experience of constructing the doctrine of the Trinity in the sense of the perfect equality of the Divine Persons among themselves. Not so according to Athanasius the Great. Sabellius, according to him, identifies the monad - the concept of God in Himself - with the concept of the Father and from the Father produces the πρόσωπα Logos-Son and Spirit (IV, 25. 13). However, in one place Athanasius clearly admits that Μονάς in Sabellius is not the same as Πατήρ (IV, 13). In explaining this feature of Sabellius in the transmission from Athanasius the Great, it should be noted that Athanasius had a mind too productive to limit himself to the objective transmission of other people’s opinions without criticizing them. Himself consistent in his dogmatic concepts, he also conveyed other opinions from the point of view of his system; What was logically unthinkable for him, he considered logically unthinkable for his opponent. He could not allow that any dogmatic system could not consider the “Father” to be identical with the “monad.” Consequently, the distinction between “Μονάς” and “Πατήρ” should be considered an accurate transmission of the teachings of Sabellius, and the identification of Μονάς and Πατήρ should be attributed to Athanasius himself. The testimony of Athanasius the Great that Μονάς and according to Sabellius is Πατήρ, and Λόγος - Yιός, obviously constitutes one of the weighty data in favor of Neander, who objects to Schleiermacher that the ancient Christian could not allow the thought that Λόγος was logically before the concept of "Father". However, the Philosophumens, which were later discovered, presented strong evidence in favor of Schleiermacher's reconstruction. Already Callist taught that Λόγος is the Son, He Himself is also the Father; these are different names, but one indivisible Spirit (τον Λόγον αυτόν εΐναι Yίόν, αυτόν και Πατέρα). Here ό Λόγος, obviously, is the subject (ύποκείμενον), to which the concepts Yιός and Πατήρ relate as its praedicata (predicates). Consequently, in this place the very thing that Neander considers historically impossible is stated as an indisputable fact. Based on all available data, including the testimony of Hippolytus in the Philosophumena, it seems that two periods in the teaching of Sabellius should be recognized. In those days, he did not differ in his views from Noit: the Father and the Son are “modi”, and the essence and hypostasis are one. Then he could call the unity of the Father and the Son “Yίοπάτωρ”. But Callistus, in the fight against Noitianism, outlined his view in which ό Λόγος is a logical ύποκείμενον even in relation to Πατήρ, and Πνευ is the synthesis of the Father and the Son. Sabellius also borrowed this view from Callista into his system. Under the influence of such a precedent, it was natural for him to lead his doctrine of Yίοπατωρ, placing the concept of Πνεύμα as prius over it. Thus, not only Yιός is here a modification of the Father, but also Πατήρ is a modification of the Spirit. By pondering this scheme, one could come to its completion. God in Himself (Μονάς), conceived outside of relation to the world, a God who does not reveal himself, is a silent God. But God, who reveals himself to the world (Μονάς πλατυνθεΐσα), is already God speaking, λαλών. In order to λαλεΐν, God posits Himself as the Word - Λόγος, Ratio (the usual idea among Orthodox teachers: Λόγος is born for the creation of the world). But this speech of the Word to the world has the character of a trilogy, embracing the entire οικονομία. Λόγος opens into τρία πρόσωπα: like Πατήρ, like Yίός, like Πνεϋμα. So, for Sabellius Μονάς is not Πατήρ, Λόγος is not Yιός; Λόγος precedes the Father. This is the originality of his concept. And its completeness lies in the fact that he clearly speaks about the Holy Spirit, namely, as the third πρόσωπον. Now he - and this is the undoubted advantage of his dogmatic system - introduced into his speculation not only the Father and the Son (as before in Yίοπατωρ), but also the Holy Spirit, and subordinated all three of these πρόσωπα to the concept of Λόγος, as the highest. Moreover, for Sabellius πρόσωπον is not ύπόστασις, but rather only δνομα (“name”); ύπόστασις is ουσία (“essence”). God tv τη ουσία, 6 ν τη ύποστάσει, £ ν τω ύπο – κειμενω. Πρόσωπον is only προσωπεΤον - the actor’s mask. Thus, a twice-repeated Noitianism appeared. The concepts of God transcendent (in Himself, αόρατος Πατήρ for Noit) and God of revelation (in relation to the world, ορατός for Noit) are now expressed a) in the form of a difference between Πνεΰμα and Λόγος, and b) in the form of a detailed difference between Μονάς and Τριάς. The life of the Deity in the first definition is illustrated by the opposition σιωπαν - λαλεΐν. Πνεϋμα, like the mind (νους), tends to open up in Λόγος᾿ε, which is also the word - to speak, λαλεΐν. At this point in his teaching, Sabellius approaches the views of Orthodox theologians, who also speak of the birth of the Word from the highest Mind, that is, God the Father. But for illustration purposes, Sabellius called the concept of “Spirit” and Λόγος᾿ 3 one word “Monad”. Hence, the illustration of the second definition (b) is the opposition συστολή – πλατυσμός. A mathematical point without dimensions, μονάς, gradually expands into a measurable area. The distinction between these two explanations, however, is not maintained in the surviving sources. God - Πνεΰμα - Μονάς, deigning to reveal himself to the world, emerges from his transcendence, positing Himself as Λόγος. The God of revelation, God Λόγος, then manifests Himself in the πρόσωπα of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; Πατήρ, Yίός, Πνεΰμα are the modi of the highest modus – Λόγος. In the doctrine of the Trinity, the Orthodox mainly outlined a logical distinction between the first and second persons of the Holy Trinity based on a comparison of the relationship of the Father to the Son. Sabellius bases this distinction on the relationship of God to the Word, and distinguishes five moments into which he embodies his entire teaching. He recognizes God Himself in Himself, outside of His relationship to the world, as a Monad, which within itself contains all its content. When divine action begins, God also appears as the Word. This is the universal mode of God in His revelation. This mode has three separate words or revelations that embrace the entire content of the world, so that all being is a trilogy. This trilogy presupposes three πρόσωπα: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in God, which successively manifested themselves in the world. We already know that Πατήρ predominantly manifested itself at the time of the Sinai legislation. But an important question remains unclear: who, what πρόσωπον is the creator of the world? a) It is likely that Sabellius (like the Holy Fathers, who, regarding the words: “and God spoke,” asked: “Do you see the glory of the Only Begotten?”) recognized Λόγος as the creator of the world (and not one of the three πρόσωπα), b) But it is not impossible that the world was created by the Father and, therefore, a change of πρόσωπα is not identical with the complete cessation of their existence. As long as the created world exists, the πρόσωπον of the Father must not cease. Hence the view of Basil the Great is possible that to this day God speaks at will and appears at need, sometimes as a Father, sometimes as a Son, despite the fact that, according to the principle, the life of the church is the sphere of activity of the person of the Holy Spirit. But, in any case, πρόσωπα are changing. The second dialogue opens from the New Testament: Λόγος takes on the guise of the Son; the incarnation and atonement typify the manifestation of the Son before His ascension into heaven. Then, in governing the church until the end of the world, the Holy Spirit is revealed. And what will happen to this day, if not a single πρόσωπον is eternal, that is, what is the eschatological teaching of Sabellius? Just as at sunset, along with the sun, the ray that emitted from it disappears (as if drawn into it), so for our sake, the Λόγος who appeared after us will return (ανατρέχει) to the unity of the Monad. The world cannot be eternal; of course, therefore, the revelation of God in this world. If the πρόσωπον of the Father was replaced by the face of the Son, and the face of the Son by the face of the Holy Spirit, then the πρόσωπον of the Holy Spirit will cease, and at the same time the very modus Λόγος. And after this, whether the Monad will remain silent, or will speak again, and therefore begin to create new worlds, is unknown. This is the form in which Sabellius's doctrine was presented at the final stage of its development. When Sabellius's harmonious system was still in its infancy, those unfamiliar with it thoroughly looked down on it, as the fruit of thoughtlessness. Even Origen, a younger contemporary of Sabellius, viewed Sabellius' teachings in this way. This is quite understandable, since Origen started relations with Hippolytus and, taking the latter’s point of view, disparaged the teachings of Sabellius. Only Origen's student Dionysius of Alexandria came to understand the power of Sabellianism. By the time of Dionysius, it had spread so widely in Pentapolis that Eusebius took the news of this spill as news of the beginning of heresy (that Sabellius was a former Roman presbyter remained unknown to Eusebius). At this time, in the fight against Sabellianism it was necessary to deal not only with the laity, but also with the bishops. According to Eusebius, Dionysius wrote about this to the bishops - Ammon of Verenice, Telesphorus, Euphranor, again to Ammon and to Euporus. Heresy reached such a point that around 260 the Son of God was not preached in Libya for a long time. Eusebius of Caesarea in his church history speaks very mutely about this heretical movement, so that there is almost no possibility of reconstructing Sabellius’ system from his history. He only says that the heresy of Sabellius contains a lot of blasphemy and involves great insensitivity towards the persons of the Holy Trinity. 3. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity of Tertullian and Origen and the general scheme for the construction of this doctrine in the ante-Nicene period The emergence of the heretical system of Sabellius, which was finally formed in the time after Origen, indicates shortcomings in the theological systems of that time, the best expressions of which are the theological system of Origen in the east and that of Tertullian in the west. The main drawback in these systems is exactly the same. It lies in the subordination that both introduced in relation to the Persons of the Holy Trinity. But the systems of Origen and Tertullian, despite some errors in their construction, also brought their share of benefits to the church, providing Orthodoxy with significant services in the fight against other heretical systems that arose in the Christian church. Considering the systems of Tertullian and Origen from this latter point of view, that is, from the side of their historical significance, we will have to recognize the system of Tertullian as having greater historical value than the system of Origen. The superiority of Tertullian's system lay not so much in the completeness and perfection of its treatment, but in its external literary merits, that is, in the accuracy and clarity of language, which distinguished all of Tertullian's works in general. Thanks to these external merits, Tertullian’s works were read by believers even in the 4th century, and the readers turned out to be so knowledgeable in theology and so prepared to defend Orthodoxy that they boldly opposed the false teachings of heretics and won decisive victories over them. Tertullian's theological teaching itself can be represented in the following terms. Each of the Persons of the Holy Trinity is God. “Et Pater Deus,” he says, “et Filius Deus, et Spiritus Sanctus Deus, et Deus unusquisque.” But at the same time, Tertullian taught that they are all one. This teaching of Tertullian raises him to the heights of the Augustinian view that “one God is the Trinity itself.” Tertullian then taught that the Persons of the Holy Trinity, although one in essence or substance, are nevertheless distinct as Persons. The Son is a persona, and not a substantia separate from God the Father, just like the Holy Spirit. Substance, as he puts it, “in three touching” is one. Thus, they are all from one, they are all one, due to the unity of substance. So, Tertullian’s teaching about the Holy Trinity can be formulated in the following words: each of the three Persons is God, all three are God; three differ as Persons, but are one as Substance. With such provisions it was possible to stand firmly against Arius. However, it is possible that Tertullian’s teaching was not actually as profound as it seems to us at the present time. Probably, with the passage of time, a deeper meaning began to be connected with his expressions, corresponding to a later higher state of theological knowledge. In any case, from his words about the Holy Trinity one cannot in any way deduce the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, which was approved at the Council of Nicaea. The doctrine of the substance of divine Persons is combined in Tertullian with subordinationism. He says that the Father is the substance, the Son is the outpouring, the portio de summa. The existence of the Son next to the Father is, as it were, a form into which the being of the Father flows. From this it is clear that Tertullian taught the subordination of the Son to the Father. He places the Holy Spirit in the same dependence on the Father. All the good and bad sides in Tertullian's teaching have one source. The fact is that Tertullian developed his system not as a philosopher, but as a lawyer (according to Mommsen, he was an excellent lawyer). Tertullian also introduced legal accuracy of concepts into his theological system. This legal basis of his teaching, while constituting his dignity, was at the same time the reason for his weakness. As a lawyer, he could not feel the fallacy and incompleteness of his ideas and expressions, he could not feel as strongly as a philosopher would feel it. This weakness is particularly evident in some of Tertullian's comparisons. Such, for example, is his comparison, which aims to reconcile the monarchy with the existence of three Persons in God. He explains this using the example of the Roman state. He points out that the Roman state remains a monarchy, despite the fact that in addition to the sovereign, other persons take part in governance - it remains a monarchy due to the fact that these others are only simple bodies through which the emperor acts. He explains the relationship between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit by the relationship between the emperor and the officials. The latter, by virtue of this comparison, are only organs through which God the Father acts. It is obvious that such a comparison distorts the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Trinity. This legal point of view lies in Tertullian and in the basis of other dogmatic expressions and terms. This is, for example, the term “substance”. By this term Tertullian does not mean an essence common to objects of the same kind, but something specific. He contrasts “nature” with substance. Substance is peculiar to each thing individually, while nature is the same in all things. For example, stone and iron are substances, while hardness constitutes nature. Nature embraces both stone and iron, while substance separates them. We recognize the unity of nature while we recognize the difference of substance. Thus, “substance” is a legal, not a philosophical concept for Tertullian. Because of this, it was not difficult for Tertullian to admit that the Son and the Holy Spirit are accomplices of the Father in substance, that is, in the possession of it. But if the Father, Son and Holy Spirit jointly own one substance, then the concept of unity of ownership does not yet determine complete equality. Tertullian says that in the Trinity there is something in common (status, substantia), but the Persons of the Trinity differ in degree and form. Not every owner is the owner in full, but may be the owner of a third part. And for a shareholder of 50% and 25%, the ownership remains the same - indivisible, the ownership status is the same, and only the gradus differs. Thus, Tertullian used legal terms, and only later were these terms given a deeper theological and philosophical meaning 13 . Origen was less happy in his theological views than Tertullian. Origen is a theologian-philosopher, not a lawyer, and he took his theological and philosophical concepts in their entirety. He does not contrast πρόσωπον (in Tertullian persona) with ουσία (substantia), but ύπόστασις with ύποκείμενον (subjectum). But Origen did not achieve a separate understanding of these terms. Taking into account philosophical concepts, he did not achieve the understanding that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three υποστάσεις with the unity of ουσία. For him, ύποκείμενον and ουσία are usually not separated, and the three Persons can be understood as three ούσίαι. Therefore, his presentation of the doctrine of the three hypostases could not have historical significance. When Origen starts from a philosophical point of view, his theology remains invulnerable, but subordinationism is clearly visible in his specific explanations. Origen, having Clement as a predecessor, destroys the distinction between Λόγος ένδιάθετος and Λόγος προφορικός. He understands the birth of God the Word so highly that theologians could not go further. He taught that the birth of the Son is not aeternum, but sempiternum, that the Son is not simply γεννητός, but όχι γεννητός. The Son is born eternally, and this act is always and eternally performed. “To be” for the Son means “to be born,” and thus the Son cannot be said to be “born.” From Origen's theology it follows that the Son is co-eternal with the Father and there is no gap between the Father and the Son. The relationship between Them is the same as that between wax and a seal. It is clear that from this point of view he must think of the Son not only as God in essence, but also equal to the Father, born from the being of the Father. But when he talks about the birth of the Son in theological language, then the birth of the Son “from the being” of the Father seems to him like a sensory act, a division of the Father’s being into parts. He therefore does not allow for a single being of the Father and the Son and Their complete equality. For him it is a big question whether it is possible to pray to the Son as well as to the Father. He comes to the conclusion that one can only pray to the Father as God. In addition to these particulars, it is necessary to pay attention to the general scheme of theology at that time. The point of view of the ancient theologians and their scheme was completely different from ours, based on Nicene concepts and provisions. Our point of view is based on the recognition of the unity of the being (ουσία) and on the distinction of hypostases from the being. Such a construction is a synthesis. The Triune God, according to our understanding, is the synthesis of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. On the contrary, the ancient writers presented the doctrine of the triune God in a genetic scheme. The Father is conceived here as one God, and if He is the Father, then it is unthinkable without the Son and the Holy Spirit. The expressions of the ancients in this regard are clear. For example, Tertullian said: “We always believe in one God, but under the indispensable condition that He has a Son” (Adv. Prax. 2). Clement in his Stromata says: “The Father is unthinkable without the Son, for the concept of the Son is given in the concept of the Father” (V, 1:1). It is impossible to imagine the Father without admitting the Son, just as in geometry it is impossible to talk about a ball without having the concept of a circle, radius, center, etc. In such a formulation, the doctrine of the Trinity was given in ancient times. Next to the purely theological structure of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, there was a philosophical one, which, although it operated with philosophical concepts, but in the sense in which theology developed them. Here God is conceived as a simple single being, μονάς. As a simple being, God cannot have any properties and qualities, because they would introduce complexity into Him. But the ancient teachers still could not help but talk about the properties and qualities in God, and therefore they sought a way out in the fact that, recognizing the qualities in God, they considered not God to be their bearer, but another being in Him, Λόγος. God is unthinkable without Λόγος and Λόγος is unthinkable without God, just as a property is unthinkable without a substrate. Every definition of the divine nature in relation to God the Father must be thought of as δύναμις, as something due; and as ενέργεια, as realized in reality, it is already conceived in the Son. The relation of possibility to reality, latent energy to actual energy, δύναμις (force with a tinge of possibility) to ενέργεια (active force) - this is the circle of analogies in which philosophizing theologians revolve when speaking about the Father and the Son (Augustine’s construction of the doctrine of the Trinity, based on the analogy with the mental act of self-consciousness, belongs to the subsequent period). This kind of construction was reflected in a certain way in subordinationism. One of the strong possibilities to talk about the equality of the Son with the Father is that all the divine properties of the Father exist in the Son. On the contrary, theologians who speak about δύναμις and ενέργεια in God, when they began to talk about the Son as a personal being, tried to distinguish a well-known feature of God the Father from the same in the Son; they wanted, for example, to understand the goodness of the Father differently from the goodness of the Son. So, Origen said that the Son is good, but not άπαραλλάκτως; His goodness is something variable, while the goodness of the Father is something constant. The Son, thus, is a hypostatic projection of the divine properties of the Father, the hypostatic essence of God, while God the Father is conceived as God himself (Αύτόθεος). If we take an analogy from another sphere, then this relationship is presented in this form. Let us imagine a white spot of light, a white beam. It is so complex that for our eye it is simple, so simple that it ceases even to be a color for it, but remains only light, is pure space, pure esse without any content. When this white spot passes through a prism, the prismatic colors that make up it are revealed to our eyes and it turns out that this simple esse is a very complex entity, rich in content. Let us assume, then, that this white color, or light, has an internal need to be refracted prismatically, that decomposing into its colors is the same for it as shining (existing). Suppose further that, perhaps (probably in fact), light does not always develop its beneficial actions in nature with its entire totality, but sometimes only with some, in different cases different, constituent colors, and you can judge what place the Son occupies in the system of ancient philosophizing theologians, how they imagined the difference between the two, so to speak, forms of the one God, primary and derivative, and how they understood the relationship of the Word, as a mediator between God and the world, to God. God in His content, in His qualities, would be incomprehensible to us, due to His greatest simplicity, just as the content of white color (prismatic colors) is not comprehended by us until it is given to us in a prismatic projection. Clement of Alexandria definitely expresses that God cannot be the subject of knowledge, because the essential means of science lies in the ability to derive one concept from another, and God is the One First; in relation to Him there is no first premise; therefore, it is impossible to know Him. The Son, as Σοφία πολυποίκιλος (“many-varied Wisdom”), by His hypostatic existence clarifying for man the properties of God, is a necessary mediator leading the world to the knowledge of God. The usual scheme for constructing the doctrine of the Holy Trinity of the ante-Nicene theologians: “one God is God the Father” is less clear than the position: “one God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” This latter is indicated in it only implicite. The concreteness of the unity of the three Persons was weakened in the view of ancient theologians by an admixture of subordinationism. Nevertheless, the basis of this scheme already contained a fruitful source of corrections for subordinate errors, and with its consistent disclosure it destroyed this last theory and led to complete knowledge of the consubstantiality of divine Persons and Their concrete unity. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit was only slightly touched upon during the period under review, because at that time the thought of theologians revolved mainly around the Person of Jesus Christ. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit was considered as far as it seemed necessary to establish a point of view on the Person of Jesus Christ. All those dogmatic results that were clarified in the teaching about the Person of Jesus Christ were transferred, so to speak, ready-made to the Holy Spirit. 4. The doctrine of the human nature of Christ in the ante-Nicene period The other side of the Face of Jesus Christ, His humanity, was explained in the ante-Nicene period, mainly in the struggle against gnosis. Given the common view of all Gnostic systems on the world as something low, such a direct relationship between the finite and the infinite, as established by the Christian Church in Jesus Christ, seemed unnatural. Therefore, instead of the actual incarnation, the Gnostics were more inclined to represent the Face of Christ docetically, to assume that He did not actually perceive a man, but only took on the image of a man. He seemed like a man to everyone around Him, but in reality he was a ghost. Against these docetic views, Orthodox theologians with particular force insisted on the idea that Jesus Christ really became incarnate and accepted real humanity. But since the visible side of man, namely human flesh, is the side most clearly presented by Christ Himself in the Gospel and more tangibly reveals that Jesus Christ was not just a ghost, then the teaching about the humanity of Jesus Christ in the anti-gnostic polemics appears mainly in the form of an explanation of the question of the reality of the flesh of Jesus Christ. But, of course, the ancient theologians also said that Jesus Christ assumed full humanity. In the works of St. Irenaeus of Lyons has many highly important provisions in this regard. Irenaeus says that Jesus Christ assumed full humanity, from σαρξ, ψυχή and πνεϋμα, that Christ shed His own blood for us, gave His own soul for us, and His divine spirit serves as the connecting link between God and humanity. He insisted on the full reality of the entire human side of the Face of Christ, pointing out the high soteriological significance in the fact that Jesus Christ passed through different phases of human age. Jesus Christ was a child, was a child, to sanctify the ages of infancy and adolescence, was a youth, was a man, and, as he believed, was even an old man. But Irenaeus still brings to the fore the concept of incarnation rather than the concept of becoming man 14 . Tertullian especially insisted on the reality of the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ against the Docetes and against other Gnostics, challenging their docetism, and - most importantly - he recognized that in Jesus Christ there was not only real human flesh, but also a human soul. He was led to the revelation of this thought by the special view of the Valentinians, who recognized in Christ “sago animalis,” which in essence was equivalent to “anima carnalis.” The Valentinians, supposing that Jesus Christ had a real body, but a body not the same as other people had, namely a spiritual body, more subtle, ethereal than the material human body (how much more spiritual is the soul in a person than the body itself), thereby establishing a confusion between body and soul and making the existence in Christ of both soul and body doubtful. Tertullian says with particular force that it is necessary for the salvation of the entire human race that Christ take not only a real human body, but also a real human soul. In general, in the writings of Tertullian the teaching about the human side of Christ is found in a very developed form, so that some of its provisions could stand with dignity in the teaching of subsequent theologians. For example: “we see a dual state, unmerged, but united in one person, we see God and the man Jesus. I'm talking about Christ. The properties of one and the other substance in Him remain so unchanged that the spirit produces in Him that which is peculiar to it (res suas), that is, meanings and miracles, and in the same way the body experiences its sufferings, for example, hunger, because both substances act separately, each in its own state (substan-tiae ambae distincte agebant)” (Adv. Prax. 27). Thus, the difference between the two natures in Christ is here formulated with due theological precision. Tertullian no less energetically points out the unity of the Face of Christ. “It is said both about the Son of God that He died, in relation to that very nature which alone can perceive death, and about the Son of Man coming in the glory of the Father. For this reason, the divine nature throughout St. Scripture is presented under human names, and the human is decorated with differences directly borrowed from the divine" 15. Simultaneously with Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria acted in the literary field. The views of this church writer were very original and not without a docetic overtone. He believed without a doubt that Jesus Christ took on real humanity, a real human body, although it is not entirely clear what he thought about the human soul. Thus, Clement was alien to docetism, even polemicized against it. But at the same time, he defined the reality of this humanity too narrowly: he considered it sufficient for reality to allow the truly human existence of this body, but without its essential definitions, without such conditions without which reality would be unthinkable in any other person. Carried away by the Stoic idea of ​​dispassion, he believed in Christ this dispassion to the highest degree. For Clement, Christ appears as the ideal of a true Gnostic, and since Clement believed that the task of a Gnostic man is to stand above passions as much as possible, then in the Person of Jesus Christ he sees the highest manifestation of this dispassion. He did not need the conditions of human existence. It would be ridiculous to think that the body of Jesus Christ has the same needs as the body of another person. The Savior, it is true, ate, but he ate not to maintain His existence, not for His body, which was supported in its existence by divine power, but so as not to give reason to think that He was a ghost, because in fact people appeared who imagined that He had revealed Himself only in a visible way. He was simply dispassionate: no passionate movement, neither pleasure nor sadness, was characteristic of Him 16. Origen, in his Christological doctrine, insists with particular force on the absolute necessity for redemption that Christ be a perfect man. Origen formulates the church teaching on this issue as follows. Jesus Christ became incarnate, being God, and became man. He took on a body similar to ours with the only difference that it was born from the Most Holy Virgin and the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ was truly born and suffered; He did not accept the death common to all of us in a ghostly way; He truly died and truly rose from the dead. As a result of this, all who believe in Christ have been truly redeemed by Him, and not just in a ghostly way. In the truly human rational soul of Christ, Origen recognized the necessary medium for the union of the Divinity with human flesh, although Origen's anthropology presented insoluble difficulties for the recognition of the human soul in Jesus Christ. Origen held the following view of original sin. God created a certain certain number of finite spirits, not different from each other in their natural inclinations; all of them are tabula rasa, all were endowed with the same freedom, the same opportunity to be directed towards good and evil. The difference in moral perfection of these spirits is the result of the free use of these natural capabilities. Seraphim by nature is not higher than man, and if a seraphim has risen to the level of the first angel, then this means that he used his freedom in this way. Likewise, the demons fell of their own free will. Initially, the spirits had no need at all for a material body, as long as only love for God acted in them, to whom they all strove as their natural center. But as this love cooled in them, a, so to speak, centrifugal striving began in them; as love cooled, they ceased to be pure spirits and became souls (ψυχή from ψυ - cold). These chilled spirits = souls required material bodies. From this point of view, Origen naturally could not allow that any person began to be at a certain empirical moment of his birth - he demanded the pre-existence of souls. He therefore assumed that Christ the man existed from the beginning of the world not only in foreknowledge, but also in reality. The man Jesus, perceived into personal unity with God the Word, existed previously as a personal spirit. This spirit took advantage of its natural freedom in such a way that it achieved the closest unity with the Divine. This man never grew cold in his love for God. But here lies an insoluble difficulty in reconciling this teaching with the Christology of Origen. The question is, how could this man, who remained pure in spirit and always flaming with love for God above the seraphim, become a human soul in Christ? There is no doubt, in any case, that, according to Origen’s basic position, Christ and His human side existed really before the incarnation, and thus His incarnation, His union with the body into the unity of the hypostasis of God the Word is a subsequent moment, constituting a continuation and, so to speak, a reward for the previous close communication of the man Jesus with God. And after becoming human, this communication becomes more and more intensified and, finally, such a close unity is established between them at the moment after the resurrection that humanity not only becomes involved in the Divinity, but, so to speak, passes into the Divinity itself. Origen thinks that the human body in Christ was not entirely like other bodies; he assumed that Jesus Christ had the ability to take on different forms. Everyone who looked at the Face of the God-Man during His earthly life saw in Him that which they themselves were worthy of. And such phenomena as the transfiguration, according to Origen, were not exceptional moments of His human existence, but only a prerogative expression of what was always happening in Him. The three supreme apostles were honored to see Christ transfigured in glory; but even to those who were not worthy of it, Christ always appeared in various images (in this Origen sees a peculiar discovery of Him, as Σοφία πολυποίκιλος, in humanity). Therefore, although Jesus Christ always taught in the church, until the time the enemies could not take Him, because they could not notice Him. 5. Dynamic monarchianism of Paul of Samosatsky After the death of Origen and other remarkable theologians of the ancient period, the monarchist doctrine of Paul of Samosata appeared. Paul of Samosata became bishop of Antioch around 260. Under what influences his teaching developed is unknown. But what is certain is that he came to a unique view of the Face of Jesus Christ quite early, so that the great Council of Antioch in 264 had to raise the question of the Orthodoxy of Paul of Samosata. But the condemnation at this council did not take place, since the bishop of Antioch managed to hide the true content of his teaching, the unorthodoxy of which was vaguely felt. Even such an authoritative bishop of the east as Firmilian of Caesarea recognized Paul’s views as unorthodox, but refused to give his consent to the condemnation of Paul of Samosata, because he promised to correct his teaching. In all likelihood, Dionysius of Alexandria was also invited to this council. But he refused, citing his old age and illness, and expressed his views in a letter sent with one presbyter (probably Eusebius of Laodicea). A characteristic feature of this letter was that it was addressed not to the Bishop of Antioch, but to the Antiochian church. There was no mention of the bishop, not even a greeting was sent to him. This was seen as implicitly sufficient condemnation of Paul. The question of Paul's teaching continued on the scene. At that time, the conciliar institute operated with a certain regularity, and the question of Paul’s teaching was always raised. In Antioch itself the council met twice, because Firmilian had to deal twice with Paul of Samosata. Finally, in 268 or 269 there was the last great council. The question of the date of this council is confused due to the inaccuracy of the history of Eusebius and his chronicle. This cathedral existed during the lifetime of Dionysius of Rome. According to one document, Dionysius died in 269. But researchers assume that this indication is erroneous, and consider the year of death to be 268. Consequently, the council was in 268. Firmilian was invited to this council. He had already arrived in Tarsus, and everyone was waiting for him at the cathedral. But in Tarsus he fell ill and died. The chairman of the council was Helen, Bishop of Tarsus, the second person was Hymenaeus of Jerusalem. The message of the council was written on behalf of the bishops and presbyters. Among the latter, Malchion is mentioned, by the way, who played a significant role at the council. He was a representative of the sophistic school and maintained a school where, along with other subjects, logic was taught, the teachers of which were called sophists. Therefore, he must have been an outstanding dialectician. As a dialectician, he could only compare himself with Paul. But, however, it was necessary for tachographers to record the reasoning - so complex was Pavel’s system and so resourceful was his behavior. Thanks to these tachygraphs, it was possible to form a proper understanding of Paul's teaching. Paul was condemned, and Domnus, the son of Bishop Demetrius 17, was appointed as his successor. According to the teaching of Paul, as far as it becomes clear from the passages that have reached the present time, God is one person - εv πρόσωπον. This single person or single hypostasis has a meaning that is extremely precise and concrete. This is a unity that could not develop into multitude. In this particular God there is Λόγος; but this Λόγος is not the hypostatic Son of God, but is only the non-hypostatic knowledge (σοφία) contained in God. Sometimes Λόγος in Paul is called the Son, born from God without the Virgin Mary from eternity, but nevertheless Λόγος - the Son is not hypostatic *. Thus, the existence of Christ as a historical person does not in any way violate the unity of the Divinity: before the incarnation the Word, as a hypostasis, does not exist, and if Paul ascribes to Him pre-eternal existence, then only in the predestination of God and pre-announced (τω προορισμω μέν προ αιώνων δντα, προκαταγγελ – τικώς), as a person who has to exist on earth. god τφ θεφ – έν θεφ επιστήμη ανυπόστατος – εις Θεός ό πατήρ και ό υιός αύτοΰ έν οώτψ ώς λόγος έν άνθρωπο ) – Λόγος προφορικός – ό πρό αιώνων υιός – τον λόγον έγέννησεν ό θεός άνευ παρθένου κα᾿ι άνευ τινός ούδενός δντος πλην τοΰ θεοΰ και ούτως υπέστη ό λόγος . (God - one person - is not the Son of God existing [separately], but in God himself - in God non-hypostatic knowledge - one God, Father and Son, in himself, as the word in man - the spoken Word - the eternal Son - God begat the Word without the Virgin and without anyone else except God; and thus became the Word). See A. Harnack, Artik. "Monarchianismus" in Herzog-Plitt-Hauck, Real-Encyclopadie fir protest. Theologie und Kirche. 2 Aufl. B.X.S. 195 (3 Aufl. (1903) B. XIII, S. 320). In reality, the Son of God appeared hypostatically existing only in the incarnation. But one cannot imagine that at the moment of the incarnation a special hypostasis arose in God. The Word came to the man Jesus, as it had previously come to the prophets, only with advantage, in greater measure and power. Actually, there can be no talk of the incarnation in Pavel Samosatsky. It was only the coexistence of wisdom with Christ. Recognizing Christ as a man (άνθρωπος εντεύθεν, δεϋρο, κάτω), Paul allowed only a gradual difference between Him and all previous prophets. He stands in the closest relationship to Λόγος᾿ν than all the prophets, nevertheless, no physical union of deity and humanity could take place, because God and man in Christ are two separate natures and two persons: they are άλλος και άλλος (other and other), and not only άλλο και άλλο (other and other, αί διάφοροι φύσεις και τα διάφορα πρόσωπα – άλλος γάρ different natures and different persons, for one is Jesus Christ, and another is the Word). Only a relationship of contact could be established between Christ and Λόγος᾿οΜ (συνάφεια κατά μάθησιν, κατά θέλησιν, κατ᾿ ένέργειαν) in the sense of the unity of knowledge, desire, action, but Λόγος cannot be thought of as a being realized in the body (ουσία ούσιωμένη έν σώματι). Paul tried to justify this teaching about the relationship of divinity and humanity. He found that, firstly, no other relationship other than συνεργεία between different persons is conceivable. On the other hand, the attitude is essentially unnecessary, because it is humiliating for Christ the man, because then the moral face of Christ would lose its value; relationships based on the irresistible laws of nature are not praised, and only the communication that friendship freely establishes is praised. In response to the possible objection that an attitude, having no other basis than the mood of the will, can easily change, Paul develops the theory of a “continuous and ever increasing movement of friendship,” which excludes the idea that the unity of divinity and humanity in Christ should ever cease. Considering the teaching of Paul of Samosata about God in Himself, we see that it is fundamentally identical with the teaching of other dynamists: Λόγος is impersonal, and Christ, as a person, does not exist from eternity. But Paul also assimilated the best heritage of the church-theological literature of that time. Although Christ is a deified man for him, it seems that he cannot be accused of subordinationism. This view is possible only where two independent persons are conceived; but since Paul recognizes Λόγος as the non-hypostatic wisdom of God the Father, the question of submission is destroyed by itself. Comparing the philosophical assumptions of Paul of Samosata and Catholic theologians, we see that they are completely at odds. They proceed from Plato’s ideas about the Divine; their first person appears with features of abstract unity without definite content. In Paul, on the contrary, God the Father is completely concrete, the concept of him is meaningful. Paul attributed to Him wisdom and speech in the sense of non-hypostatic qualities. Thus, the question of the existence of the Son in Paul of Samosat is deprived of philosophical soil. In the Person of Christ, Paul highlights His human side. Christ became God through the unity of human action and will with Λόγος᾿οΜ. Paul substantiates this idea on the doctrine of the dignity of the human person, pointing out that with a different combination, the life of Christ would have no moral value. At this last point, Paul of Samosat moves closer to Origen. The latter, recognizing the great significance of free achievement, considers the very incarnation of the Word as a reward to the man Jesus, who existed from the beginning of the world (not in foreknowledge, but hypostatically). But for Paul, Christ existed only in foreknowledge before the incarnation. The struggle with Paul of Samosata provided one detail that was extremely important for the subsequent history of the dispute about the deity of Jesus Christ. The fathers of the Council of Antioch, who condemned Paul of Samosata, sent a message in which, setting out the Orthodox teaching, they stated, among other things, that the Son is not consubstantial with the Father, as a result of which they came into direct contradiction with the Nicene symbol. When in the 4th century there was a struggle against the Nicene symbol, Hilary of Pictavia learned that the activists against Orthodoxy in the Hellespont and Asia used this message as a basis against the Homousians. For those who do not distinguish an idea from its shell, this circumstance was extremely important. Therefore, those who recognized the Nicene symbol said that this message should not be rejected as invalid. But it was impossible to assume the inauthenticity of the latter, and Hilary of Pictavia himself treated the moral character of his opponents with respect (De synod. 81.86). This fact was then recognized by Basil the Great. St. also had the opportunity to speak regarding him. Athanasius the Great. But he did not have the message itself in front of him. But in principle he does not reject the possibility of a message. It is indecent, he says, to bring the Nicene fathers into conflict with those, for they are all fathers, and it is indecent to assert that these spoke well, and those spoke badly, for they all rested in Christ; on the same basis, the different numbers of both do not matter (according to Athanasius, there were 70 bishops at the Council of Antioch, according to Hilary of Pictavia - 80, but in any case not 180, as stated in the acts of the Third Ecumenical Council). They cannot be compared in terms of the time in which both lived, lest it turn out that the fathers who lived before destroyed the fathers of those who followed. Thus, Athanasius the Great, not having a document, was deprived of the opportunity to interpret on the merits, but he did not dispute that the indicated words could have been contained in the message of the Antiochian fathers. He stood only for the fact that all are fathers, and therefore a Christian must look at all of them as Orthodox, and eliminate interpretations that would make them contradictory. Obviously, St. Afanasy does not stand on the side of cheap criticism, which wants to keep silent and obscure the unpleasant. He accepts the fact, but does not want to bring the fathers into conflict. Consequently, Athanasius does not deny the message in general (De synod. 43). It is difficult to understand the meaning of this unfavorable judgment of the council fathers about the term that now serves to express Orthodox teaching. Hilary of Pictavia and Basil the Great read the letter, but their reports about it are contradictory. The Holy Fathers present two unequal explanations for this: a) Paul used the word ομοούσιος to deny the hypostatic existence of the Word (ουσία ύπόστασις πρόσωπον: the identity of the person of the Father and the Son). So Athanasius the Great and Hilary. b) The fathers were forced to treat the word “consubstantial” in this way by one polemical device of Paul of Samosat. If, he said, we think of the Son as consubstantial with the Father, then we will have to admit something absurd: before the Father and the Son, we must assume some kind of being common to Him, in relation to which They are consubstantial, like its later formation (like two copper coins in relation to copper). So Basil the Great and again Athanasius the Great. Basil the Great in his letter to the canons (virgin women, ep. 52, al. 300) reasons as follows: “Those who gathered at the council against Paul expressed censure of this word as dissonant; for, they said, this expression evokes the idea of ​​a being and of those who are from one being, therefore the being appears divided.” So, for example, copper is divided between coins that are made from it. But the being is not logically older than the concepts of Father and Son. It would be wicked to say this, for what can take precedence over that which is unborn? Therefore, this view makes the Father and the Son brothers, affirming their origin from one. Obviously, both Hilary of Pictavia and Basil the Great do not have accurate information about the teachings of Paul of Samosata. According to the first explanation, Paul himself recognized the consubstantial, but according to the second, he rejected it. Apparently, the statement of the letter of the Antiochian fathers is explained by a special property of the reasoning of Paul of Samosata. It seems that his whole tactic consisted in the fact that he allowed the positions of his opponents, but turned them around in such a way that he naturally drew some absurd conclusion from them, as a result of which the positions themselves fell. This is evident, by the way, from the fact that Paul did not allow the hypostatic existence of the Word according to divinity, and yet he encountered expressions (for example, ο λόγος υπέστη), from which one could conclude the opposite. II. Experience of Origen's system of Christian gnosis Gnosis and monarchianism demanded an intensified struggle with themselves among the teachers of the church. Gnosis contained within itself purely pagan principles, only covered with a Christian shell. Monarchianism not only arose on Christian soil, but owes its origin to it. The movement revealed in the emergence of monarchianism did not stop in later times, being expressed in the history of Christological disputes. Not only in Arianism, but also in Nestorianism there is an undoubted connection with dynamic monarchianism through the doctrine of Paul of Samosata, and in Eutychianism and Monothelitism - with modalism *. As for Montanism, Montanism is already a schismatic movement. He, like any schism, starting with the little things in life, came to separation from the church. This is how it always happens. It is enough to look at the Russian schism, which moved from rituals to a vibration of the very essence of the church and reached such phenomena as, for example, lack of priesthood. Montanism in its essence could not and did not have a direct influence on the development of dogmatic science, since it did not affect dogmas as a whole and contained them the same as other Christians. The struggle against these trends has provided rich material for theological and scientific knowledge. Wanting to take a thorough and scientific approach to Gnosticism, Christian writers had to seriously take up pagan philosophy, which their intelligent opponents unwittingly pushed them to do. In the difficult struggle against gnosis, theology took two paths. Western theology took a completely conservative, only negative position: it tried to condemn Gnosticism even without polemics with it, demanding from it evidence of the actual continuity of Gnostic teachings from the apostles and turning the absence of this evidence into a sign of the incompetence of the Gnostics to offer their teachings. Eastern theology, in the person of representatives of the famous Alexandrian catechetical school, took on the positive part of the task: to satisfy the natural desire of educated Christians for knowledge better than the Gnostics did, to contrast the doctrines of the latter with a system that was completely ecclesiastical in content and more scientific than theirs, to clarify the meaning of church dogma, which is philosophically higher and deeper than heretical fabrications. It fell to Clement to justify such a formulation of the polemic, to justify the very possibility of church gnosis and the legitimacy of the scientific desire to test everything. Clement not so much outlines the content of church gnosis as glorifies the Christian himself - the Gnostic, proving that this is the ideal Christian (the imaginary saying of Christ: γίνεσθε δόκιμοι τραπεζϊται! [Str. I, 28]) 18. Only Origen († 254) made an attempt at a scientific presentation of Christian teaching. He wants to be completely conservative (ecclesiastical): regula fidei is the measure of his doctrine; nothing contrary to it should have a place in his teaching. But he wants to conduct the matter scientifically: to provide reasonable grounds for the dogmatic provisions of the church, to fill in the gaps in the “rule of faith” with conclusions based on the data of Scripture and reason, and to build an integral logical system from the elements of the doctrine*. Origen's system is most fully and satisfactorily examined in the works of G. Thomasius, Origenes. Ein Beitrag zur Dogmengeschichte des dritten Jahrhunderts. Niirnberg 1837. E. R. Redepenning, Origenes. Eine Darstellung seines Lebeus und seiner Lehre. B.I-II. Bonn 1841–1846. F. Bohringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen. B.V: Origenes. 2 Aufl. Stuttgart 1874. [Also known: . Denis, De la philosophie d'Origene. Memoire couronne par l'institut. Paris"1884. Faireweather, Origen and Greek Patristic Theologie. Edinburgh 1903. See also articles on Origen in general: W. F. Westcott in Smith and Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography. Vol.IV (1887), 96–142; E. Preuschen in Hauck's Realencyklopadie fur protest. Theologie und Kirche. B.XIV (1904), 467–488]. Here in Russia: G. Malevansky, Origen’s dogmatic system (Proceedings of the Kyiv Spiritual Academy. 1870). The beginning of all things is God the Father, good and existing, incomprehensible already because in the most perfect unity it contains all the fullness of His definitions, by His very being, as δύναμις, presupposing the existence of the Word-Son and in Him, as His ενέργεια, revealing Himself, giving birth to Him not from the essence His own, but with His being, outside of space and time, always, today, unceasingly, from eternity. In the dogmatic system of Origen, the Son has the same meaning as aeons and pleroma in the best, most developed Gnostic systems. This is the sum of divine predicates revealed in diversity, actually realized in the living personal Spirit, presupposed in the Father, but still in an indifferent unity. The Son is a mediator between the absolute God and the finite world, in the epistemological sense - as a being, in a separate, complete certainty, revealing each of the properties of the Father to the world, in the metaphysical sense - as a being, by his very being, bringing into being everything that exists, as the Creator of the world. The Son, according to Origen, is subordinate to the Father in essence. Necessarily presupposed by the very essence of the Father, His ever-present expression, the Son, however, was not born from the essence of the Father - that would be too material, would resemble Gnostic emanations - is not consubstantial (or not coequal) with Him, since all His divine properties are individual, inherent in Him in a different form than the Father (in the Father they are δύναμις, potentiality, in the Son ενέργεια, reality), and the Son according to divinity is not what the Father is (for example, the Father is αγαθός, good, - this means that the Son is not simply good: He is only the image of goodness; the Son is wisdom, - therefore, the Father is not wisdom: He is higher than it, He is wise and the source of wisdom). This fundamental subordinationism (however, not Arian) in the further development of Origen’s system is outlined in somewhat rougher strokes. It is believed that in Origen's system it constitutes the same necessity as the subordinationism of the aeons: in order to be a mediator, the Son must stand closer to the world. The validity of this thought remains unproven: the fact is that the Son is a mediator and (cum hoc) lower than the Father, that the features favorable to this mediation are at the same time considered as a certain minus in the nature of the Son in comparison with the nature of the Father; but it is not clear that the Son was lower than the Father in order (propter hoc) to be a mediator between Him and the world. According to Origen, even if he were of equal substance with the Father, the Son could mediate between the world, diminishing only κατ οίκονομίαν, by adapting to the world. Or rather, Origen's subordinationism is a tribute to his age, when all theologians understood the relationship between the Father and the Son more or less from this point of view (subordination). The Holy Spirit in Origen's system is subordinate to the Father and the Son and occurs through the Son. But philosophically His meaning in the Trinity has not been clarified, and - perhaps - could not have been clarified until the relationship between the Persons of the Divine was tried to be understood not under the form of the personal life of the spirit, the process of self-consciousness, but from the point of view of the relationship between the essence and its definitions. Thus, the real mediation between God and the world in Origen is represented only in the Son. How is the finite founded on the infinite? For Origen, this problem is solved simply. He recognizes as a fact that, according to the testimony of Holy Scripture, God is omnipotent. And since this is also present among the divine definitions, it cannot only be potential, but must be revealed actually. But by its very essence, omnipotence (Παντοκράτωρ Almighty) presupposes an object (παν) towards which it is directed (κρατεί). This object can only be a finite world. The world (το πάν) must exist because God is omnipotent (Παντο – κράτωρ). And further, since in God everything is eternal, and there cannot be a gradual transition from the possible to the actual, then the object of actual omnipotence must really (not only ideally) exist from eternity: it, if I may put it this way, is contemporary with God and after Him in a sense only causal, but not at all in a temporal sense. This conclusion of the world from divine omnipotence may seem too external and unphilosophical (one can argue: should omnipotence be considered a definition of the very essence of God, or does it stand to God in the same relation as the concept of Him as a Redeemer, Savior?). The white threads that stand out in this argument are obscured in another, parallel explanation. According to Origen's (Platonic) view, goodness is the very essence of God's being; to say: “God exists” is the same as saying: “God is good.” (1. I am, oh ών A; 2. No one is good, αγαθός, except one God the Father = B; A = B). But goodness can only be active and will be fully expressed only when there is a lower (not equal to God) object of it (for example, mercy cannot have manifestation in the hypostatic relations of the Trinity). Thus, God exists; therefore, the world must exist. From this you see that the question of the origin of the finite from the infinite in Origen has a different formulation than in developed Gnostic systems. These try to clearly show how the finite was formed from the infinite (the process of transition from the absolute through its limitation to the finite); Origen only points out why the existence of God leads to the assumption of the existence of the world. – The world receives its existence through the Word: if those divine properties that presuppose it could remain only in possibility, the world could only exist ideally; but they exist not only δυνάμει, but also ενεργεία, and this energy of the divine Being, His actually existing determinations, is the Word. Therefore, from the Son we pass directly to the world. Origen's entire view in a modern way could be expressed in this image. God is light, whole and indivisible; in the Son he is entirely given in all the variety of prismatic colors. Colored light (blue or indigo) seems to our eyes to be more tangible and stands closer to bodies than pure, white, solid light. So the Son is closer to the world. If in this idea of ​​​​the mediation of the Word Origen comes somewhat closer to the Gnostics, then in general his concept of the world is completely different. For the Gnostic, the world is either a chemical mixture of the infinite with non-existence, or a pathological deposition of the infinite itself (the affects of Sophia). Consequently, in both cases the world is to a certain extent of divine nature (and as a subject). Origen does not have this pantheistic trait: the world is only an object of divine nature. If the world is a divine idea, the thought of the Divine, then for the Gnostic this means that the world is the (objectified) thought itself as a mental state; for Origen this is thought as its logical content. According to Origen's theory, eternal goodness presupposes its eternal object. This leads to a beginningless and endless world. Origen emerges from this contradictio in adjecto by positing a whole series of worlds, successively replacing each other, infinite in their totality, finite in their individuality, individual and at the same time united by the identity of the substances that compose them. This change is not an aimless rotation: worlds do not repeat themselves, because, with the unity of substances, each world has its own specific image, individual in the full sense. This change of worlds, with such diversity, has a high moral purpose. This takes us to Origen's theodicy, to his answer to the question: where does evil come from in the world? A painful meaning was given to this question by cases in which the discrepancy between the moral state and the external position of a person was revealed. That’s why we had to talk about evil in the world, because they noticed an abyss of suffering, apparently undeserved. To show that in each particular case suffering is adequate to crime and is caused by it means to solve the question of evil in the world. But the glaring fact is that a person, thrown into the world, apparently by accident and, of course, against his own will, falls under its oppressive conditions, under which he practically cannot remain sinless, falls in a tragic unequal struggle and then suffers. For what? To these questions, on which Gnostic pessimism is based, Origen was able to give an optimistic answer. The world coeternal with God and first created was the world of pure spirits. All of them are endowed with moral freedom in statu aequilibrii, in a state of complete balance, with an equal opportunity to choose between good and evil. By nature, by their moral inclinations, these spirits are certainly equal to each other. Any inequality between them would be arbitrary on the part of God and injustice towards them. They themselves had to become the culprits of their condition: it was not nature, but the measure of free self-improvement that established the difference between the highest of the seraphim and the last of the angels. The same measure established the difference between an angel and a man. The fact is that some spirits (πνεύματα) strived for the highest, others went the opposite way: their love for God cooled, and in this state of moral cold (ψΰχος) their nature became so thick that they no longer became spirits, πνεύματα, but souls, ψυχαί , for the existence of which an even coarser material body becomes a necessity. Thus, the material world is brought into existence by disorder in the higher finite world, by the falling away of spirits from unity with God, and souls exist before their bodies. The Gnostics (Valentinians) wanted to imagine, so to speak, the gradual materialization of the divine principle itself; for Origen this process takes place in the sphere of the finite, albeit spiritual world. The Gnostics do not satisfactorily solve the moral side of their problem. Sophia falls, Enfimisis suffers (Ἐνθύμησις), the offspring of this latter live in the material world, not involved in the fall of the heavenly Sophia. Here Origen has a huge advantage over the Gnostics. The creatures themselves who have sinned are doomed to suffer in the material world; their earthly life is deserved by them; there is a necessity, both moral and physical. Their earthly path turns out to be thorny before they have time to stain themselves on earth with personal sin. But, Augustine later said, they suffer because they are already sinful (however, they are not personally guilty of that sin); they suffer, says Origen, because they themselves have personally sinned; They just don’t remember it, but their punishment is completely deserved. However, even apart from this, the material world is not evil; These sufferings are not evil either, because their goal is salvation. The mediator between the world and God at creation, the Word-Christ, is also the Redeemer; He must seek and save the lost. He will lead everything to that unity when everyone will be one with God, just as He and the Father are one. And for this purpose, the Father handed over to Him the kingdom of world rule. His principle is also goodness, only not in its pure element, but in the state of οικονομίας, in relation to a given state of souls. This goodness is justice, the beginning of purposeful action, and its bearer is the Logos (not the Father, Who = αγαθός αγάπη). A certain number of spirits fell and became souls, but the degree of fall of each soul is different. In relation to this, the body itself and the earthly fate of each individual are different. The spirit may fall so deeply that it deserves to be incarnated in the body of a loathsome animal, and its guilt may be comparatively so light that it will be sent into the body of a great righteous man. As a result of earthly life, a certain amount of good habits may result, the correction of a previously acquired vice; but there may be a deeper fall. For further improvement (purification), souls are again sent into material bodies; but, obviously, their fate must be different; need to hit a new side of their personality; repeating the experience would have no educational value. So there are worlds after worlds, with varied histories, with changing personalities, and, however, with the same active subjects (substances) and with the same ultimate goal: to purify everything, to redeem everything, to restore everything into unity. The great king of the world, the Word, in the most divine and all-perfect sense, is everything to everyone, healing some, enlightening others, striking others with the rod of earthly sorrows. He is both the A and Ω of human history, the innermost meaning of all the various world complications. But besides these constant revelations, He finally revealed Himself as a Redeemer in an extraordinary way, Himself appearing on earth as a man and living with people. With his idea of ​​the pre-existence of souls, of the freedom of finite beings as the final basis of their definite state, the famous Alexandrian teacher in the doctrine of incarnation [as was already said above] dealt with difficulties peculiar to him alone. The soul of Christ must exist before the incarnation and deserve (to a certain extent) the high bliss of personal union with God the Word. Indeed, among all created finite spirits, only one showed the perfection of freedom, never deviated towards evil, constantly improved in goodness and did not interrupt His unity with God for a moment. It was the spirit of Jesus. Through this high perfection, He was awarded the closest unity with God the Word, so that they are one, just as soul and body are one. How Origen imagined this prehistoric unity of the human spirit and the Word, whether this was their personal life, is unknown. In the history of dogma, Origen is famous for being the first to introduce the word θεάνθρωπος, god-man [De princ. II, 6, 3]. Contrary to Docetism, he wanted to firmly preserve the reality of both natures in Christ. He clearly taught that Christ not only became incarnate, but also became human, taking on not only a human body, but also a rational human soul. It constitutes a natural mediation between the absolute spirit, God, and the material organism, the body, a necessary condition for their unity. Christ came to save the whole man, He must also accept the whole man into unity with Himself. But from Origen’s anthropology you see that he was not a trichotomist in the strict sense: the human soul in its depths contains a pure grain of spirit, necessarily presupposes it by its very existence; but spirit is the negation of the soul; there is no soul in the spirit. Unfortunately, Origen did not always adhere to this terminology precisely, and his Christology is not clear. According to the principle, Christ could not perceive a human soul; the sinless spirit of Jesus always burned with love for God and did not become a soul. Is it only τη οικονομία, for the purpose of redemption, this spirit took upon itself spiritual properties, except for sin, and together with the Word became incarnate, incarnated in the virgin womb of Mary. Be that as it may, Origen understood not allegorically, but in a strictly historical sense, the testimony of Scripture about the gradual spiritual development of humanity of Jesus, filled with wisdom and age. The purpose of the incarnation is the revelation of the Divinity to humanity, the sanctification of human nature through personal unity with the Word. His whole life had a higher symbolic meaning, a gnostic meaning. But the suffering of Christ is not a ghost; they also had a high redemptive meaning: He bore our sins and endured what we should have endured. It extends not even to people alone, but to the entire finite world. “It would be absurd to think that Christ suffered for people, but did not suffer for the angels: after all, the most perfect among them are also not sinless: And the stars are not clean before Him” (Job 15:15). For the Gnostics, the suffering of Christ remained a stumbling block; Origen did not understand them in the true sense either. They were an atoning sacrifice for humanity, at a price, λύτρον, but to whom? Who received this ransom? “He gave His life at a price for many” (Matthew 20:28). But to whom exactly? Of course, not to God, but perhaps only to the evil one. After all, he kept us until he received the soul of Jesus for us in exchange. But he was mistaken in his calculations: and having received it, he could not take possession of her and hold her.” And thus he lost his entire kingdom. He ruled over us with justice. He did not want to take possession of the soul of Jesus by right. She served him as payment, which was useless to him. In this strange look, from which St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Origen draws close to the Gnostics. They, too, could not understand the positive side of redemptive suffering and therefore with all their might they attacked the negative side - the mockery of the prince of peace and his angels and the destruction of their deeds. Origen's eschatology has reached us in an extremely confused form, thanks to the censorial zeal of Rufinus, and partly due to the indecisiveness of Origen himself in the final conclusions. Worlds replace each other, and the educational goals of humanity are achieved gradually. It seems that Origen thought that the existence of each individual world ends with a private judgment, after which the “purifying fire”, πυρ καθάρσιον, completes the pedagogical role of the soul’s wandering in the world. In any case, after each world only partial, and not general, improvement is achieved, the fruits of which are sometimes destroyed by subsequent new falls of spirits, so that their subsequent μετεμψύχωσις and a new world becomes a necessity. But in principle, Origen was inclined to think that there would someday be a moment when the moral direction of the freedom of spirits would finally be strengthened; sinful stains in the final world will be completely erased. The Son will triumph over all His enemies. The goal of educational leadership of the world will be achieved, and He will lead everyone to the boundless love of the good Father. The kingdom of the just Son is only a preliminary stage of the kingdom of the good Father. God gave Him the kingdom over the world and will accept it from the hands of the Son only pure and sinless. The Son will not betray His kingdom to God the Father until after the final victory over all evil, when nothing evil remains, when absolutely everything voluntarily submits to the will of the Father. Consequently, the torment of sinners, this state of alienation from God, cannot be eternal. And the devil himself must once repent and cleanse himself. Everything material will become redundant and return to oblivion. Then the great moment will come - the restoration of everything into unity with God. The Son Himself will submit in the person of the world He brought up to Him who put all things in subjection to Him, so that God may be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28). At this point, Origen's optimism reaches its zenith. The Αποκατάστασις of the Gnostics is never complete: suffering psychics remain. And their eternal torment seems to some of the Gnostics (Basilides) from the ethical side to be so unreasonable that it is necessary to introduce the fog of “great ignorance” in order to dull the well-being of psychics and drown out their torment. With Origen, on the contrary, nothing that exists, feels, or is self-aware perishes. Not one of the weakest tones of the world is lost for the final harmony. In the end, nothing unclean and nothing unhappy remains. Good apparently triumphs. All is in union with God, and God, good and loving, is all in all. In the system of Origen, non-ecclesiastical in a significant dose of its assumptions, we have the most complete glorious example of Christian gnosis on ecclesiastical soil, the most complete expression of the successes of Christian theology in the first centuries and the first system of Christian dogmatic theology. A rather peculiar, middle position between heresies, on the one hand, and schisms in the strict sense of the word, on the other, is occupied by so-called Montanism. Gnosis can be considered the prototype of all heresies, because the original error of the Gnostics was the error of thought. They erred mainly in their teaching*. On the contrary, schism usually does not represent its own dogma, and if it is interested in dogmatic issues, it is mainly in polemical forms - to prove the legality of its separation from the church. Montanism represents a close analogy with schisms, but it cannot be placed on the same level with them, because after all, these sectarians developed their own rather unique teaching, which separates them far from other sectarians. Gnosis had a fatal influence on the use of the word αίρεσις; Since the time of Gnosticism, αίρεσις (αίρέω - I take, I choose) began to be something low, unworthy, a heresy in our sense of the word. On the contrary, for true Greeks αίρεσις was not only not reprehensible, but even a desirable phenomenon. In this sense, ap. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians says that “it is fitting for heresies to exist among you (Christians), so that those that are skillful may be revealed” - οι δόκιμοι, i.e. representatives of pure correct views (1 Cor. 11:19). A choice, αϊρεσις, between different views is necessary to distinguish a real coin from a counterfeit one. Ap himself. Before converting to Christianity, Paul lived, in his words, “in the strict Pharisee heresy” (Acts 26:5), “zealous for the traditions of his fathers” (Gal. 1:14). In Judaism there were various αιρέσεις - Pharisees, Sadducees - and, in principle, a Jew could not look at their existence as lawless. This is similar to the fact that in a constitutional state, different parties fight among themselves for dominance, but at the same time they all have the same right to exist. Ap. Paul states that he is preaching "the way" and not heresy (Acts 24:14). There is only one path that leads to a known goal, place, but sometimes you have to make detours along the way. This is clear to anyone who is familiar with country roads. There is a choice to be made as to which road will most likely lead to the goal, and they usually choose the best one. In rainy weather, for example, a mountain road is more convenient, while in dry weather a low-lying road is preferable. From this point of view, αιρέσεις is a completely natural method, but one can only choose between equal, in principle equally good quantities. Gnosis also chose, but chose not from the best, but from the worst. The Gnostics accepted all systems that satisfied their subjective knowledge. It is worthy of note that αϊρεσις, understood in the true sense, was even applied to Christianity. Constantine the Great called the latter “catholic heresy,” which was one of the equal religions in the Greek state [Eus. h. e. X, 5, 21, 22: αιή καθολική, ή άγιωτάτη]. – Schism, unlike heresy, does not have its own dogmatic system; at first it is very little interested in dogmatic issues and only later touches on them in apological and polemical forms. An illustration in this case can be the following example from ancient church life. When Justinian raised a dispute about the condemnation of the famous three chapters - the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus and Willow of Edessa, in which writings traces of Nestorian views were found, a significant part of the Western Church (Carthaginian) broke ties with the Eastern. Thus, on this basis a split occurred; but many Western bishops, seeing that this division favored the Monophysites and forced by the need to explain to the common people, who knew nothing about the three chapters, the reason for the schism, cunningly gave the matter a dogmatic lining. They accused the Church of Constantinople of the heresy of “dead persecutors” (νεκροδιώκται). The meaning of the heresy was that the Church of Constantinople, having condemned the already dead shepherds, acted contrary to the 7th member of the creed, since, according to the meaning of this member, the right to judge the dead belongs to Christ Himself, Who has not yet come. To understand the basis on which Montanism could establish itself, one must pay attention to the ground common to Montanism with other schisms. Christianity appeared in the world as a society that was unusually morally high in the lives of its members. In addition to the sublime principles that Christianity bore within itself, in addition to the extremely strict choice of its members, one circumstance maintained the moral tension of Christians at an extreme height. All the predictions of Christ about the end of the world, as is known, in the Gospel are in connection with the prediction about the destruction of Jerusalem. At the present time, when Christianity has existed for the second thousand years, it is, of course, easy to understand exegetically that a difference must be made between these two facts. But in the ancient Christian church, the view that the second coming of Christ would soon follow was quite widespread. Jerusalem is destroyed, we must expect the imminent second coming of Christ. The expectation of the imminent end of the world, the expectation of the coming of Christ, supported the moral life of Christians at the height that should naturally be assumed in persons who were preparing at every hour of their existence to meet Christ, their Bridegroom. But as the church clarified the purpose of its historical existence, as decades after decades passed, the assumption that the world would soon end began to lose its ground. Moreover, Christianity began to receive members of lesser standard than those who composed the original church; It is worth noting here that Christians began not only to be made, but also to be born. Thus, the moral level of Christians generally began to decline. The condition of the ancient Christian church, which is interesting in this respect, is described especially in the ancient Christian monument known as the Shepherd of Hermas. According to the most reliable information, this work was written by the brother of Bishop Pius (c. 140–155), in the early 40s of the 2nd century AD, and was written, as can be seen from its contents, primarily to Roman Christians, and then to all other Christians. In the picture of morality that unfolds in this work, one can see that next to the persons in whom moral life manifests itself with all its energy, so that there is an opinion that they have in no way violated the purity that they received in baptism, there are many people who are morally weak, there are those who have fallen away, i.e. people are morally cold, and in particular there are many so-called double-minded people (δίψυχοι), people who waver between Christianity and the world. To the strict rigorists, who took only the ideal purity of the Apostolic Church as the measure of the moral life of Christians, the position of Christians of this time seemed unsatisfactory. They are not entirely satisfied with the existing church authorities. And this entire presbyteral college with the bishop at its head seemed to them to have fallen into a state of sleep. Hermas receives an order to awaken the dormant moral life of Christians, firstly, to inform them of the imminent end of the church building, which is in connection with the assumption of the imminent end of the world; then, this awakening of weakened Christians should also be facilitated by the announcement of the onset of repentance. Strict ascetics in the Roman Church are inclined to the view that for those who have received the grace of baptism there should be no repentance. Some preached only one-time repentance; after baptism, they denied the possibility of second repentance for serious sinners. The immediate basis for this denial is the assumption that the church building will be completed very soon, and therefore no room will be opened for a second repentance. Thus, two currents were noticeable in the church at that time. One, heading towards adaptation to the world, is an ordinary course of life with its occasional ordinary virtues and quite significant shortcomings. Then a higher current flows alongside it, a demand for greater moral rigorism, which in some cases ends in extremes. The preacher of repentance himself, Hermas, occupies, so to speak, an intermediate position between the weak and the extreme rigorists. He allows repentance, but only once. Among the Rigorists, a second marriage is considered impermissible. He admits that after the death of her husband, the wife can remarry. It was these rigoristic elements of Christianity that prepared such a phenomenon as Montanism. At its origin, Montanism represents a phenomenon in many respects opposite to gnosis. As much as the theoretical character predominates in gnosis, Montanism is distinguished by its practical character. Gnosis is the doctrine of the aristocrats of thought. The centers in which it spread were Alexandria, Antioch, Rome. Montanism, so to speak, is democratic and originates in the outback. The founder of Montanism was a certain Montanus, born in the insignificant town of Ardabau on the border between Phrygia and Mysia. This was an eunuch, almost a former priest of Cybele. The original center, the "new Jerusalem" of this movement was Pepusa, a small insignificant town in Phrygia. Phrygia itself, from an intellectual point of view, did not enjoy a good reputation: it was looked at in the same way as the English look at the Irish at the present time. But the moral character of these simpletons was quite high. These people were generally remarkably honest and swore extremely rarely. In the somewhat gloomy natural disposition of the Phrygians there was a deep religious feeling, which was reflected in the special frenzied cult of the Mother of the gods, Cybele, which was very widespread here. The time when Montanus spoke is impossible to determine with precision, and it must be assumed at the beginning of the 2nd half of the 2nd century 19 20. The personality of Montan and his first associates in the polemical works directed against them is depicted in a very unique way: while some of their contemporaries recognized them as inspired prophets, others saw them as possessed by an evil spirit. Some bishops (Sota of Anchial, Julian of Apamea) simply wanted to heal the prophetesses Priscilla and Maximilla from error, casting out the demon from them with spells. But they were only prevented from starting exorcisms. It was even said that Montand and Maximilla, in a fit of madness, committed suicide with a noose. These features, not found in the descriptions of other heresiarchs, in the description, for example, of the founders of the Gnostic sects, depict very vividly the eccentric figures of the Phrygian prophets, who, apparently, very much resembled madmen. It is obvious that people of this sort were least capable of creating history, and it can be said that Montanus and his closest associates did not found anything, they only sharpened already existing elements. Montanus marked his conversion to Christianity with special zeal and renunciation of all property. This already shows the mood of the people who formed the core of the Montanist movement. They actually recruited their first forces not from the worst strata of the then religious society. Among the first members of the Montanist group were two confessors, or “martyrs” as they were called (Alexander and Themison). True, Orthodox polemicists doubt the moral character of both of these martyrs and generally suggest that in the ranks of the Montanists there were quite a few seekers of personal gain. But from this point of view, the first Montanists were far from being known to everyone, and at least the society itself could consider itself to consist of a number of outstanding moral forces of that time. Despite its dark origins, the Montanist movement quite soon asserted itself on the literary side; it was the predictions of Montanus and other Montanist prophets and prophetesses that were written down. Thus, an additional canon of Holy Scripture was compiled, to which the Montanists referred, like other canonical sacred books. The above-mentioned Themison wrote a "conciliar epistle" (καθολική επιστολή); The Revelation of John the Theologian, addressed to the churches of Asia Minor, served as a literary model for him. This movement spread with considerable speed and covered the whole of Phrygia. In Thyatira, the propagandists acted with such success that the entire city joined the Montanists. There was very significant success in general in Asia, Pontus and even Thrace. But the church reacted with remarkable energy against this energy of the propagandists of the new teaching. Almost all the available literary forces of that time entered into polemics with Montanism. Claudius Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis, the main city of Phrygia, Miltiades, Apollonius, some unknown presbyter or bishop, perhaps Melito of Sardis, undoubtedly Serapion of Antioch, and perhaps Dionysius of Corinth declared themselves in a literary struggle against Montanism. Multiple councils in Asia Minor, the first councils known to church history (for example, in Hierapolis chaired by Apollinaris himself), condemned the Phrygian sectarians 21 . The Church did not recognize the new prophecy, thus striking against the very center of the new movement. Its strength in the east was undermined, although it did not cease to exist. In the second quarter of the 3rd century. The Council of Iconium decreed that even those converting from Montanism should be accepted into the church only through rebaptism. In the IV and V centuries. The Montanists represented a fairly significant number in the homeland of this movement, especially in Phrygia. They were also in other eastern cities, for example, in Constantinople. In 530–532 Emperor Justinian also issued a decree against the Montanists, therefore, they existed in the 6th century. There is even news that they held out until the 8th century; it was in 724 that Leo of Isauria issued a law forcing the Montanists to convert to Orthodoxy. The application of this law aroused such fanaticism among the sectarians that some of them burned themselves alive with their houses of worship. This society amazed polemicists with some peculiar oddities, which served as the basis for various nicknames given to the sectarians. They were called “tascodrugits” and “passalorhynchites” because, to signify their sad and serious mood and their constant readiness to repent, they used to pray by putting their thumb to their nose. They were then called "Artothirites" because they used bread and cheese for their sacraments. Their hierarchical structure also had peculiar differences from the general church structure. Namely, at the head of all the Montanists was the patriarch, who had his residence in Pepuza, where the Montanists awaited the revelation of a new Jerusalem. The next hierarchical level was represented by the cenones (cenones, οικονόμοι?) 22 and the third was occupied by bishops. Among other ritual features of the Eastern Montanists, attention is drawn to their resolution of Easter disputes. Determining the time for celebrating Easter presented certain difficulties due, among other things, to the fact that here it is necessary to adhere not only to the solar circle, but also to the lunar one. The Eastern Montanists greatly simplified the matter. They found that the moon should not be ignored. Since March 24 was then recognized as the spring equinox, on this basis they believed that this was the fourth day on which the heavenly bodies were created. Thus, with each March 24, the actual beginning of the year returned. Since Easter is supposed to be celebrated on the 14th day of the first month, they decreed that Easter should be celebrated on April 6, that is, on the 14th day, if this day falls on a Sunday, and if not, then on the next Sunday, no matter what day of the lunar month this date falls on. From the east, sectarians soon transferred their propaganda to the west. At that time, Gaul, as we know from the history of the Lyon martyrs, was in lively relations with Asia Minor and Phrygia. In general, exchanges existed, one might say, constantly between the church forces of the East and West. For example, the successor of the Lyon bishop Pofin was Irenaeus, of eastern origin. Thus, the Gallic church learned about Montanism very early. In any case, in 177 they knew about the existence of Montanism in Gaul. The essential point of Montanism, namely its view of the new prophecy, was not recognized here either. But the ecclesiastical and practical West assessed Montanism somewhat differently than the East did. Without recognizing the starting point of Montanism, they valued the practical consequences of this movement in the sense of revitalization and elevation of the moral level. The strict direction of church life was treated here with sympathy, although, however, the most prominent representatives of the Gallic church reacted negatively to the extreme rigoristic tendencies of the new movement. In any case, the Gallic church decided to take a mediating, conciliatory position in relation to the sectarians; it was the Gallic martyrs and representatives of the churches who wrote the letter, according to Eusebius, completely Orthodox (hence, they reacted negatively to the heralds of the new prophecy), but at the same time they clearly had as their task to establish peace among the churches. With a similar message, the Gallic church sent an embassy to the Roman Bishop Eleuther. At the head of this embassy was Irenaeus, then still a presbyter. And in Rome, in the same way, the practical side of Montanism met with sympathy. According to the words of the far from impartial Tertullian, in which there may be a significant amount of truth, some Roman bishop allegedly wanted to recognize the prophecy of Montanus and Maximilla and completely take the side of the new movement: he prepared a message and, apparently, sent it to Asia and Phrygia. But the later famous monarchist Praxeus appeared in Rome. He opened the eyes of the Bishop of Rome to some of the dangerous aspects of the movement, and therefore he took back the letter and condemned Montanism. It is not easy to determine who this Roman bishop is. But, in any case, one must think that it was either the same Eleuther, or his successor Victor. Subsequently, a fairly lively struggle against Montanism was maintained in the Roman Church. There is a well-known dispute between the learned Roman presbyter Gaius and the Montanist Proclus. The anonymous compiler of the so-called Muratorian fragment polemicizes with Montanism. Hippolytus also wrote against Montanism. Despite this, the sectarians stayed here for quite a long time. At the end of the 4th century. There was even a revival of Roman Montanism. But after the victory over Maximus, Theodosius issued a decree against the Montanists, and their main representatives fled from Rome. With this, the last trace of Montanism in Italy is lost. Montanism found fertile ground for itself in Latin Africa. The strictly ascetic view here has long been highly valued, and here Montanism managed to make such a brilliant conquest as the appeal of the Carthaginian presbyter Tertullian to this sect. This appeal was prepared and took place quite naturally. Through his internal development, the strict Tertullian had long ago begun to arrive at views that found extreme expression in Montanism. In 197, he defended the church as a Christian, completely catholic. In 201 or 202, he stood with all his sympathies on the side of Montanism, without, however, breaking his alliance with the Catholic Church. But in 208 or 209 (De anima) Tertullian already declares that the African Montanists, to whom he joined, have their own liturgical meetings, separate from the Catholic Church. The society known as the Tertullianists existed before the time of Augustine; it had its own special place of worship. Thanks to the efforts of Augustine, the Tertullianists converted to the fold of the Catholic Church, and their church came to the Catholics. This is the history of the external side of the Montanist movement. Thanks to the fact that the Montanists managed to attract to their side such a literary talent as Tertullian, the historian’s job was greatly facilitated. Tertullian systematized and literary substantiated various aspects of the Montanist doctrine; Thus, thanks to him, Montanism appears before us with greater clarity than would be the case if our information about Montanism were gleaned only from passages of Eastern polemicists against these sectarians. a) Tertullian defines Montanism on its essential side as a “new prophecy” (nova prophetia, ή επικαλούμενη νέα προφητεία), or the revelation of the Paraclete. To recognize Montanism meant to recognize the prophecies of Montanus and Maximilla, to recognize the spiritual gifts revealed in them (χαρίσματα), to recognize the Holy Spirit the Comforter Himself. According to the Montanists, it is now that the era about which the prophet Joel predicted (Joel 2:28) has come: “in the last days I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh.” Now the time has come for the full revelation of the Paraclete, the Comforter Spirit: the Spirit of truth has come to teach the believers all things (John 14:26). aa) The authority of the “new prophecy”. At the time when Montanism appeared in history, the gift of prophecy still continued in the church. There were people who became famous for their revelations. And in an era of special excitement in religious life, especially during persecutions, significant prophetic dreams were far from uncommon. For example, Polycarp of Smyrna and Cyprian of Carthage were predicted in a dream about the manner of their death. In the same way, Perpetua and, in general, the martyrs of Cyprian’s time see prophetic significant dreams very often. It was also revealed to Dionysius of Alexandria in a vision that he should read all sorts of books, not excluding heretical ones, because he had the gift of discerning spirits and directions. Thus, appearing as a prophecy, Montanism joined the existing state of affairs in the church. The Montanists even directly referred to some well-known personalities in Asia Minor, for example, Meliton and Ammia, as their predecessors in prophetic insight. What set the Montanists apart from the Catholic Church was their view of the meaning of their prophecy and then its very form. The gift of prophecy existed in apostolic times, but history knows nothing about any of these individual prophecies being given general canonical significance in the church. On the contrary, the Montanists looked at the revelation of their prophets from precisely this point of view. They therefore had to supplement the canonical books of Holy Scripture with them, as the highest part of the canon 23. bb) A form of “prophecy.” The very prophecies of the Montanists were offered in a special form, which, in their opinion, especially characterized the height of the gift that was revealed in them; namely, the significant characteristic difference between these predictions was that they were revealed in an ecstatic state. Tertullian himself speaks with particular emphasis about this trait. Man, contemplating the glory of God, overshadowed by divine power, necessarily had to step out of his normal state (necesse est excidat sensu). Therefore, the new prophecy is characterized by an ecstatic state, that is, it must be distinguished by an extra-mental character. Tertullian even directly calls this prophecy “as if madness” (ecstasin dicimus excessum sensus et amentiae instar). Next to revelation in ecstasy, a state, at least in a waking state, prophecy in a state of sleep was also highly valued, revelation in sleep, as a state also “extra-mental.” The prophecies offered in a state of ecstasy or in a state of sleep had to be particularly pure in character, because the activity of the human mind was suspended here and the prophet could not bring anything subjective, nothing personal here (soror apud nos revelationes per ecstasim in spiritu patitur). It was this side of the “new prophecy” that the church polemicists attacked (μη δεΐν προφήτην έν έκστάσει λαλαν, it is not proper for a prophet to chatter in a frenzy). But Tertullian defended it with all his passion. Montanists readily admitted that Christ did not say anything in a state of ecstasy, that the teaching of Christ was proposed in a state of completely calm possession of the natural human mind. But they found that the latest prophecies cannot in any way be similar to the first prophecies, because the latter prophecies are higher than those, and therefore the state in which they are offered is a chosen state in the full sense. Some, few, however, surviving fragments of the prophetic sayings of the Montanists show that a truly ecstatic state was predominant in them. The mind here was “obumbratus,” as they supposed, by the abundance of divine light that poured out on the prophets. The prophets and prophetesses lost consciousness here and spoke not on their own behalf, but directly on behalf of God in general or on behalf of the Paraclete. This is the basis for the accusation of some polemicists against Montanus, that he pretended to be the Spirit of the Comforter; in fact, one must believe that Montanus did not pretend to be a Paraclete, but saw in himself and other prophets only the pure organ of the Paraclete, in which the Comforter Spirit speaks on His own behalf. Montand said about himself: “here is a man sleeping, and I am awake; God gives hearts to people"; “I the Father have come”; “I am the Lord God Almighty, revealed in man.” Also characteristic of the new prophecy was that the female prophetesses, Priscilla and Maximilla, when they entered a state of ecstasy, began to talk about themselves in the masculine gender. Maximilla prophesied thus: “The Lord sent me as an evangelist (μηνυτήν) and an interpreter (έρμηνευτήν) of this new promise, sent me as a forced one (ήναγκασμένον), willing (θέλοντα) and not wanting to know the knowledge of God.” Thus, the Montanists saw in the predictions of their prophets the purest revelations proclaimed by the Lord himself, so that man here is a simple instrument mediating between God and the community that receives the revelations. This is the form and obligation of Montanistic prophecies. b) As for the content of the Montanist teaching, in matters of dogma, as all polemicists against Montanism and the Montanists themselves categorically admit, there was no difference between the Catholic Church and the Montanists. Regula fidei was the same. The Montanists, like the Catholic Church, believed in the same God the Father, the Son Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit the Comforter. Not only about the Trinity or about the incarnation did the Montanists offer the same teaching as that offered by the Catholic Church, but also on all other church issues, for example, about the soul, about the resurrection of the flesh, they taught in accordance with the church. The peculiar opinion of the Montanists, chiliasm, found followers in the bosom of the Catholic Church, and if some of the revelations of the Montanist prophets and prophetesses could seem heretical from the point of view of Orthodox teaching (the Montanists were suspected of inclination towards monarchianism, of denying the hypostatic difference between the Persons of the Trinity), then this must be attributed to the ambiguity of expression, or the unclear understanding of these sacraments by them dogmatists. The whole meaning of the Montanist movement does not lie in this area: the entire content of the prophecies of Montanism concerned the moral side of Christianity. It affected the deeply practical side of Christian church life, aa) In short, Tertullian designates Montanus’ prophecies as predictions about future judgment. Indeed, one of the significant aspects of the new movement was precisely that they predicted the imminent onset of the second coming, after which the thousand-year kingdom of Christ should open. Maximilla predicted: “After me there will be no more prophetess, but the end of the world (συντέλεια).” In view of this imminent approach of the end of the world, Christians are invited to rebuild their entire religious and moral life in a rigoristic tone (“tempus in collecto est”, 1 Cor. 7:29; “novissima tempora” - the current provisions of the Montanists). bb) Even earlier, Tertullian, a good type of every rigorist, came to a conclusion that brought him closer to the Montanist doctrine; it was he who saw in the historical development of the church strict continuity and gradualism of moral discoveries. Originally, people were in a state of innocence, like Adam and Eve. Then they lived in the patriarchal period, guided only by the natural moral law embedded in the human soul. Then came the time of the law given through Moses. The law was followed by the grace of the Gospel, proclaimed by Christ, and then, after the grace of the Gospel, the apostle. Paul made some additional orders (in extremitatibus saeculi) that raised the moral level of Christian life. Having become a Montanist, Tertullian recognized only the fact that the final, highest period of this Christian moral improvement came with the full revelation of the Paraclete operating in Montana and other prophets and prophetesses. He now distinguishes with particular clarity such periods in the history of the religious and moral life of mankind: initially people existed in the period of childhood; the period of adolescence began from the time of the law; Christ brought the church and all believers into a state of youth; finally, with the last revelations of the Paraclete, the full mature age of the fulfillment of Christ arrived. Man is designed in such a way that perfection is given to him only gradually. Therefore, the entirety of moral demands could not be presented to humanity at once. Initially, a certain kind of relaxation was made, which was gradually canceled over time. For example, from the days of Moses to Christ, there reigned the hard-heartedness of mankind, which forced divorce to be allowed. The Gospel eliminated this duritia cordis (“hardness of heart,” divorce is not permitted “unless words are adulterous,” Matt. 19:8,9), but infirmitas carnis (“weakness of the flesh,” a second marriage is permitted) was allowed and reigned until the Paraclete. With the complete revelation of the Paraclete, the “weakness of the flesh” is also eliminated. With such a theory of the successive development of religious life, the Montanists looked at the Gospel itself, first of all, as a new law. As a law, the Gospel, of course, must have binding, coercive force for one and all. But in the given state of humanity, in the days of Jesus Christ, this law could not be fully expressed. Therefore, now, with the time of the complete revelation of the Paraclete, what was previously only intended must come into binding force. cc) The second marriage represents one of the most prominent issues in the moral reform that the Montanists proposed. The general view of the ancient church on second marriage can be expressed in the words of Ambrose: “non prohibemus secundas nuptias, sed non suademus” (“we do not prohibit second marriage, but we do not encourage it either”). The Montanists forbade second marriage with all decisiveness for the following reasons: 1) the abolition of the “weakness of the flesh” at this point is timely, because humanity is sufficiently prepared for this measure with the advice of St. Paul (1 Cor. 7:8); 2) the second marriage lies outside the intentions of the Creator (Matthew 19:4), who created only one human couple; 3) a second marriage is not appropriate because marriage is a seminarium generis humani (“breeding ground for the human race”), while multiplying (Gen. 1:28) is inappropriate when tempus in collecto est (“time is compressed”); 4) the moral value of the second marriage is the lowest: non aliud dicendum erit secundum matrimonium, quam species stupri (“no need to talk about the second marriage except as a type of fornication”). While prohibiting second marriages, the Montanists allowed first ones. Tertullian, who defended marriage against Marcion, says that the auctore Paracleto is permitted (praescribens) to enter into "unum in fide matrimonium" ("one marriage in faith"). However, from the point of view of Montanism, this was only inconsistency - for the mere fact that the goal of the Comforter is to abolish “infirmitas carnis” (“weakness of the flesh”) in general, and not only in its particular application. Tertullian's argument against second marriage went further than its goal (point 3): married life in general (infantes pipeantes, chirping children) did not fit well with the “conditio novissimorum temponjm” (“conditions of modern times”). Marriage, according to Tertullian, is permitted by God not “ex mera et tota voluntate” (“from a pure and complete will”), but only “de invita voluntate” (“by an unwanted will”), and not even “voluntate,” but only “necessitate” (“by necessity”). Marriage is not good simply because it is permitted: “quod permittitur bonum non est” (“what is permitted is not good”), it is only “pessimo melius” (“better than the worst”). And the Carthaginian Montanist is quite consistent when he expresses himself about the first marriage as the first degree of moral decline: when virgins get married, they descend from the highest level of moral perfection to the lowest (de summo virginitatis gradu in secundum recidisse nubendo). d) Further, the Montanists, with the same character of strict law, made some regulations regarding fasting. The Catholic Church of the 2nd-3rd century, according to the testimony of Tertullian himself, held: 1) a general Christian fast before Easter (solos legitimos jejuniorum dies), based on Matthew 9:15, of indefinite duration, when they fasted on Great Saturday (the only one on which fasting was allowed - Apostle pr. 64); 2) “days of standing” (dies stationum, on Wednesday and Friday), when they fasted “ad nonam”, until the ninth hour (until the third afternoon); and 3) extraordinary fasts, appointed by bishops on the occasion of any public disaster (to dolere cum dolentibus). Maintaining fasting before Easter and “days of standing”, by analogy with emergency fasts, the Montanists introduced “their own fasts” (jeju-nias propria), namely: a) some special “stationes” (on which days it is unknown, but, of course, not on Saturday and Sunday), when they fasted not “ad nonam”, as on ordinary Wednesday and Friday, but “ad vesperam”, and b) “they brought two to God a year seven weeks of dry eating, and even then incomplete, with the exception of i.e. Saturdays and Sundays" (which weeks these are is unknown; but obviously the pre-Easter week did not coincide with them), when the very type of food was strictly prescribed (ξηροφαγίαι και ραφανοφαγίαι, "dry eating and cabbage eating") by the Montanist prophetesses. Polemicists against Montanism also objected to these fasts, pointing out that these are new, self-invented fasts, that the Montanists introduce them with Old Testament severity (while the New Testament fasts are “ex arbitrio agenda, non ex imperio,” “on the basis of judgment, not power”), that, finally, ξηροφα - γίαι και ραφανοφαγίαι are similar to the institutions in the cults of Apis, Isis and Cybele. As a motive for establishing their posts, the Montanists again pointed to “tempora novissima,” the last times. dd) In the spirit of the same severity, Montanism treated the so-called “α δ ι ά φ ο ρ α”, things “indifferent”, not prohibited either in Scripture or in tradition and therefore recognized as permitted. Montanism did not want to recognize anything as indifferent and found that in the “last times” permissions were inappropriate, when God Himself “revocavit quod indulserat” (“abolished what he permitted”). Montanist regulation concerned even the smallest things. 1) Great excitement in Carthage was caused by the dispute “de virginibus velandis” (“about the veil of virgins”), which almost served as the reason for the formal separation of the Montanists from the church. 1 Corinthians 11:5–13 instructs that “wives” (mulieres) should cover their heads at liturgical meetings. Married women in Carthage did just that; but the “strict” party demanded that girls also be covered (understanding “mulier” in general in the sense of the female gender, while their opponents believed that the apostle here, as in 1 Cor. 7:33, “mulier” is opposed to “virgo”). Recognizing that “consuetudo” was on the side of their opponents, the strict ones found that “veritas” (“truth”) was on their side: the Montanists had a “revelation” not only that virgins should be covered, but even how long they should wear a veil. However, the Montanists were ready to compromise between “truth” and “custom” and only wanted to be allowed to cover themselves for those virgins who wished to do so; but their opponents did not even agree to this concession. 2) The dispute “de corona militis” (“about the warrior’s crown”) began because one Christian soldier, when distributing imperial gifts, appeared to receive the award assigned to him with a laurel wreath in his hand: according to custom, his religious conscience did not allow him to put it on his head. In the end it turned out that he was a Christian, and he was condemned to death. Some found that such scrupulousness only needlessly irritates the pagans, while “coronari licet, quia non prohi-beat scriptura” (“it is permissible to be crowned, for Scripture does not prohibit it”). Tertullian objected: “ideo coronari non licet, quia scriptura non jubeat” (“therefore it is not allowed to be crowned, since Scripture does not prescribe this”). “What is not expressly permitted is prohibited.” Insisting that the wearing of wreaths was of religious-pagan origin, Tertullian did not allow the use of wreaths on any everyday occasion: neither on holidays, nor during marriage, nor when setting a slave free. All this is pompa diaboli (the pomp of the devil). Tertullian’s general view was that a Christian should use what is permitted as little as possible - only to the extent that is inevitable in order to exist: “necessariis vitae” (“vitally necessary”) the use of the goods of the world should be limited. This is because “licentia plerumque temptatio est disciplinae” (“permissibility is for the most part a temptation to discipline”): what is permitted is permitted precisely so that, by not using it, a moral person shows his self-denial. her) The attitude of the Montanists towards martyrdom is also marked by the same character. As a rule, they zealously strove for the crown of martyrdom as soon as persecution began, and they considered any means of avoiding danger to be prohibited. God Himself allows persecution; to evade them means to make a fruitless attempt to escape the will of God. Any justification for such deviation is untenable: “infirmitas carnis” is its real basis. The reference to Matthew 10:23 is not relevant to this issue: those words were spoken only to the apostles, who carried the whole church within themselves; The existence of the church, which had not yet spread, depended on their lives. Now the position of the church is completely different. lg) In matters of penitential discipline, the Montanists were the strictest rigorists. The practice of accepting sinners in different churches and circumstances was different, as a matter of pastoral wisdom. Tertullian notes, however, as a common fact in the Catholic Church that “neque idololatriae neque sanguini (murder) pax ab ecclesiis redditur” (“peace is given to the Churches not for idolatry and not for murder”); Among the same peccata mortalia or mortifera (mortal or deadly sins) he classifies “moechias et fornicationes” (“debauchery and fornication”). Therefore, when the bishop of Rome declared that pardon (pax) was given to penitents for sins of the latter kind, Tertullian saw in this “edict” an insult to the holiness of the church and a disgrace to the Christian name, and in polemics against this Roman practice he developed his Montanist view of penitential discipline. Tertullian distinguishes light sins (leviora delicta) from grave, mortal sins (mortalia, mortifera). In the former, the bishop grants forgiveness to the penitent; in the latter, they are unforgivable: only God can resolve them (venia inremissibilibus a solo Deo). Anyone who has fallen into such sins must spend their entire life in repentance and are not allowed to do so even at death: mortal sins are forgiven only through baptism; to resolve them would mean repeating baptism; therefore, entry into the church is open to serious sinners only through “baptism of blood,” martyrdom. With all the high respect for the martyrs, Tertullian does not allow them to intercede for others: the blood of a martyr cleanses only his own sins. With bile, Tertullian depicts those scenes when people came running to Christian confessors from all sides, having blocked their entrance to the church with grave sins. However, not allowing the forgiveness of “mortal” sins, Tertullian does not proceed from any dogmatic assumptions that limit the power of the church: “the church can forgive sin,” says one saying of the Montanist prophet, “but I will not do this, lest they sin even more.” Consequently, this severity is only a matter of the pastoral wisdom of the Montanist primates. Tertullian finds that it would be possible to forgive a serious sinner only when there would be a special, special divine revelation about him. So, according to Tertullian, the ap. Paul (1 Cor. 5:1–5, 2 Cor. 2:1–10) acted in the matter of the Corinthian “pop ex disciplina, sed ex potestate,” by virtue of special divine authority. Thus, recognizing in bishops the successors of the apostles, Montanism at this point opposed the authority of its prophets, in whom God Himself spoke, to the hierarchy. “Et ideo ecclesia quidem delicta donabit, sed ecclesia spiritus per spiritalem hominem, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum. Domini enim, non famuli, est jus et arbitrium; Dei ipsius, non sacerdotis" (“Thus the Church granted misdeeds, but the Church of the spirit through a spiritual man, and not the Church as a body of bishops. For law and judgment are masters, not servants; God Himself, not the priest"). In practical church life, Montanism meant the triumph of rigorism. The ascetic severity of the Montanists, in the hands of such a talented polemicist as Tertullian, was a cheap means of tarnishing their Catholic opponents; he imagined, for example, that “psychics” (catholics) therefore do not accept the revelations of the Paraclete, “quod doceant saepius jejunare quam nubere” (“because they are more often taught to fast than not to marry”). Despite the fact that the center of gravity of Montanism lies in the moral area of ​​church life, it still represents a significant analogy with gnosis. Gnosis is a type of heresy and, however, different from all heresies of subsequent times; Likewise, Montanism, despite the identity of its basis and other schisms of this time, is different from these latter. The moral ideals of Montanism were such that the Catholic Church itself considered them its own ideals. The difference between Catholics and sectarians here lay only in the delicate point that the church recognized such strict discipline as a matter of personal freedom for every Christian, and not as a subject of Old Testament strict church definitions. Therefore, when Montanism was defeated, its moral ideals continued to assert themselves in the church for a long time through various sectarian movements. What separated Montanism and the Church directly and positively was their view of the new prophecy of Montanus, which the Catholic Church did not recognize as a prophecy at all. But it is precisely at this point that Montanism comes into contact with Gnosticism. Gnosis expanded the sources of Christian doctrine, offering higher revelations than the church canonical ones of the so-called “prophets” like Barkof, Parkhor; By decolorizing Christianity, gnosis expanded it into pagan universalism. Likewise, recognizing all the canonical books contained in the church, the Old and New Testaments, Montanism wanted to supplement church revelation with new sources, namely all those prophecies that the Spirit communicates through its prophets and prophetesses, which for Montanism had a completely canonical meaning. Therefore, the reproach of the polemicists against Montanism was completely fair, a reproach, perhaps based in some literal saying of the Montanist writers, that, according to the view of these sectarians, the Holy Spirit said much more (plura) in Montana than in all the prophets and apostles, and even revealed much higher mysteries (meliora atque majora) in Montanism and its prophecies than Christ in the Gospel. Here the view of the perfectibility of Christianity declared itself in the broadest possible way, despite the fact that, in its entire meaning, Montanism can also be understood as a, so to speak, retrograde movement: it wanted to retain in the church consciousness forever that erroneous view of one era that the earthly existence of the church would soon end; At this point he did not allow any amendments or additions. Having thus supplemented the divine revelation of the church with its own teaching, Montanism relates to the Christian church in the same way as gnosis. Both of these movements did not so much deny the church, did not so much oppose themselves to it as erroneous, but placed themselves above it, recognizing the highest truths in themselves, and only the lower ones in the church. It is remarkable that the Montanists, like the Gnostics, called themselves “pneumatics,” spirituales, and members of the Catholic Church “psychics,” spirituales. This was reflected in the aristocratic and proud view of the Catholic Church in general. Montanism, like Gnosticism, unlike other heresies of subsequent times, willingly admitted that the Catholic Church and currently observes the same teaching that the apostles proclaimed to it, that it has not changed anything in it, at least nothing significant. All other heresies usually begin with the proposition: we will follow the divine fathers; We have preserved in us precisely the very teaching that the church contained from ancient times and from which it retreated only in recent times. In this sense, for example, the Artemonites spoke out, asserting that previously the church also contained the very teaching that they now preach. On the contrary, both the Montanists and the Gnostics found that the church now adheres to the same teachings and practices that it held in the apostolic age; but only they were convinced that they had a source of revelation much higher than that of the church. Thus, for them, the Catholic Church was not so much a sinner, erring, as a backward church. It stopped at that stage of its historical development, which for the Gnostics and Montanists was a stage passed. The theoretical view of Montanism was its main feature that distinguished it from the church, and Eastern polemicists against Montanism showed only a deep understanding of the very essence of this movement when they struck precisely at this side of Montanism, that it recognizes a new prophecy rejected by the church. IV. Discipline Disputes and Schisms in the Ancient Church 1. The split between Callistus and Hippolytus The ground on which the struggle was waged, which was resolved by schisms, was the issues of church discipline, which were of such importance in Montanism. History contains some traces of how strict disciplinary practices in the church were gradually relaxed. From the data that have survived to us, it is clear that, for example, in the Roman Church there exist two views side by side - one could say: two parties, if this name did not evoke the idea of ​​​​something organized and formalized - a moderate and strict view. In the Roman see there are a number of people of moderate views. Victor (189–198 or 199) is still quite rigoristic, as shown by the position he took in the Easter dispute; and perhaps it was not Eleutherus, but Victor who hesitated in his judgment about Montanism. Zephyrinus (198 or 199 – August 26? 217) was undoubtedly not a rigorist; with his church discipline he aroused the indignation of the Montanist Tertullian: “audio edictum esse propositum et quidem peremptorium. Pontifex scilicet maximus, quod est episcopus episcoporum, edicit: ego et moechiae et fomicationis delicta poenitentia functis dimitto" 24. Finally, the reign of Callistus (217–14 October 222) marks the triumph of lenient discipline. Callistus's reform was so broad that it led to a formal break with the party of strict observance, which opposed Callistus to its bishop, the first historically known antipope, St. Hippolyta * 25. We learn about this only from the Philosophumena, discovered in 1842 (by the Greek Minoid Mina) and published for the first time in 1851. There are 6 contenders for the authorship of the Philosophumena: Origen, Tertullian, Viron, Presbyter Caius, Hippolytus and Novatian. The first three are completely hopeless and abandoned by everyone. At one time Baur stood for Kaya, but later he too went over to Hippolytus, and now this hypothesis does not find any solid defenders. Novatian was proposed in 1862 by the Jesuit Armellini, and in 1878 he was supported by the Jesuit, Innsbruck professor Grisar, against whom Hergenröter wrote. The tendentiousness of this hypothesis lies in the secret desire of good Catholics to see in the first antipope not a saint like Hippolytus, but a schismatic, long ago branded by this name in history. Hippolyta was exhibited by Jacobi in 1851; very valuable explanations from this point of view were made in a special work by J. Dollinger, Hippolytus und Callistus. Regensburg 1853. This name is now supported by the vast majority of scholars. Catholic Professor Funk in 1881 made a review of all the reasons in favor of the last three contenders for writing “Philosophumena” and settled on Hippolytus. His argumentation, however, is no more complete than that presented in the famous doctoral work of Professor Ivantsov-Platonov, Heresies and schisms of the first three centuries of Christianity. Moscow 1877. In his essay, Hippolytus gives an extremely unfavorable portrayal of his opponent. In the person of Callistus, the Roman see received, indeed, a “much experienced man.” A slave by birth, he conducted banking operations on behalf of his master, the Christian Carpophorus, went bankrupt, wanted to escape, was overtaken by Carpophorus at the moment when he boarded the ship, threw himself into the water, was pulled out and sent by his master to work in hand mills. Christian friends begged Carpophorus to release Callistus and give him the opportunity to justify himself. But, realizing the impossibility of justifying himself, Callistus decided to commit suicide by martyrdom. One Saturday he appeared in the Jewish synagogue, created a mess here and was put on trial for this disorder (Langen makes a witty guess whether Callistus actually came to the synagogue to catch several Jews, perhaps who were in debt to him). Praefectus Urbis Fuscian (189–192) sent Callistus to the Sardinian mines. But soon afterwards the famous Markia obtained the release of the Sardinian confessors for the name of Christ. Bishop Victor separated the case of Callistus from the case of the confessors and, not wanting the release of Callistus, omitted his name from the submitted list, but the presbyter Iakinthos, who carried out the decree of Commodus, for some reason also freed Callistus. Having waited for the death of his master, Callistus came to Rome, entered into the trust of Zephyrinus and became the most influential Roman presbyter. It is known that Zephyrinus entrusted him with the construction of an extensive Christian cemetery, the so-called coemeterium Callisti. In 217, this man, who moved in various strata of society, experienced by all the storms of life, but not hardened or embittered, became the successor of Zephyrinus and so softened the still strict church discipline that cries arose against him in Rome. Hippolytus accuses Callistus 1) of accepting into church communion all those excommunicated, as well as those returning from heretical societies; 2) that he claims that a bishop is not subject to deposition even if he falls into mortal sin; 3) he placed second-married and triple-married persons in hierarchical ranks and did not even depose those who married while holding clergy positions, as if those who did this had not sinned; 4) Callistus patronizes adultery and murder; 5) under him they dared to introduce second baptism into the church. Only a few of these accusations require special explanation. First of all, the question of second marriages. Tertullian already knows about second-weds in hierarchical ranks, even in the rank of bishop. It is impossible to decide positively whether marriages concluded before or after baptism are meant here, that is, whether the difference in views between the Roman and Greek churches was already touched upon here. The fact is that the Eastern Church argued that baptism is a second birth, that a person emerges from the font as a young boy. Taking this point of view, she did not want to know a person’s life before baptism, and therefore attached importance only to marriages performed after baptism. A person being baptized before baptism could have been in three or four marriages, but all of them were forgotten upon entering the church. The Western Church, represented by [its representatives, except] Jerome, did not think so. Paying attention to the words: “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” she said that in baptism only sins are remitted, but marriage is not a sin; therefore, marriages performed before baptism are legal. Callistus did not take the Western point of view. He took a new step, apparently, only in that he did not depose the clergy who married after their consecration. The councils of the early 4th century recognized the fact that the wishes of the initiates must be taken into account. Therefore, only if a person upon entering the clergy did not declare his desire to get married, and then got married, he was cast out. Early widowhood for a cleric was an unforeseen circumstance, and one might think that the church of that time did not look at such cases as strictly as the modern one. It could be that Callistus also allowed marriage upon acceptance of consecration. The context gives the right to think that we are talking about the highest hierarchical degrees of the clergy: bishops, presbyters and deacons. Hippolytus himself views these acts of Callistus as flagrant violations of church discipline; therefore, there should be no talk of lower clergy positions here. Further, Callistus is accused of patronizing adultery and murder. This accusation is based on this fact. While Christianity was kept mainly in the lower strata of society, it avoided one extremely difficult conflict with the then Roman law. But from the time of Commodus, Christianity began to quickly spread in the aristocratic circles of Rome, and in the Roman church there were young Christian women of senatorial origin, with too ardent blood to remain unmarried, but it was very difficult to find a husband of equal social status. Meanwhile, Christians even then disapproved of mixed marriages, especially marriages of Christian women with pagans. Tertullian already lists the extremely many inconveniences that arise for Christians from such combinations. A Christian wife, for example, must hide from her husband where she disappears at night when the memory of the martyrs was celebrated, must hide her visits to martyrs and confessors in prison, etc. And Christian senators at that time, one must think, there were significantly fewer Christian women of high origin. Meanwhile, Roman legislation extremely jealously guarded the purity of aristocratic blood, and women of senatorial families, who bore the title “feminae clarissimae,” were allowed marriages only with aristocrats. The law did not recognize the marriages of these women with slaves and freedmen (liberti). From the point of view of Roman law, such marital cohabitations were only concubinatus (in the sense of a legal phenomenon, as it was in ancient life); such spouses were therefore called not husbands, but concubinarii. The law recognized marriages of patrician women with free-born husbands from the lower class, but punished women for such mesalliance by depriving them of senatorial patrimonial rights; they lost the title clarissimae (shiny ones). And if they wanted to maintain their rank by entering into such marriages, then they should enter into marriages with lower persons not in the strict sense of the word, not in a connubium, but only in a contubernium. Thus, Roman marriage law confronted Christian women of senatorial origin with a very difficult alternative: either, when getting married, be considered unmarried, or renounce their rights by descent. Christian women did not want the latter, and it is understandable how the church, for which there was neither slave nor free, could relate to such marriages that were illegal from the point of view of the state. Callistus, as himself a slave by birth, was least inclined, of course, to support the aristocratic claims of the then legislation, contrary to the Christian point of view, less than another bishop, was able to look at a slave or freedman as a being of a lower nature. Therefore, Callistus recognized such unequal marriages as legal in the court of the church. That such civilly illegal marriages (or legal contubernia) were actually practiced is proven epigraphically. There are gravestone inscriptions on which the names of Christian spouses are read and the husband does not bear the title clarissimus, but the wife, for example, Cassia Feretria, is titled femina clarissima. Wives, therefore, did not lose their senatorial rights upon marriage. Callistus's decree, from the point of view of the church, is the only legal and the only possible, but it did not untie all the knots of social relations. Hippolytus reproaches his rival for patronizing adultery and murder. I do not know whether there is any possibility of making a satisfactory comment on the first charge. Perhaps Hippolytus only vividly outlines the dubious position in which the patricians put themselves through such unequal marriages. In fact, they had the legal civil right to leave their Christian husbands, unequal to them by birth, and marry senators. The law seemed to call them to such an act. But the second half of the accusation is explained by Hippolytus himself. Such marriages led to the fatal question of children and their rights. Some aristocratic mothers wanted not to have children at all from their noble spouses, while for others it was not at all desirable for them to talk about their marriage in the big world. Such a motive is very possible at a time when the fire of the first Christian inspiration has cooled (as the very possibility of the question of senatorial rights shows). There were attempts at infanticide. The last accusation against Callistus is one of the darkest. Under him they dared to introduce second baptism into the church. The comments on this place are the most confusing. The most risky opinion belongs to Grisar. Callistus, in his opinion, recognized the baptism of heretics as valid, i.e., next to a single church baptism, he allowed another baptism. According to Baur, here we are talking about the Elkesaite Alcibiades mentioned in the Philosophumena, who actually repeated baptism. Döllinger believes that Hippolytus reproaches Callistus only for the fact that he did not interrupt church communication with Agrippinus, the bishop of Carthage, who legalized the rebaptism of heretics at the council. Langen believes that Callistus rebaptized heretics, that is, he replaced the harsh and difficult path of reconciling them with the church through repentance with the easy act of baptism. But in this case, under Callistus, the Roman Church would have followed a completely different practice than 30 years later under Stephen. Therefore, we have to give preference to Döllinger's hypothesis. All these disciplinary relaxations of Callistus were further complicated by his very imprecise terminology in the doctrine of the Trinity. Callistus called the subordinationist Hippolytus a ditheist; Hippolytus considered Callistus a Noetian or Sabellianist. There was enough combustible material for the rigorist party with Bishop Hippolytus at its head to form a special society. Hippolytus treats the supporters of Callistus as a sect (σχολή). But here and there the consciousness breaks out in him that he is almost alone in his protest against his rival. Apparently, the vast majority was on the side of Callistus, and the small party of Hippolytus lost its members very quickly: all those who became the object of the harsh discipline of the rigorists went over to Callistus’s side. It is believed that both Callistus and his successor Urban survived the schism. The basis for this is the news in the Catalog Liberianus that Bishop Pontian and Prester Hippolytus were simultaneously exiled to Sardinia in 235. Perhaps this exile was caused by the latest outbreaks of struggle between divided Christians, who, then uniting with each other, installed Anteros as bishop. In any case, in the documents known to us concerning the Novatian schism, there is no hint of this previous break in the Roman church. This silence does not speak in favor of continuing the schism of Hippolytus; from Pontian to Cornelius is only 16 years. Western scientists usually end the story of Hippolytus with a Sardinian reference: they believe that he did not survive the harmful Sardinian climate. Our scientist Ivantsov-Platonov identifies our Hippolytus with Hippolytus, the bearer of the message of Dionysius of Alexandria (επιστολή διακονική) to the Roman Christians (Eus. h. e. VII, 46), then with Hippolytus, the Antiochian presbyter, with Hippolytus the hermit and Hippolytus the Hieromartyr, who suffered under Claudius II (268–270), and believes that Hippolytus the antipope could live until 270. Of all these later Hippolytes, only Hippolytus, the bearer of the epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria, is well attested historically. 2. Novatus and Novatian splits A fairly close analogy with this first Roman schism is represented by the second local schism - the Novatian. The head of the dissatisfied here becomes a highly educated man and, in general, of a rather sympathetic character. The motive of the protest is also strict observance, rigorism, outraged by the softening of church discipline. The struggle of the parties here was carried out by similar means, that is, through an exaggeratedly dark depiction of the character of the enemy, in this case, a representative of the rigorist party. But the Novatian schism in Rome was preceded by the schism of Novatus and Felicissimus in Carthage. In 248, Caecilius Cyprian was elected to the episcopal see of Carthage. An opposition of 5 elders with Novat at their head very soon formed against him. It seems that here the question of church discipline in the sense in which it was raised in the struggle between Callistus and Hippolytus had no place: they were dissatisfied with the personality of Cyprian and abandoned him. The motive for discontent, not actually explained, is quite easy to guess. Cyprian, highly respected in the church as a character who acquired this enviable reputation while still a pagan, was baptized recently, in 245-246; Consequently, after 2-3 years he became the bishop of the department, which was the highest in all of Africa. It is more than possible that persons who had long been members of the clergy and who, according to existing church practice, had a completely legal right to be elevated to the highest degrees, felt somewhat affected by this election of an almost neophyte. Apparently, for the first time Cyprian managed to reconcile with the party that was hostile to him. However, Novat soon went even further. Without the knowledge of Cyprian and against his will, he appointed Felikissimo, who was close to him, as a deacon at his church. Then rumors spread in Carthage about Novatus’s abuses in managing church property, outrageous stories appeared about his cruel treatment of his elderly father and pregnant wife, so under pressure from his flock, Cyprian appointed a day on which he intended to conduct an inquiry into the case of Novatus. But it happened that during this time the persecution of Decius began, and things took a different turn. Cyprian, for the good of his flock, considered it necessary to hide from persecution. He continued to direct the affairs of the church from his refuge with his messages, of which 13 have survived to us. In his convictions, meanwhile, under the influence of pastoral experience, a significant change occurred. This bishop, undoubtedly highly Catholic, sympathized, however, with the Montanist Tertullian. Cyprian remained an admirer of Tertullian until the end of his life, every day he read some pages from his works and asked his secretary to hand over the book with the words: “da magistrum” (“give me a teacher”). Quite in the spirit of Tertullian, Cyprian reasoned that only God Himself can forgive sins against God, therefore, he spoke out for the lifelong repentance of those who had fallen into grave sins against God, and found that the church, even in death, should not give forgiveness to the repentant. But now, after mature discussion, especially under the influence of persecution, he came to the conclusion that the fallen should not be denied the hope of peace with the church after a long and difficult penitential trial. In fact, he reasoned, is the guilt of an adulterer not worse and not more serious than the sin of a libelist? And the church does not refuse forgiveness to the first. “And what a mockery of brotherly feelings, what a pathetic trick for the unfortunate - to exhort them to satisfaction for their sins by repentance - and to refuse healing upon satisfaction, to say to our brothers: weep and shed tears, sigh day and night, make every effort to wash away and atone for your sin - but after all this you will still die outside the church: you will do everything to deserve peace, and, however, not you will receive the peace you seek." In this sense, Cyprian gave orders to the presbyters who remained in charge of the administration: they must promise those who had fallen away from Christianity the opportunity to be accepted into the church after a mature discussion, that is, after a conciliar meeting of bishops, when the persecution ceases. But Cyprian’s behavior and his changed outlook were a godsend for his enemies. The “flight” of the Carthaginian bishop shocked even the Roman presbyters, who sede vacante managed the affairs of the church, so that in their letter to the Carthaginian church, with all the restraint of tone, they allowed themselves to recall the words of the Gospel about the mercenary, “for he is not his own sheep,” who “sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and runs away” (John 10:12). And Felixsimus and his comrades directly declared that Cyprian himself, who was once so strict, was fallen because he fled from persecution. The lowering of the requirements in relation to the fallen did not satisfy Felicissimo's views. Hiding behind respect for the last will of the martyrs, Felicissimo demanded immediate and complete forgiveness from everyone who presented the so-called libelli pacis and accepted the fallen in crowds. Thus, the church of sectarians became a refuge for all those who had fallen away from Christianity and all those dissatisfied with the heavy demands that the church made. With their obsequiousness and respect, Felicissimo's party was able to win over the confessors to their side and arm them against the bishop. The situation for Cyprian was very difficult. During this time, he himself could only extol the exploits of the confessors and martyrs, which is what he did. But now he was convinced that their authority would be a very serious obstacle for him to carry out church discipline. Heroic standing for the faith of Christ did not always presuppose a high understanding of Christianity and pastoral spiritual experience. Things got to the point where some confessors began to write their notes in a dictatorial tone. For example: “All confessors to Pope Cyprian are salutem. Know that we have given peace to everyone about whom you are discussing. We instruct you to notify the other bishops about this. We wish you peace with the holy martyrs.” One of the martyrs, Paul, gave the following simple instruction to the confessor who remained after him: “Give to everyone who asks you for peace in my name.” If the confessors wrote this way, then demands were raised from the fallen themselves. They besieged some bishops in crowds and demanded church communion for themselves not as a favor, but as a due thing; presented their libelli pacis with threats. Thus, Cyprian had to use all means to regulate, on the one hand, the activities of confessors, and on the other, to restrain the demands of the fallen who wanted church communion. He began to ask the confessors to be careful in issuing libelli pacis, i.e. they would not issue unnamed notes (to the bearer) with the simple formula: “let him have communication with his own (communicet ille cum suis),” but would indicate the name of the person to whom they were giving, and would issue them only to those whose circumstances were actually known to them. And Cyprian was ready to respectfully take note of the very petitions of the martyrs, but not to implement them. He spoke of the fallen: “Let them knock on the doors of the church, but they must not break them down; let them stand guard at the gates of the heavenly camp, but armed only with humility: they must understand that they are nothing more than deserters.” As the persecution continued, Cyprian went further in reducing the severity of discipline. It was when the plague appeared in the hot season and many fallen died without entering into church communion, Cyprian gave instructions to the presbyters so that, in view of the mortal danger, they would receive the penitents without waiting for the bishop's permission. Cyprian's clash with the dissatisfied party at that time also occurred over the issue of church alms. Namely, Cyprian sent a commission from himself to Carthage, which was supposed to discuss who should receive benefits from the church. But Felicissimo threateningly told all his like-minded people that everyone who turned to Cyprian for alms or received it from Cyprian would be deprived of communion with his church. Thus the riots assumed considerable proportions. When the persecution began to weaken and Cyprian could return to his flock, around Easter, which fell on March 23 in 251, there was a council of bishops in Carthage who remained after the persecution. All of them, after a mature discussion of the issue of Novatus and Felicissimo, deprived them of church communion. The assembled bishops then took up the question of the fallen. Here, of course, life appeared with all the variety of situations that do not lend themselves to one specific formula. They reasoned that forgiveness should not be denied to everyone, because this would be injustice, since the guilt of the fallen was far from equal. Some, for example, courageously stood for the faith for a long time and renounced only after the cruel tortures became unbearable. Others did everything possible to avoid participating in the sacrifices, and got away with only false certification that they had made a sacrifice. Others, on the contrary, came themselves to make sacrifices. The difference was very big. Then you need to pay attention not only to the past, but also to the future. The persecution of Decius, as his contemporaries put it, left the church covered in ruins; the fallen were everywhere. To deprive them forever of communication with the church means reducing the number of Christians too much, limiting the external mission of the church, and instead of good, only evil can be done. All these persons could either join the heretics, or directly fall away from Christianity into paganism. In addition, there were many who desecrated their conscience by receiving libelli from the pagan power and thereby saved the whole house from persecution, so that their entire family remained Christian. If they were excommunicated forever, they could drag their families with them. Therefore, caution must be taken in handling these various circumstances. Two edges were installed. It was decided to deal with the libellatics easier, that is, after quite a long trial, to allow them to be accepted into church communion. Then it was decided to deal with sacrificati and thurificati more strictly, namely, their repentance should continue throughout their lives, and they should receive peace in the very last minutes of their lives. However, in relation to this last point there was later a softening, namely, when the persecution under Galle resumed in 252, a council met again in Carthage on May 15, and here, after a long discussion, they decided to accept even those who had defiled themselves by sacrifice into church communion. In all this progress of softening discipline, it is very characteristic how a view that is ecclesiastical to the extreme, to the point of rigorism, is ultimately resolved by measures of leniency. In this case, Cyprian, who led the council, departed from his view of the Catholic Church as the only one who saves. From this concept, of course, came the strictest attitude towards the fallen. This same concept is also used to support the point in Cyprian’s teaching that the baptism of heretics is completely untenable. But having before him the ancient view that one who has offended God by falling away from Christ can receive permission only through a new baptism, baptismus sanguinis, Cyprian, based on his view of the church, had to come to the idea that the church should give this peace during the life of the fallen one, because the “baptism of blood” itself is possible only in the church. Namely, in order for the fallen to show that firm and living faith in God, which is evidenced by blood, it is necessary for grace to act in these persons, it is necessary to make them partakers of grace. And as the only bearer of grace, the church must give grace to those who have repented for these decisive moments. Therefore, in view of the fact that many fallen can atone for their sin through martyrdom, it was decided not to deny future martyrs such reinforcement as the body and blood of Christ. Deprived of church communion, the schismatics did not stop in their machinations. They decided to elect their own Carthaginian bishop, and their choice fell on the presbyter Fortunatus. It seems that by May 15, 252, the schismatics had already found 5 bishops who, for various faults, partly for apostasy from the faith during persecution, were deprived by the Catholic Church of ecclesiastical communion. They ordained Fortunatus and formed a sectarian church. To maintain their authority, the renegades spread the rumor that 25 bishops had ordained their bishop. They tried to start negotiations on church communion with Rome, but here they met very energetic resistance. Novat, meanwhile, had already entered into communication with the Novatian party in Rome. It is known that after the death of the Roman Bishop Fabian (250 Jan. 20), the Roman Church was ruled by presbyters for more than a year. Among them stood Moses, who died as a confessor, and Novatian, the then most famous literary force of the Roman Church 26 . The Council of Presbyters, when the Novata party approached it with a request for communication, at the very beginning refused it. Nevertheless, Novatus carried out agitation in Rome so successfully that he attracted Novatian to his side and caused a schism in Rome more important than the Carthaginian schism. In a strange contrast, the Novatus party in Carthage advocated the acceptance of all fallen people into church communion. On the contrary, Novatian in Rome grouped around himself the most rigoristic elements. In the absence of factual data, it is impossible to decide whether the homogeneity of principles now brought Novat and Novatian together, or whether the former was a clever intriguer who acted without coping with the principles. At the beginning of March 251, the Roman Church installed the hitherto unknown presbyter Cornelius as bishop. From a formal point of view, the choice of Cornelius was completely legal. He was ordained by 16 bishops. But his opponents, dissatisfied with his attitude towards the fallen, opposed him to the presbyter Novatian. This latter, who had previously expressed himself in the sense of the practice temporarily established by Cyprian, now for some reason took a step in a different direction and began to deny the church the right to accept the fallen into its communion. We learn about the character of Novatian mainly from the letter of his opponent Cornelius to the Antiochian bishop Fabius. Here Cornelius paints Novatian in the blackest colors. According to him, Novatian's faith began with the fact that he fell into a demon, was given over to the care of exorcists, was baptized on his deathbed by the pouring baptism of clinics, recovered and, however, did not receive the episcopal sealing, that is, he was not confirmed; therefore, he was considered incapable of holding hierarchical positions. Only as an exceptional measure, Bishop Fabian, against the wishes of the clergy, made Novatian a presbyter, probably respecting his literary talents. But during the previous persecution, Novatian stained himself with cowardice. When asked to help his brothers, he refused the presbytery and said: “I adhere to a different philosophy.” (Indeed, Novatian left Rome and took up literary activity). Novatian managed to win over to his side several respected presbyters and confessors in Rome; but noticing his ambitious plans, the confessors and presbyters took an oath from him that he would never accept the episcopate. Novatian did not keep this oath. Having lured three simpleton Italian provincial bishops to Rome under the pretext of conciliar meetings, he kept them locked up until 4 o'clock in the afternoon and then, when they were already drunk, forced them to ordain him. Afterwards, one of these bishops tearfully begged for forgiveness. He was accepted as a simple layman; the remaining two bishops were deposed by the Roman Council, which recognized Cornelius as the legitimate bishop. Finally, the confessors also left his side and turned to the church. Seeing that his party was dwindling very quickly from day to day, Novatian decided on such a desperate method: he grabbed those receiving communion by the hands and said: “Swear to me by the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ that you will never leave me and go over to Cornelius,” and the unfortunate man did not receive the Holy Mysteries before, saying instead of the usual “Amen”: “I will never go over to Cornelius.” In turn, Novatian, as far as is known, called Cornelius a libellatist. There was probably a reason for such an unfounded accusation in the behavior of Cornelius, just as there is a factual basis in the exaggerated description of Cornelius. Novatian himself assured Dionysius of Alexandria that he accepted the episcopate against his will. In any case, one must think that this was not such a bad character as Cornelius describes him: it is enough to point out that Dionysius of Alexandria writes to him, already as a schismatic, calling him “brother”, and admonishes him to voluntarily renounce the dignity to which he, according to him, was forced. And Socrates assures that under Valerian Novatian died a martyr. Both Cornelius and Novatian addressed communicative epistles to various bishops. The Council of Carthage, like the Roman Council, decided the matter in favor of Cornelius and gentle discipline. The energetic assistance of Cyprian and the support of Dionysius of Alexandria, of course, greatly contributed to the triumph of Cornelius’ cause. And Novatian was not left without sympathizers. It is known about Fabius of Antioch that he was inclined in favor of the schismatics out of respect for the strictness of the rules of the Novatian party and, perhaps, even for the personal character of Novatian, as far as he could know it from other sources. Many of the fathers of the Council of Antioch also wanted to support Novatian; At their head was Firmilian of Caesarea, who invited Dionysius of Alexandria to this Council of Antioch. In the west, Novatian was especially energetically supported by the Bishop of Arles, Marcian, who was deposed for this. The Novatian schism turned out to be more enduring than the schism of Novatus and Felikissimus in Carthage. This can already be seen from the fact that some of the respected bishops take the side of Novatian. And Novatian himself still had an ordination, which was not as legal as the decree of Cornelius, but it is not easy to say whether it was invalid. In any case, this schism outlived its founders. The Novatians always stood on the side of the strictest church discipline. We learn about the views of this sect especially from writers of the 5th century. In principle, the Novatians were not against the church's right to forgive repentant sinners. But they found that it was much more expedient to leave this forgiveness to God, that the slave should not forgive those who sinned against his Lord. In view of this view of the rights and duties of the church, they considered themselves exclusively a society of “pure” ones, καθαροί. They looked at the Catholic Church as having tainted itself by communicating with sinners (fallen). Having spread not only in the west, but also in the east, the Novatians found favorable soil in those places through which the movement of Montanism passed. In Phrygia there was a merger of Montanism with Novatianism; here it came to the point that a second marriage was declared completely prohibited. In general, the Novatians were respected by many Christians because, from a dogmatic point of view (in the doctrine of the Trinity and Christ), they seemed Orthodox, and their main difference from the Catholics was only in the remarkable severity of their morals. In view of this, many sovereigns who issued decrees on the persecution of other heretics and sectarians made a direct exception in favor of the Novatians. In the era of Arianism, according to some news, the Orthodox were even inclined to enter into communication with the Novatians (in Constantinople). The Novatians probably held out until the 7th century. In the VI century. in Alexandria, these sectarians are still such a significant force that the Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria Eulogius (579–607), a contemporary of Gregory the Great, had to write a special work against them that has not reached us. The question of weak or strict church discipline continued to occupy minds. During the persecution of Diocletian, two more sects separated from the church due to a disciplinary issue: the Donatists and the Melitians. 3. Dispute about the baptism of heretics To explain the content of the Donatist schism as a dogmatic teaching, it is important to take it in connection with the history of disputes about the baptism of heretics, because the connection between the views developed here and the teaching of the Donatists is very close. The question of the baptism of heretics is connected with the history of the word “heresy.” In the most ancient period of church history, this word was applied specifically to the Gnostics, because there were no other heretics at that time. And the content of Gnosticism is such that one can rightfully raise the question of whether the Gnostics are considered a Christian sect or a pagan one. The Christian doctrine of the Gnostics was subject to too important a distortion for one to be at a loss over the question: should the Gnostics be baptized if they came to church, or should they not be baptized? Thus, the oldest church practice on this issue boiled down to the fact that heretics were also accepted into the church through baptism. For Syria this is attested by the “Apostolic Constitutions”, for Asia Minor - by two councils, Iconian and Sinnadian, for Africa - by the Council of Carthage under Agrippina and, finally, for the Alexandrian church - by Clement of Alexandria. The only exceptions to this usual practice were those cases where a person who was baptized in the Orthodox Church then converted to Gnosticism and finally returned to the church again. Such persons were accepted only through the laying on of hands, that is, through repentance, because, obviously, the general rule does not apply to them: they were baptized by the church itself. These were church sheep, but only those who had gone astray and were now returning to the church again. The appearance of Montanism constitutes an epoch in the history of this issue. For the first time, heresy appeared on the scene, or, perhaps, more accurately, schism, the dogma of which completely coincided with the church dogma and did not represent a perversion of it, but only an illegal addition. Representatives of the Catholic Church very soon felt that here they were dealing with a new fact, with a problem that previous practice had not yet resolved, and therefore they directly raised the question of how to look at the baptism performed by the Montanists. The councils of Iconium and Sinnad and Carthage under Agrippina (c. 220) decided that the Montanists should also be accepted into the church through baptism. But the question again manifested itself with new force when the church had to deal with the Novatians. This sect was only a schism, against whose dogma it was impossible to raise even those objections that were raised by the teaching of the Montanists - to such an extent the Novatians were close to the Catholic Church. But, for their part, the Novatians rebaptized those converting to them from Orthodoxy. Practical accounts with the Novatians had to be settled mainly, if not exclusively, by the Roman Church. The Roman bishops expected only a beneficial effect in the missionary sense on the Novatians if they treated them leniently. By this they hoped to attract a larger number of Novatians into the fold of the church. By accepting the Novatians through the laying on of hands, and not through baptism, the church thereby emphasized its own condescension and the rigoristic rigidity of the sectarians who rebaptized the Catholics. It was undesirable to baptize the Novatians even in those forms, so as not to resemble the Novatians themselves. The question was even raised about whether the Novatians, who held clergy positions in the sectarianism, should not be accepted into the church in the same degrees as they held in the schism. In this form, the question of the Novatians was raised under the Bishop of Rome Stephen (from mid-May 254, † August 2, 257). The practice of the Roman Church impressed even African Christians. Some people began to turn to Cyprian for clarification on this matter. The Bishop of Carthage was a man with strongly held convictions regarding the controversial issue. Not without influence on his behavior, of course, was the fact that for the African church Novatianism was someone else's misfortune; and in such cases, a person unconsciously becomes a strict principledist, a theorist, whose views are influenced only by logic, not in the least tempered by the psychological data that a person receives from practical relations with sectarians. Cyprian resolved the issue in terms of existing African practice. In 255, the Council of Carthage, consisting of 31 bishops, was asked the same question by 18 Numidian bishops. They asked: is baptism valid for heretics and schismatics? The Carthaginian fathers answered with a resounding “no.” The following year, the Council of Carthage of 71 bishops from Africa and Numidia again discussed this issue and again came to the same decision. Cyprian notified the Roman Bishop Stephen of this, sending him the acts of the council. Cyprian defended his point of view with all polemical fervor. But he always ended his messages on this issue with the statement that he does not elevate his views into law for other bishops, that each bishop must be guided by his own convictions, as a person who has to answer to the Lord for his actions. When the Carthaginian ambassadors arrived in Rome with the acts of the council and the accompanying message of Cyprian, Stephen, who knew about the content of the acts, not only refused them church peace and communication, but also simple human hospitality, not only did not allow them to talk with him, but also forbade everyone in his flock to give them shelter or take them into the house. A message was sent from Rome to Africa in which Stephen, in the name of the tradition of the Roman Church, preserved from the apostles Peter and Paul, demanded that Africans not baptize passing heretics, but only lay hands on them in poenitentiam (as a sign of repentance), and that they not introduce innovations against tradition. The pope called Cyprian a crafty worker, a false Christian, a false apostle and, it seems, formally denied him and his supporters church communion. Around the same time, in the same sense, the pope wrote to the east, to Helen of Tarsus and Firmilian of Caesarea, so that heretics would not be rebaptized. It seems that here too the pope demanded submission to Roman practice, or threatened excommunication. Dionysius the Great of Alexandria himself was in favor of the Roman lenient practice, but here he acted as a conciliator. He wrote to the pope so that he would not disturb the peace that all churches now enjoy. He knew that the Eastern churches rely, in any case, on the decree of their ancient and authoritative councils, and the law says: “Thou shalt not remove the boundaries of thy neighbor, which thy fathers laid.” Cyprian, when the pope's excommunicating letter became known to him, convened a second council in Carthage in September of the same year 256, at which 87 fathers were present. The question of the baptism of heretics was reviewed again, the reasons were repeated and strengthened, and the final decision remained the same. Then Cyprian began relations with Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. He sent an ambassador to him with a message, and also forwarded his correspondence with Stefan on this issue. As one might expect, Firmilian's response was most sympathetic. He sided with all the points in Cyprian’s argument and said about Stephen that, having excommunicated all the churches of the East, the pope, in essence, only excommunicated himself. This question outlived the characters in the latest dispute themselves. He continued to worry the church under Xystus II (from the end of August 257 - August 6, 258). Xystus, in any case, did not support Stephen’s polemical tone and entered into church communion with Africa and Asia Minor. Even under the successor of Xystus, Dionysius of Rome (July 22, 259 - December 27, 268), Dionysius of Alexandria conducted some correspondence concerning Lucian, the successor of Cyprian of Carthage. The question died out by itself, and the final decision on it took place only in 314 at the Council of Arles (Rule 8), which decided that heretics who turn to the church should be interrogated as to how they believe in the Holy Trinity, and if they believe Orthodoxy, then they should be accepted without rebaptism. In this sense, the ecumenical church decision subsequently took place (Trul. 95; Constant. I, 7; Nik. I, 8). Before discussing the dogmatic side of the dispute, it is necessary to touch upon points that complicate the issue of the baptism of heretics. a) Supporters of Roman church practice, as a motive for their decision, pointed to the fact of the rebaptism of those converting from Catholicism among the Novatians themselves. Consequently, the Catholic Church per antithesin must accept those who come to it without rebaptism. Cyprian brilliantly rejected this motive, putting forward the only correct principle: the Catholic Church must follow its royal path, not paying attention to what is happening among the heretics; it must be aware of its own high dignity and be guided only by its reasons and its provisions. Paying attention to what is being done by heretics is also dangerous because it would lead too far. For example, the Novatians have a hierarchy; In order not to resemble the Novatians, should not the Catholic Church also abolish the hierarchy? b) Supporters of the Roman practice exhibited desideratum, should not the converting Novatian clerics be accepted in their hierarchical degrees? Cyprian responds with a decisive denial. Even those Novatians who received their hierarchical degrees in the Catholic Church should not be accepted into hierarchical degrees. They turned the weapon that the church gave them against itself, therefore they do not have the right to use it after converting to the church. Moreover, this should be said about the bishops consecrated by the Novatians. By accepting these persons in their rank, the church would offend those of its elders who have never betrayed it. What can be given as a reward to them if such high benefits are given to converting sectarians? The latter must be content only with the fact that the church accepts them as penitents and gives them its fellowship. c) Then, as the basis for their actions, the defenders of Roman practice referred to tradition coming from the time of the apostles. Cyprian, like Firmilian, disputes that such a tradition exists. They turned to the New Testament Holy Scripture, and nowhere did they find instructions that heretics could be accepted without rebaptism. On the contrary, everywhere one hears only strict condemnation of heresy. Even those cases that representatives of Roman practice could refer to as evidence in their favor were not included here: namely, here we could only talk about those persons who belonged to the church, then went over to heresy and then turned to the church again. d) Finally, representatives of the Roman church referred to their custom - consuetude. But Cyprian answered: custom, if truth is not on its side, is only an old error that must give way to truth (veritas praevaleat et vincat; nam consuetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est). In this way they settled in Africa with all the formal grounds and accidental motives for the action of the Roman Church. What is the dogma of both sides? a) Both Stephen and all his opponents equally recognized the fact that baptism is one and therefore unrepeatable. Cyprian protested strongly when he was accused of rebaptizing. “We don’t re-baptize, we baptize.” According to Stephen, one must reason in this way: since baptism is non-repeatable, then one who has received correct baptism in a sectarianism should not be baptized again when he converts to the church. Cyprian, on the contrary, reasoned differently: since baptism is one, it is either among heretics or in the church. If the baptism performed by heretics is correct, the church itself has no baptism. And since the church must have that baptism that is one, then, consequently, the baptism of heretics cannot be considered baptism. b) In the dispute between the Roman and Carthaginian bishops, two equally high principles collided. The point of view on which Stephen stood can be designated as a Christian-dogmatic, Christian-theological point. The basis of Stephen's views was the idea of ​​the greatness of what Christianity brought into the world. Christianity has brought such high benefits to humanity that they do not lose their value, no matter in whose hands they are, even in the hands of unworthy ones. Even in sectarian societies, the Christian faith must have its certain effectiveness, its somewhat sacred power. Cyprian had a different point of view; this point can be called a church point. The Bishop of Carthage was a decisive and remarkable defender of church unity. He taught that the church is not only one (una), but also unique (unica). As true, it must embrace all churches as their natural and normal union. As the only one, the church thereby believes that besides itself there is no other church and that what is not in the church is not the church. Cyprian understood the importance of union with the church so highly that, for example, he did not recognize sectarian martyrs who suffered for their faith in Christ as confessors. For them, even baptism with blood was not effective: “He cannot have God as his Father who does not have the church as his mother,” Cyprian reasoned both in his treatise “On the Unity of the Church” and in his polemic with Stephen over the issue of baptism of heretics. Looking at everything surrounding the church as not the church, Cyprian ignored any difference in what existed outside the church. In essence, he who is not in Christ is against Christ; he who does not gather scatters (Luke 11:23). Therefore, all sectarians, whether heretics or schismatics, appeared to him in an equally dark form. He knows for everyone only the name “adversarii Domini et antichristi” (“opponents of the Lord and antichrist”). He doesn’t even want to recognize the difference between them, as Christians and pagans, referring in this case to Matthew 10:5–6. When Christ sent the apostles to preach, he gave them the commandment: “Do not go into the way of the pagans and do not enter the city of the Samaritans, but go especially to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Here the Samaritans are apparently placed on the same level as the pagans. The Samaritans represented the Jewish sect, schism, or heresy. Consequently, for Christ, every sectarian, schismatic, heretic must be the same as a pagan. He who is not in the church must be to the church as a pagan and a tax collector. It is clear how Cyprian, taking such a point of view, could talk about everything that is happening among the heretics. Everything they do is untenable and false. The church should not give its approval to any of their actions, therefore baptism performed by heretics does not cleanse, but only defiles. c) And Cyprian, like Stephen, of course, recognized that ideal concretum of Christian life, which is described in the words of the apostle: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:5). But given the historical conditions, Stefan looked at the matter practically and did not allow his gaze to be clouded by any polemical prejudices. For him, the question was raised about what to do in those cases where “there is one Lord and one faith,” but not one church? Which side should we place “one baptism” here? Without going into any exaggeration of the views of the renegades, Stephen admitted that heretics possess, in any case, such a high good as faith in God, in the Trinity. Therefore, the baptism performed by heretics in the name of the Holy Trinity must be recognized as correct. Thus, the grace of baptism, according to Stephen, follows faith; starting from faith, you can come to relative grace. According to Cyprian, one must start not from faith, but from the church. Before even asking the question whether heretics have baptism, one must ask whether they have a church; if there is no church, then there is no baptism. But even such a formulation of the matter as Stephen accepted, that is, there is one Lord, one faith, but not one church, Cyprian did not want to allow. He was disposed, however, to insist that with such a division, grace would follow the church, because all those blessings that are given in Christ are given only in the church and for the church. He refers to the fact that the unity of faith in this case does not save, and pointed as an example to the separation of Korah, Dathan and Abiron from the Old Testament church. They held the same faith in the one true God, they wanted to serve the same Jehovah, but they retreated from the church and for this they were swallowed up by the earth. All sectarians stand in the same attitude towards the church. But Cyprian even disputed the thesis that sectarians have unity of faith and unity of worship of the true God. He found that everything that is done by the heretics, no matter how much it resembles the church, has only an apparent similarity. There can be no talk of unity of faith between sectarians and the church, because there cannot be a single symbol of faith. At their baptism, Novatians must ask the person being baptized: “Do you believe in the forgiveness of sins and eternal life through the holy church?” - the person being baptized answers: “Yes.” But this answer is incorrect, because the sectarians themselves do not own the church; they therefore undertake to believe in what they do not have. d) But Cyprian went even further, and Stephen in this case made the controversy easier for him with one mistake. On the one hand, Stephen made an inaccurate expression, from which it seemed to follow that baptism performed only in the name of Christ, and not in the name of the Holy Trinity, should be considered valid. Cyprian categorically stated that baptism can only be performed in the name of the Trinity. Then Stefan went so far that he even recognized the baptism of the Marcionites, thus transferring his tolerance from schismatics to heretics, to sectarians, in any case, closely aligned with the Gnostics. But Cyprian argued that the content of the Marcionite faith can be similar only in phrases to the content of the teaching of the Catholic Church, with a deep difference, however, in the content itself. For example, the Marcionites, calling God the Father, did not recognize him at the same time as the Creator of the world. Their idea of ​​Christ is completely different, because the attitude of Christ to the Old Testament is different among the Marcionites and the Catholics. Firmilian of Caesarea argued in the same way that even among the Montanists, the dogmatic teaching about the Holy Trinity is different from the Catholic one. If we pose a further question: who is the Christ in whom the Montanists believe? - they must say: that Christ who sent the Comforter Spirit, manifested in Montana and his prophecies. Since the Catholic Church does not recognize these prophecies, it must admit that the Montanists do not believe in the Christ in whom the Catholic Church believes. With the help of such polemical stretches, of course, it would be possible to challenge the orthodoxy of the dogmatic doctrine of the Trinity even among the Novatians. For example, Dionysius of Alexandria allowed himself such a deduction that Novatian introduces a blasphemous teaching about God and slanderes our all-good Lord Jesus Christ, presenting Him as unmerciful. In this case, Stephen's view of schismatics is impartial. He did not think of discovering any differences that did not exist in reality between the teachings of sectarians and Catholics, which in the end were only tendentious conclusions. e) In order to establish his point of view as the only correct one, Cyprian gave the matter a much broader formulation. He developed a single question about baptism into a question about grace itself. Baptism, in his opinion, is composed of two sides, which cannot in any way be separated from one another, and it cannot be said that one side is effective and the other ineffective. In baptism, on the one hand, there is the person being baptized, who in Rome is recognized as being baptized correctly. But, on the other hand, in baptism the one who baptizes undoubtedly appears. Once we admit that the baptism of schismatics is correct in the first moment, we must assume that the one who baptizes baptizes correctly, and therefore we must admit that in schismatic societies there is a hierarchical succession, that grace exists there. And since there is hierarchical succession there, it is difficult to say what does not exist there. – In Rome they believed that schismatics could perform the sacrament of baptism, but those baptized by them must be confirmed again, hands must be laid on them in order to impart to them the grace of the Holy Spirit. But here they implicitly admit the most absurd assumption that the Holy Spirit is higher than Christ, that the one sent is higher than the one who sent. Where Christ is, there the Holy Spirit inseparably exists. He who can communicate grace in baptism can also communicate it in the laying on of hands (confirmatio). To be baptized, one must be regenerated by the Spirit, which requires not only water, but also the Spirit. Consequently, schismatics who perform baptism, if they perform it correctly, should be thought of as possessing the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it must be assumed that they can also perform correct confirmation. Then, during baptism, the person being baptized is anointed with oil, which is blessed on the altar. Therefore, assuming that the baptism of schismatics is correct, we must assume that they also have the correct altar, and in this case they have the ability to celebrate the correct Eucharist. Thus, the conclusion will be that among schismatics there is a correct hierarchical succession, therefore, the grace of ordination; they can perform not only baptism, but also confirmation, and they can also celebrate the Eucharist. Thus, the view that salvation is possible only in the church will be significantly shaken. What benefit can the church offer if sectarians can also have such benefits? - Based on this view, Firmilian of Cappadocia calls Stephen a defender of heretical baptism, an enemy of the church, more serious than the heretics and schismatics themselves. The latter, at least, turn to the church for its gifts, realizing their helplessness; Stephen denies them the grace they seek, and therefore defends the grace found among heretics and schismatics. f) Supporters of the Roman view emphasize the point that in matters such as the baptism of heretics, there is no need to pay attention to who baptizes, since the baptized person receives remission of sins in accordance with what he believes. aa) Cyprian could not agree with this for the reasons stated above (c, e): he was convinced that even perfect unity of faith does not save apostates from the church, and did not recognize the identity of faith among heretics and in the church. If heretics receive by faith, then they receive only what they believe in, and since they believe incorrectly, they cannot receive grace. For Cyprian it was certain that ubi veritas, ibi gratia. And since the truth is one and it is found only in the Catholic Church, then grace must also be one, and precisely that which is found in the Catholic Church. There can be no other grace, bb) Cyprian recognizes the mediation of a priest in baptism as such an essential, such an inevitable condition of baptism itself that it was far from indifferent to him who this mediator would be. How can he, he says on behalf of the council of 255, pray for the baptized sacerdos sacrilegus et peccator, a priest who has violated the laws of faith and a sinner, when it is written: “God does not listen to sinners, but whoever honors God and does His will listens to him” (John 9:31)? How can someone who has himself lost the Holy Spirit accomplish spiritual things? How can he give what he himself does not have? How can a dead person himself bring another to life? It is absolutely necessary that those who turn to the church be renewed and sanctified by the saints, for it is written: “Be holy, for I am holy, the Lord your God.” Here Cyprian already enters the slippery path of subjectivism in his views. True, he still adheres to such subjectivism, under which lies a strong objective ground: holy for him is he who belongs to the one holy church, who professes the Catholic faith. But the reasons he gives go further than his present goal. Whoever begins to talk about a sinful priest as incapable of performing hierarchical actions is in serious danger of moving from the basis of objective-church-dogmatic to the shaky foundation of subjective-personal morality. It must be added that with the same words of Scripture, Cyprian argued that two Spanish bishops (Martialis and Basilides), as libellatici, must certainly be defrocked, because they cannot pray for their flock and perform hierarchical actions for them. g) The practical conclusion from all these particular provisions in Cyprian sounds very categorical: enemies and antichrists have neither baptism nor grace, because they do not have a church; they are the same as the pagans; Those who come from them to the church must be baptized as unbaptized. This point must be adhered to strictly: to sacrifice anything here would mean, like Esau, to criminally renounce the rights of one’s church birthright. Roman practice shows in Christians a lack of zeal for the glory of God. Such tolerance is worse than Jewish rigidity, because the apostle says about the Jews that they have zeal for God, but the zeal is not according to reason (Rom. 10:2); Even this cannot be said about Christians who adhere to Roman practice. In his polemic against Roman practice, Cyprian referred to the following passages of Holy Scripture. Proverbs 9:17: “Stay away from strange waters, and do not drink from strange springs.” Jer.15:18: “I am like lying water, not faithful.” Sir.34:25: “Wash yourself from the dead man, and touch him again; what good does a bath do him?” (Actually, in the Carthaginian church these words were read in Latin in this way: “Whoever is baptized from the dead, what benefit does this washing have to him?” Qui bapti-zatur a mortuo, quid proficit lavatio ejus?) Ps.141:5: “Let not the oil of a sinner anoint my head.” Os.9:4: “Their demands (or sacrifices) are like bread of pity for them, so those who eat you will become defiled.” Numbers 16:26: “Depart from the booths of these hard-hearted men, and do not touch everyone who is dear to them, lest you perish altogether in all their sin.” The Donatist schism, which I connect with the previous dispute between Cyprian and Stephen, is of particular interest. He shows how dangerous the delusions of a genius are. The slightest mistake made in a brilliant argument sometimes consistently leads to discord, which the genius did not foresee, and to such consequences that it often takes a lot of effort to correct the genius’s mistake. No matter how brilliant Cyprian's views were, they were so extreme that the genius of Augustine was needed to neutralize and neutralize Cyprian's views. In Latin Africa, under the control of Maximian, there was and should have been persecution. Maximian was of such a cruel nature that Diocletian only had to hint at something cruel for Maximian to take up it with pleasure. Therefore, in Africa the persecution was carried out sharply, but, having flared up greatly, it soon died out and did not have the same significance as in the east. As soon as it began to subside, Christians began to take measures so as not to fan the fire. The head of the Carthaginian church was then Bishop Mensurius. The persecution in Africa received a special flavor mainly because they paid attention to sacred Christian books and demanded their burning. Mensurius held very moderate views, inspired by pastoral prudence, and did not consider it necessary to move from zealously standing for Christ into a direct challenge to the pagan persecutors, and used all possible measures to weaken the clash between Christians and the pagan authorities. He prevented the danger of issuing sacred books by placing heretical works in the basilica in which the search was supposed to be carried out, instead of sacred books, with which the pagan authorities were satisfied and did not consider it necessary to pursue the matter further when the substitution was discovered. Mensurius assumed that many African rigorists would rather disapprove of this measure. Therefore, he had correspondence on this issue with Secundus of Tigizi, a representative of the extreme rigoristic view. In his reply to Mensurius, Secundus condemned his practice with rather clear condemnation. He said that he did not even consider it possible to make such concessions, citing, to justify his severity, the example of Eleazar, who not only did not want to taste forbidden meat, but even refused meat offered to him, which was permitted by law, so as not to give reason to think that he was betraying his fatherly faith. Mensurius's attitude towards martyrdom in general was such that only the indignation of foolish rigorists could bring upon him. At that time, the pagan authorities of the West themselves tried to limit the number of Christian martyrdoms as much as possible. Therefore, there were, if not few, martyrs called to this feat by the course of inevitable circumstances, then, in any case, not as many as there were individuals taken into custody. In addition to the martyrs, out of necessity and, therefore, out of Christian duty, there were quite a few fanatics who, by their own declaration that they were Christians and would not fulfill the edict, caused the pagan authorities to order them to be taken into custody. There were people of even lower quality. It turns out that some rogues also joined the confessors, who considered it possible, under the guise of suffering for Christ, to get rid of the need to pay their debt obligations, or who hoped, at least for some time, to live happily in prisons at the expense of Christian charity, or even to get rich from this source. In view of such imaginary zealots for the name of Christ, Mensurius considered himself obliged to declare that persons who betray themselves to pagan power and are executed not for the name of Christ, but because they brought such execution upon themselves through some other circumstances, will not be considered martyrs by the Carthaginian church. This, of course, could only arouse displeasure against the bishop among those against whom this measure was directed. And since Cyprian’s experience showed that confessors can also cause great confusion in church discipline, Mensurius considered himself obliged to be on guard during relations between Christians and persons taken into custody. His zealous assistant was Archdeacon Caecilian. The later Donatists describe both in the most terrifying colors. Under their pen, Mensurius is more cruel than the executioners themselves, and Caecilian is his worthy assistant. This archdeacon allegedly placed several people armed with belts and whips at the entrance to the dungeons where the Christians were imprisoned. These guards took away the food they brought from the people who came to visit the confessors and even scattered it to the dogs. “Before the gates of the prisons, the fathers and mothers of the confessors lay and cried out to heaven for vengeance against those who do not even allow them to look at their children from afar and, thus, force them to spend days and sleepless nights at the threshold of the prison. A loud cry and bitter crying arose from everywhere because they did not allow the holy martyrs to be embraced and did not allow Christians to perform deeds of mercy, since the tyrant and cruel executioner Caecilian was rampant.” It is very likely that there is some grain of truth in this whole story, especially since, according to other news, Caecilian seems to have a very decisive character and is capable of taking quite drastic measures. But overall this story undoubtedly suffers from gross exaggeration. Thus, even before the emergence of the schism against Mensurius and Caecilian, there was discontent in Carthage and other places, caused by the attitude of both of them towards the confessors. When the persecution completely died down, an unpleasant matter fell upon Mensurius. A libel (epistola famosa) against Maxentius was spread in Carthage. Suspicion of its authorship fell on Deacon Felix, who was hiding in the house of Mensurius. Mensurius resolutely refused to hand over this deacon to the authorities, and he himself, summoned to trial before the emperor in Rome, went there, acquitted himself, but died on the way back, and thus the Carthaginian see became vacant 28 . Going to Rome on this dangerous trip, which was associated with the danger of being executed for harboring a libelant, Mensurius decided to take the last measures depending on him, as a bishop, regarding the protection of church property, which he transferred to two trusted persons, presbyters (seniores) Botru and Celestius. After the death of Mensurius, a wide variety of movements appeared in Carthage. These two persons intended to conduct the matter in such a way that the transfer of property would be carried out secretly and part of the property could be appropriated for themselves. But Caecilian was well acquainted with both Mensurius himself and the property. Thus, these two persons were tempted to form a society dissatisfied with Caecilian. A significant part of Carthaginian Christians elected Archdeacon Caecilian to succeed Mensurius. But there were many dissatisfied with him, who launched their attack against him. They began relations with the Numidian bishops, headed by Secundus of Tigisis. These bishops considered all so-called traditors to be absolutely incapable of performing hierarchical actions. However, the supporters of Mensurius had reason to think that the stern Numidian rigorists were stricter towards others than towards themselves. They pointed to the protocol of the council in Cirtus (305), the authenticity of which has not been thoroughly refuted by either the Donatists or modern science, from which it is clear that when Secundus decided to clear the Numidian episcopate of those suspected of treason at this council, it turned out that almost the majority of the Numidian bishops were under this suspicion. One of them, in response to Secundus’s accusation, answered him with a decisive statement that he himself, Secundus, suspected that he hardly got off so easily from the demands of the pagan authorities, as he himself says. The meeting became so stormy that Secundus decided to hand over the affairs of everyone to the court of God. This did not in the least prevent him from remaining a zealous persecutor of all traditions and a representative of the strictest church discipline in relation to the fallen. The Carthaginian Christians, dissatisfied with Caecilian, who was designated as the Carthaginian bishop, entered into relations with persons of these convictions. Apparently, fearing a serious clash with the dissatisfied, Caecilian's party wanted to speed up his consecration. Surprisingly, at the same time as Caecilian’s supporters, the mentioned Carthaginian presbyters acted in the same direction, who themselves had plans for the see and hoped that their plans would be more likely to succeed if the question of replacing the see remained a domestic matter in Carthage. Thus, it was decided to invite the bishops closest to Carthage to the council for consecration. They were led by Felix of Aptung, who consecrated Caecilian. After the consecration, Secundus appeared with his 70 Numidian bishops and took the side of those dissatisfied with Caecilian. One wealthy Carthaginian widow, Lucilla, received these Numidian bishops with special zeal. She had reason to be dissatisfied with Caecilian even personally. While still an archdeacon and by this title obliged to supervise the persons in the church, he once seriously reproached Lucilla for the fact that, according to her custom, before receiving the Holy Mysteries, she kissed the bone of some dubious martyr. Caecilian, apparently, even threatened her with deprivation of church communion if she did not abandon this custom. The offended rich bigot became an implacable enemy of the archdeacon and began especially zealously to agitate with the Numidian bishops. Caecilian's attempt to establish relations with his brothers who arrived from Numidia turned out to be useless. The Numidians argued that Caecilian's consecration was invalid, since it was performed by the traditor Felix of Aptung, because a person who has stained himself with apostasy can only communicate a curse, and not a blessing. Caecilian decided on a desperate measure, even completely incredible for our modern concepts. He sent to tell the Numidian bishops that if they did not recognize his ordination as valid, then they would deign to recognize him as a simple deacon and, as such, let them consecrate him themselves. Caecilian wanted to satisfy with this the Numidian bishops, who were offended by the fact that the consecration was hastened without their primate, and who argued that it should have been “ut princeps a principe ordinaretur” (“that the primate should be ordained by the primate”). Hearing about this proposal of Caecilian, one of the Numidian bishops, Purpurius, expressed the most immoderate joy. “Let him just come to us,” he said, “and bow his head for ordination: pierce his head as a sign of repentance - and that’s the end of the matter.” But having learned about such a plan against Caecilian, all the Catholics restrained him and did not allow him to appear to such “robbers.” The Numidian bishops formed a council against him and summoned him to trial, and when he did not appear, they declared him deposed and excommunicated in absentia. For the good gift offered by Lucilla, they elected and consecrated as bishop the Carthaginian reader Majorinus, who was a domestic friend (domesticus) of Lucilla. Thus, there were two bishops in Carthage, and a schism appeared in the African church. “Quassetur ei caput de poenitentia,” that is, lay your hand on him as a penitent. Having reduced Caecilian of Carthage to the position of a penitent, the Numidian bishops would have deprived him of even the diaconate and would have made him, of course, incapable of accepting a clergy position. The documents containing information about this [Gesta apud Zenophilum - protocol of the investigation by the consular of Numidia Zenophilus in 320 of the case of the apostasy of Bishop Silvanus of Cirta] are the most picturesque monuments depicting church life in Africa. Data about the bribery of Lucilla have also been preserved. When it became known that Lucilla had been bribed with money, the Numidian bishops explained that she had made a donation for the poor out of joy. But an interrogation was made in time, and it turned out that although the money was in the church, no one declared that Lucilla was donating from her generosity, so even though this money was really donated to the poor, it would not have reached them. Very little time passed before this division, under the influence of other circumstances, took on a special coloring. Emperor Constantine at that time provided especially generous assistance to the Christian churches. During the previous, albeit brief, persecution of Maximian, these churches were destroyed, and part of Constantine’s bounty was allocated for their restoration. The Christians of Africa also widely took advantage of his graces, but only in those decrees with which these graces were accompanied, all those who did not belong to the Catholic Church were decisively excluded from using them. Constantine had a very unflattering opinion of the Donatists in particular, recognizing them as fanatics and civilly restless people. Having learned about the contents of the decree, the Donatists felt especially affected and did not want to be condemned without trial. To the proconsul of Africa they presented a petition addressed to the emperor and a whole pile of various documents that needed to be sent with this petition *. Petition of the Donatists (Optat. I, 22) to Constantine the Great, submitted earlier on April 15, 313 (Rogamus te, – quoniam de genere justo es, cujus pater persecutionem non exercuit, et ab hoc facinore immunis est Gallia – de Gallia nobis judices dari. – Datae a Lucanio – et ceteris episcopis partis Donati (“We ask you, since you are from an honest family and your father did not commit persecution, so that Gaul does not know this crime, to give us judges from Gaul. Submitted by Lucian and other bishops, supporters of Donatus”), there is an important document recognized for forgery by D. VolterOu (Der Unsprung des Donatismus. Freiburg 1883, S. 138) and O. Seec with'om (Quellen und Urkunden iiber die Anfange des Donatismus, in Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, B.X, 1889, S. 550–551) - on the I (“decisive”) basis that it was submitted from the pars Donati, whereas in 313 the Donatists were called (in the official document of April 15, 313, in which the proconsul forwarded them complaint with its documentary grounds to Constantine) “pars Majorini” and II, on the (additional) basis that “it is inexplicable why among the petitioners there is no name of either Majorinus or Secundus of Tigizi (Seek’s conclusion), this petition is “eine so kindliche Falschung”, that Optat is not capable of such a “Machwerk”, and, therefore, the forgery was not committed by Optat, - 1) Criticism focuses only on appearance, without touching the very content of the petition. 2) The “decisive” (1st) basis is eliminated by the fact that “Donati” can also be a later gloss, placed in the text (from the margin) in the place of the original “Majorini”. 3) If the circumstance indicated in the 2nd motive is “inexplicable,” then a) it is just as inexplicable as at the Council of Rome on October 2, 313 and, apparently, at the Council of Arles, the Donatist cause is defended not by Majorinus or Secundus, but by Donatus de Casa Nigra (named by name in Roman acts); equally, b) that the main fighter for Donatism at the Carthaginian conference in 411. is Petilian of Constantinia, and not Primian of Carthaginia (this latter is only nachtraglich chosen among the interlocutors); however, both a) and b) are undoubted facts. 4) In reality, the “inexplicable” is not difficult to explain, a) Majorinus is nothing more than a “reader” and “domesticus Lucillae”, he turned out to be a Carthaginian bishop only through the patronage of this rich bigot and he probably did not deserve her favor because of his high mental talents, and therefore was not suitable for fighting for the cause of the Donatists, b) Among the reasons why the authenticity of the (unextant) acts of the council Numidians in 311 or 312. is recognized as doubtful, such an objection appears. Optat says: among these 70 bishops were “omnes supramemorati traditores” (“all the above-mentioned traitors”), who participated in the council in Cirta on March 5, 305; “it is very strange (sehr auftallig) that the members of one council in full strength appear at another council 6-7 years later,” αα). But even admitting that “omnes” here is quite accurate, this strangeness is significantly reduced if we Let us remember that in Cirta in 305 there were only 10 resp. 11 bishops, including 4 resp. 7 “traditores”; if out of 7-10 people no one fell ill and died, this is not strange. already in March 305, the former primas, i.e. senex Numidiae, i.e. the oldest by consecration, and probably also by years, bishop in all of Numidia (where there were then at least 70 bishops). If in 313 Secundus was alive, then pars Majorini had reason to spare the venerable old man from the sea voyage. 5) But since Donatus a Casa Nigra, according to Augustine, even at the time when Caecilian was a deacon, who organized a schism in Carthage, is undoubtedly the leader of the Donatists at the Roman Council of 313, then the most basic position of Völter-Seek, that in 313 they constituted the pars Majorini, becomes doubtful; and therefore it is also possible that even then pars Majorini was also called “pars Donati”, and Optatus retained this second name. [Seek continues to hold the opinion of the inauthenticity of the document in question even today, in the article Urkundenfalschun-gen des 4. Jahrhunderts in Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, B. XXX, 1909. S. 214–216, disagreeing with Duchenne’s defense of it]. Supporters of Majorin (pars Majorini) asked Constantine to be fair towards them. Since in Africa there is a dispute about who should rightfully belong to the name of the Catholic Church, the petitioners petition to be given Gallic bishops as judges in this dispute, motivating this choice by the fact that during the persecution Gaul was under the rule of Constantius Chlorus, who did not persecute Christians; there could not be traditionalists there, and, therefore, judges from there could be completely impartial. This petition was received by Constantine in 313, when he was in Gaul. He satisfied the petitioners and appointed three Gallic bishops, Rheticius of Autun, Maternus of Cologne and Marinus of Arles, who were to go to a council in Rome, and there, under the chairmanship of the Bishop of Rome, together with other Italian bishops, decide the matter. Representatives of both parties were summoned from Africa. The Council (October 2–4, 313 in Laterano) decided the matter in favor of Caecilian. But the sectarians, as could easily be expected, did not admit that they were satisfied with the solution to this issue. They emphasized 1) that the decision was pronounced by only a few bishops (the council consisted of 19 members and 21 litigants), 2) that one important document for resolving this issue was not taken into account, and in addition 3) the council was convened too hastily, so that a preliminary investigation in Africa could not be carried out at that time and the factual side of the matter was not established. Constantine respected this request and gave the order to the civil authorities to carry out the necessary investigation on the spot on the points that Majorin’s supporters pointed out. This already looked like a reductio ad absurdum of this entire sectarian movement. Things took a very strange direction. People who claimed to be especially the church of saints gave it such a setting that in the most sacred question of the religious-Christian conscience, the decisive voice was that of a simple pagan, who could even be hostile to Christians. The question was: Was Felix of Aptung a traditionalist or not? And to resolve this question, the pagan authorities were brought into the investigation, holding various positions at the time in which the alleged treachery of this Felix approximately falls. The pagan Aptung priest and some other officials were interrogated; The outcome of Felix's case depended on the integrity of their testimony. The proconsul Aelian, who presided over the trial and carried out this investigation, declared Felix completely justified from suspicion of treason (February 15, 315). The entire accusation was based on one letter that the Donatists had from a pagan duumvir*, who supposedly with this letter certified Felix of Aptung that the books of the Holy Scriptures, betrayed to them, had already been burned. As the investigation showed, this letter was written under strange circumstances. One person (Ingentius), personally dissatisfied with Felix, decided to accuse him of treason, came to the duumvir during dinner, when he was obviously not in the mood for an investigation, and begged the latter to write this letter; Felix allegedly wanted to appropriate the books he had hidden for himself, citing the fact that they had been burned. The structure of cities was municipal. At the head of the administration were persons corresponding to the size of the population, so there were quatuorvirs, triumvirs and duumvirs. Meanwhile, a second council was convened in Gaul itself, in Arles, under the chairmanship of the same Marin of Arles, who was also present at the Roman Council. The council was scheduled for August 1, 314. After investigating the case, here too the decision was made in favor of Caecilian. His outstanding accusers were deprived of their episcopal rank, and other sectarians were deprived of fellowship until they converted to the Catholic Church. Seeing that the second decision of the church court was not in their favor, the sectarians began to petition Constantine so that he would decide the matter with his own authority. The emperor, who wanted to see people of a more ideal direction in Christianity, was outraged by this demand. “What madness to demand judgment from a person who himself awaits the judgment of Christ! The court of the priests (sacerdotum) should be viewed as the court of God Himself,” said the emperor. But the renegades (now no longer pars Majorini, but pars Donati, Donatists, named after Majorinus’ successor, Donatus the “great”) 29 knew how to find representatives at court who explained to Constantine that it was not safe to refuse the request of such fanatical people, so Constantine decided to pronounce judgment and pronounced it (November 10, 316) not in favor of the Donatists. But in view of maintaining peace in Africa, it was decided to detain Caecilian in Brescia (Brixia), and Donatus, having been allowed to return to Africa, was forbidden to live in Carthage *. But when news was received that Donatus had returned to Carthage without permission, Caecilian was also released there. The emperor issued strict laws against the Donatists. But the persecution only caused even more serious agitation among the sectarians. News from Optatus (I, 26) about the delay of Caecilian Brixiae and the mission of Constantine “episcoporum Olympii et Eunomii”, which “apud Carthaginem fuerunt per dies quadraginta, ut pronuntiarent, ubi esset catholica” (“were in Carthage 40 days to report when it would become catholic”), Seek (Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, B. X, 1889, S. 562–566) recognizes it as inauthentic due to the inconsistency with what we reliably know about the course of events between the Council of Rome and the Council of Arles. Optat places these events precisely in this period of time. But one must think that Optatus is mistaken on this (and only on this chronological) issue. If we place these events after November 10, 316 until May 5, 321, then there will be no inconsistencies, and the analogy of Constantine’s attitude towards Caecilian with the reliably known attitude of the emperor (in 336) towards Athanasius the Great speaks for the reliability of the news. [Seek also defends his previous opinion in Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte, B. XXX, 1909, S. 216–220]. Finally, in 321, they turned to the emperor with a request to leave them alone and allow them to enjoy the rights of religious freedom that they had enjoyed before, and about their fall from the church, the Donatists declared that no force in the world would force them to enter into church communion “antistiti ipsius nebuloni.” The emperor granted this request and canceled the laws directed against the Donatists. In this regard, Constantine was so consistent that he did not allow himself reprisals against the Donatists even when their insolence was out of the ordinary. They destroyed the church built by Constantine in Africa for the Orthodox. The emperor decided to restore the church at his own expense rather than face fanatical sectarians. The extent to which the fanatics were strong at that time can be judged by the fact that in 330 there were 270 Donatist bishops. This sect remained a positively African sect 30. All other churches recognized Caecilian as the Carthaginian bishop. Only for Rome did the sectarians of Africa install their own bishop, who with his flock gathered outside the city in some cave. They made an attempt to penetrate into Spain. The Donatists remained unpersecuted by the civil authorities until 348. At that time, the Western Emperor Constans came up with the idea of ​​​​trying to appease the sectarians and encourage them to enter into church communion through mercy. But at this time the sectarians especially clearly showed their fanaticism and entered into close communication with the party of the so-called circumcellions. It is unknown when these people appeared in Africa. But in history they are mentioned for the first time in connection with the events of 345. Judging by all the data, the circumcellions represent a perversion of ascetic society. The Donatists themselves compared them to Christian monks. These were people who, under the pretext of supreme perfection, had lagged behind, according to Blessed Augustine, from all useful work. They came from the darkest, lowest strata of the common people and usually did not understand any other language than Punic. These were the descendants of the same tribe from which Hannibal came, who for 9 years swore to be an enemy of the Romans and fulfilled this until his death - that tribe that in ancient times amazed with its refined torment those who came to them (the death of Regulus), which sacrificed their children to the gods. The circumcellions were distinguished by the same tenacity and cruelty. Both in their life practice and in their ideals, the circumcellions could reflect in themselves only the full measure of the shortcomings of the dark common people. With clubs in their hands, they wandered around the huts (circum cellas) and obtained food for themselves, either by alms or by robbery. These clubs had a religious and symbolic meaning for them, and they called them “Israel” and carried them in memory of the rods that the Jews held in their hands when they ate Passover for the first time in Egypt. With such weapons, fanatical crowds represented a dangerous force in the political sense. For the time being, they declared themselves only with a wild desire for martyrdom. In the days of Augustine, if the pagans celebrated any holiday, the circumcellions attacked them with the hope, in which they were very rarely deceived, that they would be killed for their faith. And indeed, they were killed very often. If there was not such a plausible excuse for suffering for the faith, then the circumcellions did not think about other methods. Sometimes they attacked armed travelers and threateningly demanded that they kill them, and if they refused, they threatened to beat them to death with their clubs. Sometimes the circumcellions attacked the visiting provincial commanders, the so-called judices, and threateningly demanded that they give the order to the soldiers accompanying them or the executioners to execute them. There was a case where one judex deceived them; he ordered the soldiers accompanying him to tie them up as if for execution and, leaving them tied up, left. If it was impossible to die at the hands of any other person, the circumcellions threw themselves into the water or the fires they had built. This kind of death seemed to them like a joke, which they performed almost every day. They believed that this fulfilled the words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 13:3: “I will give up my body to be burned.” Around 345, some Donatist bishops "set fire to their madness." Under the leadership of the “leaders of the saints”, Fazir and Aksid, they formed a gang and began their anti-social activities. They forcibly freed the slaves, and the creditors then considered themselves lucky if they got off only by breaking the debt obligations of the proteges of circumcellions. If a slave who ran away from his master came under their protection, the very life of the masters remained unsafe. When they met a cart on the road in which the masters were traveling, accompanied by their servants, the circumcellions ordered the slaves to get into the cart, and the masters were forced to run ahead, like lackeys. They sent some honorable persons from the noble class to the mills and forced them to turn the millstones. Thus, violence, murders, and arson terrified all of Numidia and Mauritania, and the civil authorities finally categorically demanded that the Donatist bishops put an end to the violence of the circumcellions. But the bishops, in turn, answered: “What can the church do with such robbers?” - and asked the civil authorities for help. Then the commander Tavrin in 345 sent several detachments of armed soldiers, who destroyed and scattered several bands of circumcellions. For the first time, the Donatist bishops themselves were happy with this outcome to such an extent that they strictly forbade giving any church honors to these murdered; but subsequently the Donatists pointed to the stone slabs lying on the graves of the dead as monuments to martyrs. The detachments sent against the circumcellions could not destroy them all, and in the days of bl. For Augustine, this gang remained the same monster, capable of any atrocity. For example, they cut out the tongue of one bishop who voluntarily joined the Catholic Church, gouged out the eyes of another presbyter and cut off his fingers, drove the third out of his home and kept him in their crowd with all kinds of torture for 12 days and then released him only by chance; Finally, they blinded one presbyter with refined cruelty: they placed quicklime on his eyes and poured vinegar on it. “Deo laudes” (“Praise God”) - the fighting slogan of the circumcellions - became more terrible for the villagers in Numidia than the roar of a lion. Augustine gives the following general description of this gang. “This is a gathering of restless people, terrible in their crimes, lagging behind all useful work: in the most cruel way they kill others and take their own lives, as if they were worthless things (genus crudelissimum in mortibus alienis, vilissimum in suis). What they do to us, they do not consider themselves responsible for, and what they do to themselves is made our responsibility. They live like robbers, die like circumcellions, and are honored like martyrs.” Indeed, these bands always represented a particularly honorable class in the Donatist Church. This is the kind of people with whom the Donatist bishops entered into an alliance in 348. When Paul and Macarius appeared with gifts from the emperor and introduced themselves to the Carthaginian bishop of the sectarians Donatus, he rudely asked: what does the emperor have to do with the church (quid est imperatori ad ecclesiam)? To such an extent the sectarians, who once sought the court of the emperor as a higher authority than the court of the council of bishops, have now changed their view. Then Donatus, according to his custom, showered the messengers with all sorts of curses and ordered that they be notified through a herald so that no one would dare accept mercy from the emperor. In turn, other bishops (Donat of Bagai) began to prepare to fight the emperor’s messengers. At fairs, it was ordered to shout a cry and invite all circumcellions to stand up for the faith. The appeal did not remain in vain. Whole gangs armed with clubs appeared, who seriously prepared to withstand even a long-term siege, and made huge reserves of grain. The Circumcellions were the first to attack the convoy of soldiers accompanying Macarius and Paul, but were defeated by regular force. Then came the so-called “tempora Macariana”, with which the Donatists later reproached the Catholics. Forced onto the defensive for self-defense, the soldiers went on the offensive. The leaders of the gang were partly captured, partly fled, four Donatists were executed by death, some others were exiled, including Donatus the Great himself, who died in exile. The Donatist basilicas were transferred to the Catholics; Of course, this was not without violence. In 349, at the Council of Carthage, the destruction of the Donatist schism was officially announced, and the Catholic bishops unanimously thanked God for the unity to take place. But the schism actually continued to exist. When Julian became emperor in 361, the sectarians, who were especially exalted in their Christian holiness and purity, now turned with flattering requests to this apostate from Christianity. The Donatists appealed to the high justice that animated the emperor, asking him to return civil rights and freedom to them. Julian, of course, granted this request without the slightest difficulty. With the decree of the emperor, the Donatists came to Africa and, like a hurricane, swept through Numidia and Mauritania. In some places the Donatists massacred Catholics, so that the Church counts several martyrs from this time in its martyrologies. The taken away churches underwent a kind of cleansing. Holy gifts, if found, were thrown to dogs; the myrrh was thrown away. The very walls, desecrated by the presence of the “traitors,” were now being re-plastered; the thrones were either broken if they were wooden, or their surface was scraped off. Having thus cleared the buildings, the Donatists began to cleanse the faces. Everyone who had been in contact with the “traitors” was now subjected to repentance (poenitentia), often even infants. The ancient church, even for serious crimes, only deprived bishops of their rank, but always left them in church communion with the rights of laity (communio laica), guided by the rule that they should not be punished twice for one crime. But here the Donatists did not allow communion with the bishops and relegated them to the category of penitents. In order, finally, to better expel the grace of initiation that they received from the “traitors,” the Donatists shaved their heads. In general, their fanaticism towards Catholics at that time knew no bounds. They treated their opponents no longer as a Christian society, but as completely unbelievers. Usually fanatical sectarians addressed the Catholics with the following words: “Hey, Kai Sei, you are a good person, but you will perish: be a Christian.” The Donatists forced Catholics who approached them to ask the question: “Who are you?” answer: “Paganus sum,” and then they were baptized again. In general, the rebaptism of everyone among the Donatists became their usual practice. Julian's reign was short-lived. The Christian emperors who replaced him had to take measures to limit the wild arbitrariness of the sectarians. They were forced to this not only by religious jealousy, but also by their duties as sovereigns. The Donatists had to be limited in order to give the Catholics the opportunity to at least breathe freely in those places where the Donatists predominated. The restrictive laws of the emperors were accompanied by a significant number of conversions of sectarians to the church, and this is explained not by the pressure of power alone, which can always cause such a phenomenon, but simply by the fact that many who lived among the Donatists had long been convinced of the inconsistency of their religious society and did not dare to join the Catholic Church simply because they were sure that if they had said even one word in favor of the Catholics, their houses would have been immediately destroyed. But the temporary freedom granted to the Donatists gave the result that the sectarians themselves divided into new sects, hostile to each other. Thus, urbanenses, claudianistae, rogatistae (against circumcelliones), maximianistae appeared. The most important in its significance was the Maximianist sect. After the death of the Carthaginian Donatist bishop Parmenian, Primian was installed as bishop in 392, who soon excommunicated the arrogant deacon Maximian due to his relationship with the “great” Donatus. The latter appealed to the court of the closest bishops, who, among 43, came to Carthage, but were met with hostility and violence from Primian and referred the matter to the court of a large council. On June 24, 393, up to 100 bishops of this party gathered in Kabarsussi, deposed Primian in absentia, appointed Maximian as his successor and determined a six-month period in which the bishops and clergy of the Primianists could enter into communion with Maximian without being defrocked, and the laity not per poenitentiam. A council of 310 Primianist bishops in Bagai on April 24, 394, in turn, declared Maximian and his ordainers defrocked and assigned the renegades an eight-month period for unity with Primian: after this time, those who returned faced defrocking and poenitentia. The bishops were delighted with the abuses with which this decree showered the Maximianists, comparing them with Korah, Dathan and Abiron. The triumphant party acted against the Maximianists either by legal coercion (they turned to the court of judices, sometimes even pagans, and on the basis of imperial decrees against heretics they received police assistance against the Maximianists), or by lynching and violence (the heralds announced: “whoever enters into communication with Maximian, his house will be set on fire”). If these methods undermined the moral cause of the Donatists, then both decrees, the Kabarsusite and the Baghai, undermined the dogmatic ground on which these sectarians had previously stood: de facto it was assumed that the action of grace does not cease even outside of what is recognized as the exclusively true church. But the triumph of the Catholics was complete when, on December 25, 394, the Primianists accepted into their communion two Maximianist bishops in the episcopal rank and baptized by them in a state of excommunication - without rebaptism. The Catholic Church, trying to protect itself from the violence of the Donatists by imperial edicts, at the same time took its own measures to reunite the renegades. For example, in 401, the Donatists decided not to consider baptism an obstacle for those who applied to occupy clergy positions in the Catholic Church; returning Donatist bishops and clergy, especially if they brought their flock with them, were accepted in their “real” rank. The famous Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, tried to influence the Donatists through persuasion. This was a very difficult task. The Donatists were afraid of debates with the “dialectician,” as they called Augustine, who was superior to them both in talent and education, and avoided those meetings organized by Augustine. The extent to which the Donatists did not like such meetings can be judged by the fact that when one Donatist bishop was demanded at the council, he first threw himself into the water, and when he was pulled out of the water, he tried to fall in such a way that he could no longer move and was left alone. However, in 406, some Donatist bishops expressed a desire to discuss the issue dividing them from the Catholics at a joint conference. The Orthodox bishops, of course, were very happy about this outcome. Therefore, in 409 and 410, a deputation was sent from the Council of Carthage to Emperor Honorius with a request that the Donatists, who avoided a public interview, be ordered to appear in Carthage for a public discussion of the religious issue. The imperial decree in this sense took place. Honorius appointed the tribune and notary Marcellinus as arbitrator. In 411, exactly 100 years after the start of the Donatist schism, the “collatio Carthageniensis”, the Carthaginian conference, took place. 286 Catholic and 279 Donatist bishops gathered in Carthage. We previously discussed measures by which an agreement could be reached more accurately. Every effort was made to obtain documents that were extremely reliable. Since with such a large number of people present it was not possible for everyone to take part in the interviews, it was decided to appoint a special commission to conduct the debate. Both sides chose 7 bishops to conduct the debate, 7 bishops to help them (consiliarii), 4 bishops cus-todes chartarum (“custodians of papers”), and finally, 2 notaries to record the debate. For complete reliability of the recording, it was decided that each of the interlocutors check what he said and affix his signature to each of his remarks. In the instructions given to their representatives for conducting the dispute, the Catholics made concessions to the Donatists on certain advantages. They agreed that if the Donatists proved that they were right in their deviation from the Catholic Church, that is, that the true church exists only among the Donatists, all Catholic bishops would be defrocked and accepted into communion with the true Church as laymen. On the contrary, if it is proven to the Donatists that the true church exists only among the Catholics, then the Donatists, if they wish to return to communion with it, will retain both their rank and their sees. If the bishop were not followed by his flock, he would still share the see with the Catholic bishop of his city. And the Donatists, for their part, prepared for the dispute, but in their own way. Those authorized by the Donatists made the most conscientious efforts to ensure that, if it was impossible to prevent the dispute from taking place, then at least to ensure that its results were as insignificant as possible. Among the authorized Catholics, they were distinguished according to the degree of dogmatic knowledge and the extent of the participation that they took in the interview: Augustine of Hippo, undoubtedly the most important of them, then Aurelius of Carthage, Alypius of Tagast, a personal friend of Augustine, and Fortunian of Sicca. On the part of the Donatists, Petilian of Constantinius prevailed in the debate and was then given out as Emeritus of Caesarea. The Donatist representatives tried to slow things down as much as possible. The first meeting of the conference took place on June 1, 411. This meeting the Donatists successfully reduced to zero for the very subject on which they were assembled. When the letter authorizing the deputies from the Catholic bishops was read, the Donatists wanted to verify the authenticity of the signatures, and whether the signatories really gave their consent to the dispute. This appearance of almost 286 bishops and the certification of their identities by their Donatist rivals took a lot of time. The reading of the Donatist charter was followed by a similar presentation by some 279 bishops of their party, and thus the day ended. This meeting is interesting from a statistical point of view: 286 bishops were present at the meeting, 120 bishops were absent, 64 sees were widowed at this time, and thus the composition of the episcopate of the African Church was 470 bishops. The next meeting, scheduled for June 3, did not take place because the Donatists refused to debate, since the minutes of the first meeting were not compiled and revised. Finally, the last, third meeting was on June 8. The Donatists followed the same tactics here too. They demanded that the petition of the Catholics be presented to the emperor, in response to which the aforementioned edict was given, in order to know whether all the Catholics wanted the conference and what motivated it. The Donatists stood on this demand for a very long time, and they had to give them the answer more than once that this demand was not relevant. Further, Petilian tried, with the dexterity of a quibble-maker, to reject the interview on the grounds that the deadline appointed for him had apparently been missed. Petilian then demanded that the Catholics decide in advance whether they would argue only on the basis of Holy Scripture, or only on the basis of imperial laws (respective of historical documents). Catholics had to prove the inconsistency of this dilemma for a long time (on the basis of the Holy Scriptures it was impossible to prove that Felix was not a traditionalist; on the basis of the laws it was impossible to establish the signs of the true church). Finally, arguments arose over the question of who was the plaintiff and who was the defendant at the conference. After all these extremely long circumlocutions, which showed a good acquaintance with Roman law, it finally came to investigating the main issue; namely, on the basis of the Holy Scriptures they decided where the true Church of Christ was: among the Catholics or among the Donatists. Then they moved on to the question of whether Caecilian of Carthage was convicted and whether Felix of Aptuna was a traitor. The meeting continued until late at night. One can get an idea of its duration from the fact that its protocols consisted of 587 so-called prosecutiones, i.e. 587 times the participants took the floor, and also from the fact that Petilian spoke so much that in the end he lost his voice (prosecutio 541, ubi Petilianus - impedimento raucedinis agere se non posse testatur, speech 541, when Petilian testifies that he cannot speak due to hoarseness). Marcellinus, as the emperor's commissioner, declared the Donatists defeated in the debate. The Donatists were not satisfied with this decision, saying that Marcellinus was bribed by the Catholics. In any case, their goal was partially achieved. They were not able to resolve the dispute, but they achieved that the protocols turned out to be a huge volume, so that few could copy such a code and not everyone had the patience to read it to the end. Therefore, in order not to lose the fruits of this dispute, the Catholics (Marcellinus, Augustine) were forced to draw up abbreviations of acts, the so-called breviaria capitula. After the Donatists were declared defeated, a decree was issued from the emperor, which ordered the Donatists to provide their basilicas to the Catholics. The fanaticism of the sectarians flared up from this with new force. With their intrigues, the Donatists brought Marcellinus to the point where he was executed by death on charges of usurpation. In those places where the Donatists represented the dominant population, they attempted to starve out the Catholics by ordering bakers not to bake bread for Catholics. When the tribune appeared in Tamugadi to take the basilica from the Donatists, their bishop Gavdentius declared that if he was not left alone, he would burn himself in the basilica with his entire flock. Thus, the Donatist schism, even after this time, although weakened, continued to exist until the Vandal conquest. At this time, the circumcellions, in turn, began, together with the Vandals, devastating campaigns against the Catholics. Under Vandal rule, these sectarians were persecuted, however, less than the Catholics. The schism even survived the existence of the Vandal kingdom in Africa. The last historical news about him dates back to the end of the 6th and beginning of the 7th century (by Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome). What, exactly, was the dispute between the Donatists on its religious side? The dogmatic connection of Donatism with the polemic on the issue of the baptism of heretics is already visible from the fact that all the above passages of Holy Scripture are cited by the Donatists in defense of their schism. In its content, the Donatist schism is an expression of African church life, of which Cyprian was such a high representative - this life with all its mistakes, only more developed. a) The question of the fallen was for the Donatists a complete, resolved question, exactly as Cyprian decided it. The Donatists had no doubt that the fallen should be accepted into church communion. Πρώτον ψεΰδος (“first lie”) of their dogma lies in the circle of Cyprian concepts of heretical baptism. If, in fact, grace is given for the church and only the church, and outside the church there is no grace at all, despite even the unity of the doctrine, what to think about the consecration of Caecilian? Rumor insisted that Felix of Aptung was a traditionalist, and a traditionalist in a completely indisputable sense: he was accused precisely of having issued not some medical or heretical books, but books of the Holy Scriptures. If this fact is true, then for strict Africans Felix of Aptung was fallen and, like a lapsus, at the very moment of his fall he was already outside the church. Where, therefore, did he get the grace of the consecration performed on Caecilian? How could he do spiritual things when he himself had lost the Holy Spirit? How could he teach something that he himself did not have? How could he, finally, a sinner and sacrilegus, prayerfully call upon St. Spirit on Caecilian, when it is written: God does not listen to the sinner? According to Cyprian, the baptism of the Novatians only defiles; the same is true for the teachings of the Donatists. In the question of the effectiveness of baptism, as well as the effectiveness of grace in general, we must pay attention to the conscience of the giver who washes, and the conscience of the receiver. Whoever accepts faith from an unwise person does not accept faith, but only the state of his guilt (reatum). And what is not in the head cannot be in the members. Based on the position that extra ecclesiam nulla salus, that outside the church there is no salvation, the Donatists and Catholics treated as pagans, unbaptized. It was natural for them to demand that the Catholic, when appearing in the Donatist Church, say: “paganus sum” and receive baptism. The question of the rebaptism of Catholics received high importance among the Donatists precisely because they adhered to the same views with which Cyprian motivated the baptism of heretics again. Finally, guided by the last two of the above texts of Holy Scripture, the Donatists found that they only showed their zeal for God in the struggle against the Catholics and in the strictest separation from them. Thus, in all their most important provisions, the Donatists could conveniently refer to Cyprian. Only the formal side distinguished the cause of the Donatists from the views of Cyprian. The Donatists did not recognize grace in a person that the church had not yet formally cast out from its midst. Cyprian, on the contrary, did not recognize grace in the sectarians, who undoubtedly represented a society separate from the church. But of course, if we hold firmly to Cyprian concepts about the relationship of grace to the church, then this difference did not change the essence of the matter: Felix placed himself outside the church ipso facto of his fall. Thus, in order to give this difference serious significance, it was necessary to present some special view according to which even one who sinned seriously could still be a vessel of grace. b) The issue of the defection of Felix of Aptung was of great importance for the Donatists; but they could not prove the fact of betrayal with certainty. At the same time, the Catholics said that for them even Felix’s betrayal was not of decisive importance. The Church of Christ remains true, despite the betrayal of man. This already suggests that the Catholics significantly modified the position of Cyprian, from which the Donatists proceeded. Moreover, the question of Felix’s betrayal was so confused that it was natural for the Donatists themselves to try to resolve the dispute from some other end. The historical basis of the investigation of the case was abandoned and the dispute was transferred to dogmatic soil. Both Catholics and Donatists had no doubt that Christ founded one church and that the apostles established this church. Where is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church? the Donatists or the Catholics? In resolving this controversial point, Catholics proceeded from the concept of the church as catholic, understanding this non-Latin term in a mainly spatial sense, as equivalent to the word “everywhere, universal”; they defined the catholic church as "scattered throughout the whole universe even to the ends of the earth." Standing on this point of view, they could brutally beat their opponents, turning their local insignificance into evidence against them. The Catholics constantly demanded from the Donatists that their bishops present the communion letters sent to them from the apostolic churches: Corinthian, Ephesian, Philippian, Thessalonian, etc. The Donatists, of course, could not imagine such proof of apostolic succession in their society and therefore weakly fought off their opponents on this point, citing in their favor Song of Songs I, 6: “Where do you pasture, where do you rest at noon?” ( Song 1:6 ) In this they saw a prophetic indication that the true church is the southern church. The southern church is Numidian, it is catholic. In turn, the Donatists, to resolve this issue, chose a starting point that their opponents were reluctant to take. The Donatists defined the true church, first of all, as a holy church in the subjective sense (i.e., as consisting of holy people) and in the empirical realization of its ideal (i.e., having already cleansed itself of sinful rubbish). As proof of holiness, the Donatists cited, firstly, the fact that they drive out obvious sinners from their midst; secondly, the fact that the Donatists themselves are being persecuted by their opponents; it is clear that “the wicked will prevail over the righteous” (Hab. 1:4): if they were not righteous, they would not have been persecuted. The Catholics were traditores et persecutores, therefore, their church is not holy and therefore not catholic, and the Donatists should be called the catholic church. The Catholics, of course, also recognized their church as holy, and holy in actu, and not just in potentia. To prove only the latter, namely, that the church possesses the sacraments that sanctify man, was impossible due to the very essence of the dispute: this would be a petitio principii, since the whole dispute consisted of where is the true church, in which there are true means that sanctify man. The Catholics therefore argued that the Donatist criterion was unreliable, because in its definition as “holy” the church was not yet given empirically. The historical church, according to the teachings of Augustine, is certainly the body of the Lord, true but mixed, or true and apparent (Domini corpus verum et permixtum, verum et simulatum). The visible church always contains not only its true members, but also persons who belong to it only apparently. Only God Himself knows His own. He, of course, cuts off dead members from His church, but this act is deeply mysterious and unique to man. The visible church cannot exclude all sinners from its midst simply because it does not know all of them, and even those who re-enter may do so through a pretense that the church cannot yet reveal. In response to this objection, the Donatists reproached the Catholics for introducing two churches, firstly, the true one and, secondly, a mixed one. But Augustine, of course, easily eliminated this objection by noting that here we are talking about one church, but in two moments of its existence: in statu viae et in statu gloriae, in the moment of wandering and in the moment of glory. The Donatists proved the need for the strictest selection of sinners from their midst by those passages of Holy Scripture where it is said that touching the unclean defiles the pure (Hos. 9:4, Num. 16:26). Therefore, they found that, at least, obvious sinners must be cast out without fail. As proof of this practice, they cited the parable of the net (Matthew 13:47–50), in which the bad fish only remained together with the good ones until the net was pulled ashore; After that, only the good ones were collected, and the bad ones were thrown out. It was precisely the removal of the seine that the Donatists timed to coincide with the fact of the existence of a church on earth. The Catholics rejected this example, understanding the drawing of the net in the sense of the end of the world, i.e., relating this moment to the one church in statu gloriae. The Catholics attributed the parable of the wheat and tares to the earthly church (Matthew 13:24–30,37–43). From this parable it is clear that out of fear of harm to the wheat, the Lord commanded that the tares should be allowed to grow along with the wheat. The Donatists emphasized that it says “the field is the world”; in the world, indeed, the pure can be together with the unclean, but the church must consist only of the pure. The Catholics then pointed out the inadequacy of the Donatist demands even for their own purpose. It is impossible to understand why open sinners, when in contact with saints, defile, but hidden sinners do not defile. The Catholics themselves came out of this difficulty quite simply: by contact with the unclean, they understood not simply being together with the wicked in the bosom of the same church, but only sympathy for the immoral way of action of the latter. Ad hominem Catholics objected that Felix of Aptung at the time of Caecilian’s ordination was also a hidden sinner, even suggesting that he betrayed the books of the Holy Scriptures, therefore, in any case, the African traitors could not desecrate with themselves the entire Catholic Church existing in Greece and in the distant East, which did not even know about their very existence. Therefore, because of these traitors, the Donatists should not have separated from the church, especially since the Donatists themselves, so as not to “judge another man’s servant” (Rom. 14:4), do not separate even from those members of their society who are least like the righteous. Of course, the Catholics rejected the validity of such a criterion as the question of who persecutes and who is persecuted, arguing that the wicked will not always offend the righteous, but it often happens that a comparatively less wicked person persecutes a completely wicked person. c) Both Donatists and Catholics equally recognized that extra ecclesiam nulla salus, but differed among themselves in the doctrine of the relationship of grace to the church. Here the catholic opponents of the Donatists made enormous historical and dogmatic success in clarifying the doctrine of the sacraments in comparison with Cyprian or Stephen. Stephen's views suffered from half-heartedness; it could not possibly withstand the blow of such a solid system as the teaching of Cyprian. Without rejecting the fact that to baptize means to perform a hierarchical action, Stephen did not allow the sectarians to have the effectiveness of other sacraments other than baptism. Cyprian broke this view by simply pointing to the words of Christ (John 3:34): “For God gives the Spirit beyond measure.” The Holy Spirit is one and manifests itself in the church as one; therefore, His partial assimilation is out of the question. Where the water of baptism exists, everything exists; the Spirit cannot exist only in part. The Catholics who polemicized against the Donatists (starting with Optatus of Milevis) distinguish between heresy, which distorts the content of the faith itself, and schism, which breaks the union of church unity, but does not distort the faith. Without any arbitrary exaggeration, the Catholics recognized that their faith and the faith of the Donatists were one and the same; therefore, quite consistently, they recognized the grace of not one, but all sacraments among the sectarians. Augustine explained this most decisively: sacramenta ubicunque sunt, ipsa sunt. It is impossible to give any reason why one who cannot lose baptism itself can, however, lose the right to teach baptism to others, because baptism and ordination are taught to a person in the same sacred way. Baptism is taught to a person when he is baptized; the grace of the priesthood when he is ordained. Therefore, neither one nor the other sacrament can be repeated in the Catholic Church, and the sacraments, wherever they exist, are the same sacraments. On this basis, when Donatist bishops joined the church, they were received in their own order. True, there were cases when they were prohibited from performing episcopal actions; but this was a disciplinary decision, and not a dogmatic one: it was assumed by itself that the grace of ordination abides in them, but only, for well-known reasons, they should not use it. Therefore, in the Catholic Church they did not want to lay hands on the Donatist bishops when converting them to the Catholic Church and in commemoration of repentance, so as not to offend not the common man, but the grace of the sacrament that resides in him. Thus, the existence of grace-filled sacraments in non-catholic societies is here recognized in the most decisive manner. It now remained for the Catholics to show why the proposition that “there is no salvation outside the church” is certainly true. Augustine taught that the grace of the sacraments is actually taught by the Donatists and other sectarians who do not distort the faith. But only this grace, when separated from the church, does not serve for salvation. The Catholic Church of the 4th and 5th centuries, as before, remained the exclusive bearer of all mysterious grace. But only, according to Augustine, she was not always this bearer and giver directly. Schismatic societies, which maintained their ecclesiastical faith in their separation from the church, from Augustine’s point of view, were like streams that separated from the main stream. They contain the same faith, the same water, but are always in danger of drying up without benefit if they do not merge with the main channel and enter into the unity of the main current. The grace taught by the Donatists is real grace. Therefore, the sacraments performed are valid among the Donatists, not insignificant, but only incorrect. But only in order to take advantage of this grace, everyone who receives it must turn to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church represents that grace-filled atmosphere without which salvation for an individual is impossible. The sacraments received outside the Catholic Church are like a fire that continues to burn, although the outside is covered with ashes. This fire provides neither complete heat nor light. It is necessary that the smoldering coals return to the pure atmosphere of the Catholic Church, and then the fire covered with ashes will burn with a bright and full flame. Thus, the catholic opponents of the Donatists got out of the difficulty that the dogma of their opponents presented to them. And having developed such a doctrine, they had every opportunity to historically overthrow the arguments of their opponents. From the point of view of Catholics, a person, even in separation from the church, to a certain extent, can be a bearer of grace, a bearer who teaches it completely effectively, although illegally and incorrectly. Even having fallen away from the church, he does not completely lose this grace. The Donatists could not agree with this, recognizing that outside their small society there could be no grace anywhere. Naturally, they had to resort to rebaptizing everyone who approached them. But it was among them that the split between Primianists and Maximianists, fatal for their dogmatics, took place. The Primianists, who represented the main mainstream of Donatist society, looked at the Maximianists, like all renegades, as non-Christians. In their society they recognized neither grace nor sacraments. However, after the expiration of the period appointed for conversion, two bishops, who stubbornly adhered to Maximian, turned to the Primianists and were accepted into their dignity. Thus, here the Donatists undermined the ground on which they stood. And then everyone who was baptized and consecrated by these bishops in a state of separation from the Primianists was recognized in the same way as legally baptized or consecrated, that is, the former were accepted into communion without rebaptism, the latter without repentance, which would remove the grace of consecration from them. Augustine addressed this fact very often and quite rightly assessed its significance in these words: “Every one of the Donatists who has any blood in his face must blush when reading this page from his own history.” The idea of ​​the Melitian schism is different, depending on whether we are guided by the sources published by Maffei (Scipione Maffei in 1738, from cod. Veronensis), or by the data from Epiphanius (haeres, 68). a) According to the news of Epiphanius, not free from undoubted historical errors, this schism arose over the issue of accepting the fallen. At the same time, along with other confessors, Archbishop Peter of Alexandria and Bishop Melitius of Lycopolis were in prison *. Besieged by requests from the fallen to intercede for them, the confessors raised the issue of church discipline in relation to apostates of the faith. Melitius spoke in favor of strict, Peter (in reality a representative of prudently wise pastoral severity) - in favor of lenient. Without depriving the fallen of hope of being accepted into communion, Melitius stood for their prolonged penitential trial (so as not to dissolve even those who are firm in the faith by relaxation); and fallen clergy could be accepted into communion only as laymen. Peter, speaking in a tone-deaf tone about the acceptance of clergy, spoke out in favor of reducing the repentance of the fallen (so that, intimidated by severity, they would not remain apostates forever). When there was a disagreement between the confessors, the archbishop hung his robe (πάλλιον) in the middle of the prison instead of a veil and ordered the deacon to exclaim: “Whoever is on the side of my opinion, let him come over to me, and whoever adheres to the opinion of Melitius, let him go to Melitius!” Only a few went over to Peter's side; the majority sided with Melitius. Since then, those separated separately performed prayers and sacred rites. Even the confessors exiled to the Fenno mines had no communication with each other. On the way to exile, Melitius installed presbyters and bishops everywhere and built his own special churches (for example, in Elia [Jerusalem], Eleutheropolis, Gaza). And Peter died a martyr. – Having returned, at the end of the persecution, Melitius in Alexandria had his own separate liturgical meetings, but was on friendly terms with Alexander of Alexandria, and as an Orthodox in dogmatic teaching (the difference between the Melitians and the church was limited only to the question of the fallen), Melitius was the first to draw Alexander’s attention to the errors of the presbyter Arius. – The followers of Peter called their church “catholic,” and the Melitians called theirs “church of martyrs.” I pronounce Melitius with special emphasis. We will meet in further history with Meletius of Antioch, whose name must be distinguished from the name of the real Melitius of Lycopolis. Some even derived the name Meletius of Antioch from the Greek. - beloved = Greek 'Αγαπητός. [Wed. V.V. Bolotov, Βρεβίον Melitius of Lycopolis, as a source for the historical geography of Egypt. Byzantine. Vremennik, 1908, vol. XV, p. 28, approx. 3]. b) The Verona documents (the authenticity of which has never been in doubt) represent an ancient, often obscure Latin translation of a lost Greek original and contain: 1) a letter from Philaeus, bishop of Temuis, on behalf of him and the other three bishops confessors (according to Euseb. h. e. VIII, 13, they all died martyrs), 2) notes from a contemporary and 3) a letter from Peter of Alexandria to to the Alexandrian people - From these documents it is clear that the Melitian schism has no connection with the question of the fallen. The confessor bishops reproach Melitius, their “beloved co-celebrant,” for the fact that he performs consecrations in the berths of the confessor bishops, without asking permission either from them or from the archbishop. Since all the bishops taken into custody appointed periodeut presbyters to manage their parishes, Melitius cannot justify himself by citing the fact that the churches lack shepherds. Even if rumors had reached him about their martyrdom, even then, having verified these rumors, he would have had to ask the archbishop’s permission. But Melitius, without entering into relations with either Peter or the confessors, arrived in Alexandria. Two ambitious men (apparently presbyters), Arius and Isidore, indicated Melitia as the periodeuts of Peter. Melitius excommunicated them and appointed two presbyters. Having learned about this, Peter wrote to the Alexandrians that they should not have any communication with Melitius, and promised to submit his case to the council of bishops for consideration. From Athanasius the Great we learn that Peter was actually at the council in 305–306. accused Melitius of many illegal acts and even of sacrifice (to idols). The deposed Melitius did not appeal to another council, but formed his own special schismatic society and was at enmity against Peter, Achilles and Alexander of Alexandria (the Melitians accused Alexander even before the emperor). Epiphany's news suffers from obvious inaccuracies. Peter and Melitius were not in prison together; both of them were at large - Peter in some kind of shelter; Indeed, Peter died as a martyr only in 311; Melitius was hostile to Alexander, not friendly. One must think that, a native of Eleutheropol himself, Epiphanius drew this information from Melitian sources, hence the coverage of the beginning of their schism that was so flattering for the Melitians. In the presentation of Epiphanius, there is a noticeable bias towards Melitius, and in this he differs from Athanasius the Great, whom the Melitians, along with the Arians, considers a very harmful society. Whoever has read the works of Athanasius the Great with an alert eye will see that Alexander also treated the Melitians like Athanasius. In Athanasius we read (between the lines) that the first ecumenical council dealt with the Melitians very gently - they should have been completely thrown out of the church. And according to Epiphanius, there is no need to spew them out. It is not difficult to guess that Epiphanius moved among such Melitians, who represented something like our priests-circulators, who, on the basis of theory, are close to Orthodoxy. So this part of the Melitians presented their history in a favorable light: Melitius is a martyr, etc. The news that the Melitians called their church “the church of martyrs” is too characteristic a detail to be considered plucked out of thin air. Consequently, here we stand in Epiphanius on a factual basis. That Melitius, who had suffered exile for his faith, could look down on Peter, who had fled from persecution, is nothing incredible (just as, on the other hand, it cannot be considered incomprehensible that at that time, when mutual suspicion was extremely aroused, Melitius himself was accused of renouncing Christ). The question of the fallen, apparently, had no place in the original history of the schism, but was put forward as a plausible pretext by the Melitians to justify their separation from the church. The schism of Melitius was directed not against discipline in relation to the fallen, but against the existing church-administrative system in Egypt. By performing consecrations in other people's parishes, Melitius affected the rights of other bishops and at the same time the rights of the Archbishop of Alexandria. Centralization in the church system of Egypt was already very strong at that time: all bishops in Egypt were consecrated either by the Archbishop of Alexandria or not otherwise than with his permission. Thus, each consecration of a bishop performed by Melitius was an invasion of his rights as archbishop of Alexandria. In modern times, they want to highlight the case of Melitius from a different point of view: they say that he only wanted to achieve autonomy, independent rule for the Thebaid region, which was inhabited, however, by natural Copts, but who spoke their own (special) dialect different from the northern one. But the very fact speaks against such an opinion: the 29 bishops ordained by Melitius are distributed evenly among the regions; Consequently, he did not strive only for the autonomy of the Thebaid region with the Lycopolis episcopate at its head, but acted as the Alexandrian archbishop. Melitianism held stronger in upper Egypt, on soil little affected by Hellenic culture. Bishop of Lycopolis, the most prominent city in terms of its civil significance in lower Thebias, Melitius could naturally lay claim to the same position in upper Egypt as the archbishop of Alexandria occupied in lower and throughout Egypt. The Council of Nicea also dealt with the Melitian issue. In connection with this issue stands the 6th Nicene canon (famous in history especially for the fact that the popes based their excessive claims on it); it commands “the preservation of the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis,” so that the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these areas, because “it is customary for the Roman bishop.” The specific meaning of this canon is that the bishop of Lycopolis should not claim a position of power for his see, contrary to ancient customs. According to Diocletian's division of the Egyptian region, there were 5 provinces: 1) Libya superior; 2) Libya interior, 3) Thebais - Thebais (later 2 provinces, under Diocletian one more), 4) Aegyptus Jovia (in honor of Diocletian - Diocletianus Jovius) - the western half of the northern part with Alexandria; 5) Aegyptus Herculea (in honor of Maximianus Herculeus) - later Augustamnica. But in rule 6 there is not a single word mentioned about Thebaid. Meanwhile, Thebaid was the very center of the Melitian movement; there, in Nicopolis, Melitius himself was bishop, and a significant part of his adherents were also there. The question is, what could such a pass mean? Various comments are possible here. It is possible that the eastern bishops considered the territory of the entire Egyptian region too vast for the Alexandrian archbishop, which could not but interfere with ease of administration. Another interpretation is also possible, in which the logical emphasis falls on Libya and Pentapolis. Not only Thebaid with its natural Egyptian population, but even Libya and Pentapolis, where there was a Greek population who spoke, as one might guess, a Doric dialect - even these provinces were assigned to the central authority of the Alexandrian bishop. The resolution of the Melitian question could have been facilitated by the possibility of granting autonomy to the Thebaid. It may also be that by subjugating the Thebaid they wanted to make it possible to destroy the schism that had arisen. It remains undoubted that even after the first ecumenical council, Thebaid was under the authority of the bishop of Alexandria. With this the council put an end to Melitianism in principle. On the issue of the present Melitians, the council issued a special message. Melitius retained only the title of bishop without the right to perform consecrations and other hierarchical actions. The Melitian bishops are retained in their office, although without the right to govern the church, as long as their fellow Catholic bishop of the same city lives. In the event of his death, the Melitian bishops can take his see if they are elected by the people and confirmed by the Archbishop of Alexandria. At the same time, the expression of the message is very difficult to understand: “affirmation comes from the best hand.” One cannot deny the possibility that in these cases the Alexandrian archbishop ordained them again. Let us remember that in the 4th century. There were frequent cases of secondary ordination. Caecilian of Carthage, for example, was ready to accept consecration another time, and one Egyptian bishop accepted consecration again from George, an Arian bishop. But it can be assumed that in the above-mentioned case (over the Melitian bishops) some special rite was performed. Something similar to this was observed in the Syro-Persian church. Here the Catholicos performed the rite of “complementing” the ordination of bishops in the case when the latter were ordained by the metropolitan and not by the Catholicos. In accordance with the resolutions of the council, the matter was arranged in many places, when the Melitian bishops became the successors of their Orthodox colleagues and thus finally merged with the Orthodox Church. But still, it was very difficult to resolve the Melitian issue: this can already be seen from the fact that the first agreement between the Melitians and Alexander took place only in December 327 - January 328. But then the Arians again managed to persuade the Melitians to an alliance with them, and they often acted together with the Arians against the influence of Archbishop Alexander. Among the Orthodox of Egypt, the Melitians enjoyed the same unflattering reputation as the Arians themselves. V. Disputes about the time of celebrating Easter 31 A) FIRST AGE: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ROMAN AND ASIA MINOR PRACTICES Dispute about the baptism of heretics in the 3rd century. remained without consequences; There was a break, but not a schism, between the Roman and African churches. Disputes about the time of celebrating Easter also only led to the formation of sects in later times. a) The difference between Roman and Asia Minor practices was very old and was discussed more than once. aa) In 155 this difference was discussed, but not argued, between St. Polycarp of Smyrna and Anicetas of Rome. Both bishops remained in their practice and in peace and communion with each other (Polycarp celebrated the Eucharist in Rome). bb) In 167 (Eus. IV, 20) there was a dispute about Easter in Laodicea (in Phrygia), about which Melito of Sardis, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, Clement of Alexandria and Hippolytus of Rome wrote. All three of the latter adhere to the view that Christ, before suffering on the 13th of Nisan, celebrated the last supper, but did not eat the legal Passover, and He Himself, the mysterious Passover, was crucified on the 14th of Nisan. Their opponents (supporters of the Asia Minor practice) argued that Christ suffered only on the 15th of Nisan, and on the 14th he ate the legal Passover; “Therefore we also ought to do as Christ did.” cc) Between 190–192 the third and most important dispute occurred 32. Probably under the influence of the schism of Vlast in Rome, who argued (in agreement with the Asia Minor) that Easter should be celebrated no other than on the 14th day of the lunar month, Bishop Victor of Rome turned to the Asia Minor bishops with a threatening demand: to join the Roman practice. On this issue (and perhaps at the suggestion of Victor himself), councils were convened in various places. All of them (Alexandrian, Palestine, Osroine, Pontic, Corinthian, Gallic, not to mention Roman) spoke in favor of Roman practice. The exception was the Council of Ephesus, which authorized the Bishop of Ephesus, Polycrates, to defend Asian practices. Polycrates, “who had already been in the Lord for 65 years,” “who had gone through all the Holy Scriptures,” who counted seven bishops among his relatives (hence, thoroughly familiar with church practice), “was not afraid” of Victor’s “threats,” and in a letter to him and the Roman Church firmly stood for the Asia Minor rite, sanctified by the practice of the apostles John and Philip and many glorious bishops. Victor responded to the Asia Minor churches, apparently, with a formal excommunication; but many bishops, who adhered to the same practice as in Rome, met this measure of Victor with unsympathy and clearly blamed him for this step. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote in this (conciliatory-exhorting) sense to Victor and many other bishops. b) The difference between the Asia Minor churches, on the one hand, and all the others, on the other, about which the dispute was waged, concerned itself: aa) the day of Easter celebration. Asia Minor Christians allowed fasting and celebrated Easter on the 14th day of the (first spring lunar) month (Nisan, the day of the legal Old Testament Easter), no matter what day of the week this 14th day happened. All other churches, “according to apostolic tradition,” allowed fasting and “celebrated the sacrament of the Resurrection of the Lord” exclusively on Sunday. – But the difference in the ritual, undoubtedly, did not end there. bb) The pre-Easter fast, according to Irenaeus, had different durations in different churches (42 hours, one day, two or more). cc) One can assume a difference in the very tone of the celebration. Western Christians (as well as others from Asia Minor) kept a strict fast before Easter (on Friday and Saturday), then a vigil (from Saturday to Sunday, vigiliae), with which the expectation of the second coming of Christ was connected, and finally (after midnight), they celebrated the feast of the resurrection of Christ: the celebration was opened with the Eucharist (even in later centuries, on this day everyone who had “peace” with the church, i.e. not weaned). – According to the news about the “fourteeners” (i.e., the later, but stubbornly conservative representatives of the Asia Minor rite), the Asia Minor Christians kept a strict fast on Nisan 14, and in the evening of the same day they celebrated Easter and the Eucharist. Their Passover was limited to this one day*. The remembrance of the sufferings of Christ was the predominant moment in the Asia Minor holiday: πανηγυρίξουσι του πάθους την μνήμην (they celebrated the memory of the passion). Opinions [K. L. Weitzera, Die Christliche Passafeier der drei ersten Jahrhun-derte. Pforzheim 1848], that in addition to Nisan 14, Asia Minor Christians celebrated the next Sunday as an annual holiday of resurrection, which was the case in Asia Minor in the 2nd century. In addition to the Fourteeners - Catholics, there are also Fourteeners - Judaizers (Jewishers) - who have no basis in historical data. Thus, the difference in the tone of the celebration is determined by the fact that Christians of Asia Minor performed on Easter “the sacrament of suffering”, την του πάθους άνάμνησιν, Christians of all other churches - “the sacrament of the resurrection of the Lord”, το της αναστάσεως μυστήριον . The celebration of all churches, except those of Asia Minor, brought forward a historical moment: every year Christians separately repeated in their memories the last days of the earthly life of Christ, experienced them with those religious feelings (sorrow and joy) that the gospel story of the last supper, suffering, death and resurrection of the Lord naturally evokes. The highest point (focus) of Easter here was the resurrection of Christ, the bright joy of a Christian - Eusebius (V, 23) characteristically calls the Asia Minor Easter την τοΰ πάσ - χα σωτηρίου εορτή ν - the saving holiday of Easter. dogmatic soil. This was not a celebration of one moment in gospel history; the Old Testament Easter was transformed only into the New Testament holiday of salvation as an integral fact in the totality of the moments that make it up. It was not the establishment of the Eucharist, not the suffering and death and not the resurrection of Christ separately (the latter was not the 14th of Nisan), but all these events in synthesis, as a single dogmatically understood fact of redemption through suffering, constituted the subject of celebration. It was a holiday, therefore, the joy of salvation, but the tone of this joy was seriously solemn. c) The origin of this difference is explained by the fact that aa) the Easter holiday is fundamentally the anniversary of the resurrection of Christ. And an anniversary is a purely conditional concept. For example, Constantinople was taken by the Turks on Tuesday, May 29, 1453 (20th of Jumadi-ul-Awwel, 857 AH). The following year, 1454, the Church of Constantinople celebrated the anniversary of the last Byzantine emperor on Wednesday 29 May. But the Turks in the same year celebrated the anniversary of their brilliant victory on Saturday, May 18 - on the simple grounds that Constantinople was taken on the twentieth of the month of Jumadi-ul-Awvel, 857 Gijra; and in 858 this date fell on May 18th. It's the same with Christian Easter. Jesus Christ was resurrected a) on an unknown date in March or April, b) on the Sunday following the full moon of the first spring month, c) the 16th of Nisan. It would be most natural for non-Jewish Christians to accept the first date(s) for celebrating the anniversary. For a person of Latin or Greek origin to celebrate the annual holiday of the resurrection of Christ on the 16th of Nisan was as unnatural as for the Turks to celebrate their victory on May 29th. The Jewish lunar year is familiar only to Jews. This unnaturalness increases even more from the fact that the 16th of Nisan was at odds with the weekly celebration of the resurrection of Christ. Thus, pagan Christians were faced with an alternative: to celebrate the resurrection of Christ (a) on the day of the Roman month on which this event took place, or (b) on the day of the week that was dedicated to this memory, choosing this week approximately: precisely the one that followed the full moon of the Easter month, i.e., the first spring month. But the first date remained and, probably, will forever remain unknown to history, although some sectarians tried to restore it* 33. For example, one branch of the Fourteeners, based on the acts of Pilate, calculated that Christ suffered on March 25 (a. d. VIII cal. apr.) (Epiph. haeres. 50:1). Probably one of the representatives of this trend at the beginning of the 4th century, Tricentius (against whom Peter of Alexandria wrote, † November 26, 311) said: “We have nothing to do with the Jews and their calendar, we want only one thing: to commemorate the suffering of Christ annually at the very time at which the samovidians committed it from the beginning” (i.e. on a historically precise day). Therefore, the second (b) date was completely logically accepted - especially since the annual and weekly holiday of resurrection were not divided among themselves. But, on the other hand, for Jewish Christians it would be just as natural to celebrate the annual holiday of the resurrection on the 16th of Nisan (3rd date, c), in view of the fact that this day falls on such a significant time in the Jewish holiday circle. bb) In reality, this did not happen either, and a special moment was reflected in the Asia Minor rite. Jewish Christians, as is known, did not break their connection with the Jerusalem temple and its Old Testament rites. The apostles themselves (Peter and John, Acts 3:1) went to the church to pray. Even the Apostle Paul (Acts 16:3; 18:18–21; 20:16; 21:17–30) went from Greece to Jerusalem for the holiday and took the Nazirite vow. In the name of the same Christian freedom, according to which they removed the burden of the Jewish rite from some, they did not force others to use it. Therefore, there is no doubt that while the second church existed, Jerusalem Christians celebrated with all legal rituals the most solemn of the Old Testament holidays - Easter. In this celebration of the night from the 14th to the 15th of Nisan, the celebration of the resurrection of Christ disappeared. Without establishing a special Christian independent holiday on the 16th of Nisan, the Jewish believers retained, up to the name inclusive, the Old Testament Passover, but put into it the New Testament meaning (1 Cor. 5:7: our Passover, Christ, was sacrificed for us), and, of course, combined it with the Eucharist. Nisan 14 preceded the event of the resurrection; therefore, having renounced the strictly historical beginning, they stand on a symbolic-dogmatic basis, and on the day established by law (cf. the opinion of the fourteeners: “Cursed is he who does not keep the Passover on the day of the month”; cf. Numbers 9:13) and under the forms of the Old Testament holiday of salvation they celebrate the New Testament “saving Passover.” Thus, Easter of the churches of Asia Minor was not a New Testament holiday in the strict sense of the word (according to the very establishment), it was a Christianized Old Testament Easter. Therefore, the Asia Minor people say with such emphasis that “Christ celebrated Easter on that day (τότε τη ήμερα) and then suffered (και £ παθεν), and we must do as He created” 34. Thus, as a basis for observing Nisan 14, they point not to the fact that, for example, Christ suffered on this day, but simply to the fact that Christ Himself celebrated this Old Testament holiday and commanded it to be done in His remembrance. Hence the characteristic term “observe, τηρεΐν” the 14th day of the month, and Irenaeus has the opposite “αύτοι μη τηροϋ – ντες τοις τηροϋσιν”; Wed Acts 15:5,24,29 see 29, where the term τηρεΐν, to observe, is used in relation to the performance of Old Testament rituals (τηρεΐν τον νόμον). And the question is still far from resolved in a negative sense - whether even in 190 the Christians of Asia Minor did not consume unleavened bread. Polycrates says that all the lights of the Asia Minor churches “observed, ήγαγον”, the day when the people, ό λαός, set aside leaven, without directly defining that these people were Jews (in Rufinus judaeorum populus). cc) In the struggle over the issue of the day of Easter celebration, two currents of Christian life collided with each other: Judaistic and anti-Judaistic (in the most moderate sense of these words). The Jewish διασπορά (“dispersion”) was the nerve through which the current of Christianity first passed, the apostle himself. Paul preached primarily to the Jews. Believers from the circumcision were usually the first fruits of the Christian churches of the east. Therefore, the Jewish customs that existed in the Asian churches could only become stronger as a result of the long-term activity here of the apostles John the Theologian and Philip. In general, the Eastern Church was peaceful towards these harmless remnants of the Old Testament in the lives of believers. For example, Saturday remained a semi-holiday in the Christian Church (Apostle Law 65: “if anyone fasts on Sunday or Saturday, with the exception of one and only one, then if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, and if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated”). However, in some places they went so far that, for example, the Council of Laodicea had to prohibit Christians from spending the Sabbath completely in a Jewish way, in complete inactivity, and prescribe that on Saturday they should also read New Testament books during worship (Laod. rights. 29, 16; however, Phrygia had long been quite densely colonized by Jews). In the West, church life developed independently of Jewish traditions. For example, in the Roman church in the 4th century. (and it was true earlier) they already fasted on Saturday, like the day when her bridegroom was taken away from the church according to Matthew 9:15. Therefore, the struggle against the Asia Minor rite had the character of emancipation from the remnants of Judaism. It may seem strange that it was the Palestinian churches in 190-192. were against the Asian rite, finding it even harmful to the soul (Eus. h. e. V, 25: μη ( ιαδίως πλανωσιν εαυτών τάς ψυχάς ). But the history of the Jerusalem church makes this attitude clear. Before the Barkokhba uprising The Jerusalem church almost entirely consisted of Jewish Christians, its first 15 bishops were all from circumcision, but the defeat of 138 (year according to Overbeck), when Jerusalem turned into Aelia Capitolina and Jews were forbidden to live in it, completely changed the composition of the Jerusalem church: all pagan Christians settled in Aelia Capitolina, and Bishop Mark opens this new era in the history of Jerusalem churches. With such a colonization of Aelia Capitolina by people of pagan origin, it is clear that Jewish traditions could not survive here in the Christian church. d) [According to the usual opinion, the Council of Nicaea put an end to the Easter disputes. In reality, this council, as Duchesne showed, dealt not with the Fourteeners, but with the Protopas-hits, who always celebrated Easter on Sunday, but always in the same month with the Jews and therefore sometimes before the vernal equinox; representatives of this rite did not live in Asia Minor, but in Syria]. Stubborn adherents [of the Asian rite long ago by the 4th century] formed a sect of the Fourteeners, τεσσαρεσκαιδεκατίται, quartodecimani (with this name, supporters of the Roman practice (Hippolytus) back in the 3rd century did not hesitate to call the Asian churches, denigrating them as heretical sect), weak numerically, but retained until the 5th century; Theodoret knows about it; at the Council of Ephesus in 431 there was a speech about the Lydian fourteeners. B) SECOND AGE: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ALEXANDRIA AND SYRIA. THE QUESTION ABOUT EASTER AT THE COUNCIL OF NICEA The first ecumenical council was convened to resolve the dogmatic question about the teachings of Arius. But there was another question that the fathers of the council had to touch upon. This is a question about the time of Easter celebration. In both the east and the west, this question [and at the beginning of the 4th century] was of keen interest, because the inconveniences that resulted from the difference in the time of celebrating Easter had an unpleasant effect on the reputation of Christians. Therefore, the fathers of the [western Arles] council (314) decreed [pr.1] that the bishop of Rome should issue regulations regarding when Easter should be celebrated. But the same question was the topic of the day for the east. Constantine the Great attached hardly less importance to this issue than to Arianism. The same importance was attached to it by such a bishop as Eusebius of Caesarea. Constantine the Great was very strongly armed against the custom of celebrating Easter following the example of the Jews. The Jews can say, he said, that Christians cannot even celebrate their most important holiday without renouncing Jewish custom. And that this latter is erroneous, Constantine proves by the fact that the Jews sometimes celebrate two Passovers a year. In any case, it is indecent to follow this deicide people. What was the activity of the council on this issue? We have little information about this. Since there was no canon left that would address this issue, an attempt was made to compose such a canon. The attempt was made in Greek. But the forgery was proven in the most obvious way. Everyone wanted to find justification for their views in the resolutions of the council. And what, in fact, was not attributed to the fathers of the council? They were even credited with introducing a whole cycle of holidays, which is absolutely incredible. If it is not easy now to discuss digital values, then all the more difficult it was at that time, and, moreover, for people with old gray hair. Obviously, the activities of the council fathers are exaggerated. The most they could do was an unwritten, unformed decree, in the nature of a comradely agreement - a decree that Easter should be celebrated according to the custom established in the Alexandrian church. This last one deserved attention because science [and in particular astronomy] especially flourished in Alexandria. But no firm regulations were issued. That this is so is evident from the fact that the next year after the council in the east they celebrated Easter on April 3, and in the west on 10 35. In this case, Constantine's expectation that after the council everyone would celebrate Easter on the same day turned out to be wrong. But, in essence, the very interpretations of the disagreement with which the fathers of the council had to deal were also erroneous. In 1880, the French scientist Duchenne 36 presented a [new] interpretation of the controversy about Easter at the Council of Nicaea. But this interpretation was not clear enough. The mistake [of previous scholars] was that the controversies of the Council of Nicea were connected with those that took place during the time of Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, and Victor, bishop of Rome. There the matter was that the churches of Asia Minor celebrated Easter together with the Jews - on the night from the 14th to the 15th of Nisan, no matter what day of the week this date fell on. These individuals were called the Fourteeners, and [scholars] usually assumed that it was with them that the Council of Nicaea dealt. Meanwhile, [as Duchesne pointed out], in the documents that have reached us there is not a single word that those persons who constituted the minority at the council actually celebrated Easter on the 14th of Nisan, no matter what day it fell. Everyone agreed that Easter should be celebrated on Sunday. The history separating the Council of Nicea from the history of Polycrates is very long. There were people who wanted to turn the Easter holiday into a fixed holiday. But these persons were not discussed at the council. The bishops of Asia now stand on the side of the majority, and only in Syria have [other] traditions been preserved. [The basis of this misunderstanding is the fact that just as the Fourteeners celebrated the Passover] on the day on which the (Jewish) people set aside leavened bread, [hence, on the same day as the Jews], so those condemned by the Councils of Nicaea and Antioch “celebrated the Passover together with the Jews” [i.e. i.e. in one month with them]. They found that in [Syria] they celebrate Easter ίουδαϊκώτερον (Socrates I, 8. Sozomen, I, 16). The anti-Judaist trait was also reflected in the final decision on the issue of Easter at the Council of Nicea: “Let us have nothing in common with the hated (τοΰ έχθίστου) Jewish people: we have accepted a different path from the Savior” - this is Constantine the Great’s argument against [Syrian] church practice. At the Council of Nicaea, in the words of Eusebius, “the eastern ones abandoned the deicides (κυριοκτόνων) and united with the Christians of the same faith” (Schurer, 230). So, what was the question about the timing of Easter at the Council of Nicaea? As you know, to determine the time of Easter celebration, you need to know on what day the 14th day of the first lunar month falls, i.e. the true 14th of Nisan. But, as you know, the lunar months do not coincide with the solar ones [the solar year contains 365 days (+1/4), and 12 lunar months only 354 days (+1/3)]. Therefore, we have to do the epact at 11 days. This epact in every three years reached 33 days, which formed a whole month. Thus, in order to maintain a Jewish reckoning, and not a Muslim one, it is necessary to introduce a system in which known years would consist of 13 months. It is because of this intercalary month that the dispute is going on. The Jewish system, in general, was in agreement with the systems of other eastern peoples. The later Jews even borrowed the very names of the months from the Aramaic-Chaldean language. The most important months were called the same by both Jews and Syrians. The Jewish month of Nisan bears the same name among the Syrians. The next month was called Iar [Iyar] by both. Thus, the Jews had no disagreement with the Syrians in naming the months. The only question could be whether the Jews had disagreements over the intercalary month, whether a month was inserted into the same year and the same month? After Adar, Jews inserted another Adar. Meanwhile, the lunar year does not require that any specific month be inserted. Any month could be inserted. As a result, a difference could have arisen in the system of the Jews, who used the lunar calendar, and the Syrians, who also used the lunar calendar. When the Christian Church appeared and began to introduce its holidays, it naturally proceeded from Jewish precedents. Christians were supposed to celebrate Easter in that month, which all fellow citizens called Nisan. But in some countries they could call one month Nisan, and in others - another. Thus, it could naturally happen that some part of Christians celebrated Easter in some Iar, becoming in direct contradiction with the text of the Bible, which commands to celebrate Easter in the first month, and not in the second. On the question of how to distribute intercalary years among simple ones, traditional techniques have been developed through practice that correspond to the astronomical course of the moon. Everyone has come to the conclusion that the simplest cycle is a 19-year cycle, but this cycle is made up of two halves - an 8-year anniversary (όγδοάς) and an 11-year anniversary (ένδεκάς). The division into these two halves determines the intercalary year. The Jewish calendar, introduced around 358, has a special technical expression: orw""rraj. These Hebrew letters designate intercalary years, namely - 3, 6, 8, (1)1, (1)4, (1)7, (1)9 (the letters - vpk mean 1, 4, 7 and 9 years - after the 10th year, next 11, 14, 17, 19) 37. But every circle has the property that degrees in it can be counted from any point; so here too it is not completely determined that this particular year, and not another, should consist of 13 months. As you know, the Constantinople chronology represents our reckoning from the Nativity of Christ +5508 years; The Jewish reckoning represents our years +3760 years. If 5508 is divided by 19, the remainder is 17; if 3760 is 19, the remainder will also be 17. Consequently, the first year of the cycle of such a system falls first according to our Easter. As a result of this, the calculation of Constantinople and Judaism is consistent. But the Church of Constantinople, in its reckoning, distorted the counting of the Alexandrian Church. As a result of this inconsistency, it happened that the 17th year of the Constantinople reckoning was the first of the Alexandrian reckoning. From this came the conflict with which the Council of Nicaea dealt. If we apply guch-adzat to the Alexandrian notation, then the third Constantinople year of the lunar cycle will be the sixth according to the Alexandrian notation, the sixth will be the ninth, etc. 38 . From here it may happen that the embolimic year according to the Alexandrian reckoning will be simple according to the Jewish and Constantinople, and the Easter holiday in some churches will fall earlier or later than in others. So, the 311th year is the 8th year of the 19th anniversary according to the Alexandrian Easter, and the 14th of Nisan of this year falls on April 18th, so Easter had to be celebrated on April 22nd. Meanwhile, according to the Jewish reckoning, this year [as the 5th year of the lunar circle] is simple, and the Jews had to celebrate Easter on March 22, and, moreover, on Thursday, only because it was impossible on Wednesday 39 . If we adhere to Jewish custom, then we should begin Lent much earlier than it began in Alexandria. It turned out that while some were having fun, others were fasting. But it should be noted that the question in the indicated sense was not posed in the present coverage. As a result, disagreements regarding the timing of Easter celebrations continued after the Council of Nicaea. From what has been said, it is clear what the essence of the question of Easter was at the Council of Nicaea 40. P.S. To explain the difference in the celebration of Easter at the beginning of the 4th century. A = years of the moon's circle according to the Alexandrian reckoning. K = years of the circle of the moon according to the Jewish and Constantinople reckoning. Letters yu, etc. = Jewish and Constantinople embolimic years. Numbers: ιξ, ιθ, γ, etc. = Alexandrian emvolimic years. Thus, according to both K and A, the years 320, 325, 328,333, 336, 339, 344 were anni ombolismi and did not give rise to any misunderstandings. On the contrary, the years 322, 330,341, embolismi according to the Alexandrian cycle, were anni communes according to the Jewish cycle, and they gave rise to misunderstandings. That full moon (around March 18–19), which from the point of view of the Alexandrian cycle fell on μήν εμβόλιμος '# π ίτκ, according to the Syrian protopashchites, was the full moon of Nisan, and therefore they celebrated Easter - usually - for 28 days [resp. 35 days] earlier than in Alexandria and other churches that followed Alexandrian practice. In a word, it was about those years when the Easter border falls, according to the Alexandrian Easter, on April 17th or 18th. The Eastern bishops [at the Council of Nicaea] represented a weak minority against a majority three times stronger. The Christian churches of the west and south were opposed to the Syrian practice; therefore, the eastern ones gave up their ancient custom and joined the practice, one might say, of the general church. The celebration of Easter [together with the Jews] was retained as one detail in the practice of the archaic sect of the Avdians, weak already under Epiphanius, but in the 5th century. still existed and disappeared only by the 6th century. The Antioch [local] council of 341 41 decided (rule 1): clergy should be deposed and laymen excommunicated for celebrating Easter with the Jews ["before the vernal equinox", προ της εαρινής ισημερίας, as it explains 7th Apostolic Canon] 42. c) THIRD AGE: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ALEXANDRIA AND ROME a) Constantine the Great joyfully welcomed the agreement between the Eastern and other churches at the Council of Nicaea and hoped that the entire Christian world would celebrate Easter on the same day. In fact, in the very next year 326, the Greek-Eastern churches celebrated Easter on April 3, the Latin-Western - on April 10 43 . The difference was repeated in 330, 333 44, 340, 341, 345, 350, 357, 360, 373 and 387. This shows that at the council one half of the controversial issue was resolved and the other was left untouched, perhaps because they did not suspect its existence * 45 . The Council of Nicea entrusted the bishop of Alexandria with the task of notifying the churches in advance about the day of Easter 46 . The choice is explained by the fact that astronomy flourished in Alexandria. But the fathers, apparently, did not express their desire so categorically that the Roman bishops would unquestioningly follow the Alexandrian calculations. The stubbornness of Rome in defending its unsatisfactory lunar calendar was the cause of disagreement in the second era of controversy. The Council of Arles in 314 (pr. 1) instructed the Roman bishop to notify all churches about the day of Easter; but, probably, the council did not have in mind the difference we are considering, and not the Asia Minor [and not Syrian] practice, but the disagreement due to the inability to calculate the day of Easter even according to the Roman system. Hosea of ​​Corduba [according to Sozomen. I, 16] the emperor instructed to settle the difference only with the eastern churches. b) The Council of Nicea determined: to celebrate Easter on the Sunday following the full moon of the first spring month, i.e., that month whose full moon (14th moon) either coincides with the vernal equinox or occurs after this day 47. But this last day constituted only the astronomical desired: the Roman calendar under Julius Caesar puts the equinox on March 25, [St. Epiphanius and] “Apostolic Decrees” - March 22, Hippolytus - March 18, 48, Anatoly - March 19; but after that, Alexandrian astronomers calculated that the equinox falls on March 21. Then the question of the lunar cycle came up. Hippolytus of Rome compiled an Easter table (carved on his statue found in 1551 in Rome) for 112 years (222–333). Its analysis shows that Hippolytus based it on a 16-year (16x7 = 112) cycle, although he could have shortened it to an 8-year cycle, since he assumed that every 8 years (in the 1st, 9th, 17th, 33rd, etc. year) the full moon falls on April 13 49 . The error in Hippolytus's calculations was soon noticed, and his table was abandoned; in Rome they replaced it with an 84-year cycle, in which quite a few traces of the canon of Hippolytus 50 were retained. Dionysius of Alexandria compiled an 8-year canon, about which nothing more is known. The learned Alexandrian Anatolius, bishop of Syrian Laodicea, published his Easter canon with a 19-year cycle as a basis by the year 277 (266?) 51. The Canon of Anatolia subsequently processed Eusebius of Caesarea 52 in relation to March 21, as the equinox day, c) The difference between Alexandria and Rome consisted of: 1) First of all, in determining the day of the vernal equinox (i.e. the earliest terminus paschalis = the earliest full moon termini paschalis). The equinoctial day was celebrated in Alexandria on March 21, in Rome on March 18 (with Hippolytus 53) 2) The earliest (in the lunar month) Easter in Alexandria fell on the 15th day of the moon, in Rome (according to Hippolytus’ method) only on the 16th day 54. Alexandrian argument: on the eve of Easter, in the dead of night, fasting ends; and according to the (Old Testament) law, it is permissible to eat the Passover lamb only on the night of the 14th to 15th of Nisan; therefore, fasting cannot end before the 14th of the moon and, therefore, Easter cannot be celebrated before the 14th. Roman argument: Christ rose again on the 16th of Nisan; therefore, Easter cannot be celebrated before the 16th of the moon. Therefore, a) if there was a full moon on Saturday, March 21, then the earliest Easter was celebrated in Alexandria on the following Sunday, March 22. On the contrary, in Rome the full moon on Saturday March 18 was recognized as Easter, but Sunday March 19 was not considered Easter because it fell on the 15th day of the moon; Easter in this case was celebrated on March 26. Thus, the earliest Easter in Rome occurred no earlier than March 20 (when the full moon on March 18 fell on Friday 55; b) If the full moon fell on March 20, then in Alexandria they did not recognize it as Easter and expected the next full moon on April 18. If this day fell on Sunday, then Easter was celebrated on the following Sunday, April 25. April 25 is the latest Alexandrian Easter. In Rome, they did not want to go beyond the erroneous Easter limits of the canon of Hippolytus 56. The latter assumed that the Easter full moon would never occur later than April 13th. If this date fell on Saturday, then April 21 was Easter. This was the latest Roman Easter. d) The question of the Easter difference between Alexandria and Rome was first discussed at the Council of Serdica in 343. The Romans refused to accept the Alexandrian Easter cycle, claiming that they had a tradition from St. Peter - do not celebrate Easter later than April 21. Therefore, an agreement was reached only for the next 50 years, according to which the Alexandrian church partly sacrificed its calculations to please the Roman one: in 346 Easter was set for March 30 (instead of March 23), in 349 for March 26 (instead of April 23). But from 350, each church began to celebrate in its own way. The critical year 387 has finally arrived. The full moon this year fell on March 19, Friday, and April 18, Sunday. For Rome, the first was already Easter, and on March 21 Easter was already celebrated here. In Alexandria, Easter was only on April 25th. The difference is a full five weeks. Then the issue of Easter day was given extraordinary importance, they even talked about a miracle that occurs annually on the eve of Easter (in one of the mountain parishes on Holy Saturday the baptismal chamber is miraculously filled with water, which then, after baptism is performed, disappears); It is clear what a striking impression this disagreement made between Rome and Alexandria 57. Emperor Theodosius I demanded 58 from Theophilus of Alexandria that he explain how such an incredible disagreement was possible. Theophilus compiled [according to pseudo-Cyril in his prologue] the Easter canon for 418 [resp. 428] years [in fact - an Easter table for 100 years, starting from 380 = 96 of the era of Diocletian, i.e. from 1 year of the 6th Alexandrian 19-year cycle, (19x5) + 1] 59. Cyril of Alexandria [according to the same pseudo-Cyril] shortened this canon into a 95-year canon [in reality, probably, regarding the dispute about Easter in 444, he compiled a new Easter table for 95 years] (153–247 of the era of Diocletian, i.e. 437–531 AD 60. The Alexandrian Easter was now known in advance in Rome; but they didn’t want to leave their cycle, and every time Easter went beyond April 21, they raised the alarm and corresponded. This happened in 444 (Easter on April 23) and in 455 (Easter on April 24). In the latter case, Leo the Great raised the issue of the difference in calculations (in Rome they were supposed to celebrate April 17) already on June 24, 451 and wrote (by the way) at least 10 letters on this subject (3 to Emperor Marcian, 1 Proterius of Alexandria). On July 28, 454, Leo the Great circularly notified the churches of the Christian West that Easter should be celebrated on April 24. Under Pope Ilarus in 465, a 19-year cycle was adopted, invented in 457 by Victoria of Aquitaine, where a significant part of the differences between the Roman and Alexandrian numerals was eliminated 61 . But the disagreement came to an end in the 6th century, when (525) the Roman abbot Dionysius the Small introduced the Alexandrian 19-year cycle. In 531 the canon of Cyril of Alexandria ended. Dionysius, repeating the last 19 years of the canon, continued it until 626 and at the same time introduced our chronology from the birth of Christ into use. The Dionysian cycle was then adopted in Rome and Italy; in 589 introduced into Spain. But Gaul, until Charlemagne, adhered to the Victorian cycle; in Britain they even followed the previous 84-year cycle, and when Christianity appeared among the Anglo-Saxons and the Roman (Dionysian) cycle was introduced, Easter disputes arose between the Angles and Britons, which Columbanus († 597) transferred to Gaul. It was not until 729 that the majority of Old British Christians accepted the cycle of Dionysius. [In some parts of Britain the 84-year cycle lasted until the beginning of the 9th century.] 62. VI. Church system in the first three centuries of Christianity 63 The data of the New Testament canonical books regarding the church structure boils down to the following. The titles "bishop", "presbyter" and "deacon" are already known in this period; but wherever “bishops” are spoken of, there remains room for the assumption that this title is equivalent to another: “presbyter” [cf. Acts 20:17,28; Titus 1:5,7; Phil.1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1,8]. The Presbytery ordains (1 Tim. 4:14); Consequently, some who bore the title of presbyters also have the right of consecration, this essential sign of the episcopal rank. But it remains unknown whether there were some among the elders who did not have this right. Thus, the data do not allow us to identify these bishop-presbyters as a whole with either bishops or presbyters, or, finally, to assert with certainty that both were distinguished between them. Above these bishop-presbyters there are certain individuals, but we are not able to decide how much this position is determined by their personal importance or their extraordinary powers, and how much it belongs to their rank, their ecclesiastical degree. Thus, to supplement these data, it becomes necessary to turn to church writers of subsequent centuries. It is most natural to start with those who deal specifically with the question that interests us about the structure of the church of the apostolic period - to turn to the interpreters of those passages of the New Testament Holy Scripture that speak about bishop-presbyters. The most ancient explanation (if only it is correctly understood in this sense) belongs to St. Irenaeus of Lyons [Adv. haer. Ill, 14, 2: in Mileto enim convocatis episcopis et presbyteris, qui erant ab Epheso et a reliquis proximis civitatibus. “For when the bishops and elders who came from Ephesus and other nearby cities gathered in Miletus...”] If Irenaeus’ expression is not accidental and if it were to develop into a whole theory, then its meaning is that such a confusion of names is explained by a simple accident. The Evangelist Luke kept silent about the fact that bishops are also called together with the elders, and the word of the apostle is addressed to the latter. How Irenaeus would have explained other passages is, of course, unknown. The Eastern Fathers present us with three theories. According to Epiphanius [haer. 75, 5], church degrees were then called by the same names as in the 4th century; The apostle's silence about some of them is explained by the incomplete composition of the church hierarchy in the churches to which he writes. This incompleteness has only a historical reason: the news of the spread of Christianity, the lack of an urgent need for a full hierarchy in each church, as well as the lack of worthy candidates for the highest church degrees. But it can be noted that Epiphanius leaves without explanation, almost evasively bypasses a very difficult point: for him, as for all his contemporaries, there is no doubt that in one church there is only one bishop; meanwhile the apostle speaks of many bishops in Philippi. Should we assume that, according to Epiphanius, in the primal church, although as an exception, there were several bishops? His theory leads to this assumption, but he does not state it clearly. Theodoret explains the matter differently [in ep. ad Philipp. I, 1; in ep. 1 ad Timoth. 3, 1]. Like Epiphanius, he assumes that each of the three church degrees existed under the apostles under a strictly defined name, although not the same as it bears in the 4th-5th centuries, namely the deacons were called deacons, the elders were called presbyters and bishops, and the bishops were called apostles. Thus, none of the terms that were retained in subsequent times had a higher meaning in the apostolic age: the elders of that time were not higher, the bishops of that time were even lower than the present ones. Theodoret expressed this theory very definitely and held it firmly. But he, too, had to bend when it came to 1 Timothy 4:14: “with the laying on of hands of the presbytery.” “He called the teaching gift, διδασκαλία, and πρεσβυτέριον here (δέ ένταΰθα) - those awarded apostolic grace (τους της αποστολικής χάριτος ήξιωμένους ). Likewise, the divine scripture calls honorable (τους έντιμους) people in Israel “γερουσίαν.” The theory of St. is stronger than others. Chrysostom [hom. I, in ep. ad Philipp. I, 17], although he does not try to highlight it in the right case. Its flexibility is its main advantage. Like Theodorit, he argues that in the apostolic period church degrees were not called exactly the same as in the 4th-5th centuries, but, unlike Epiphanius and Theodorit, he believes that then the terminology was not yet stable at all: a bishop was called both a bishop, and a presbyter, and even a deacon, presbyters were also called bishops and presbyters. In subsequent times, the terminology was established - with the nominal elevation of bishops (the modest titles of presbyters and deacons were already abandoned), while according to Theodoret - bishops exchanged the high title of apostles for the more modest name of the persons subordinate to them. Thus, Chrysostom has some differences in understanding the very direction of the subsequent development of the church system. With all the diversity of the three theories of the Eastern Fathers, they have one thing in common: if they allow the idea of ​​​​the identity of bishops-presbyters, it is only in name. In essence, bishops and presbyters were different then. On the contrary, Western interpreters [Jerome, ep. 69 (al. 82, al. 83) ad Oceanum, ep. 146 (al. 101, al. 85) ad Evangelum, comm. in ep. ad Tit. I, 5, 7 and Ambrosiaster, comm. in ep. 1 ad Tim.3, 10], also allow for the real identity of these degrees in the primitive church. The distinction between bishops and presbyters was established only historically; Previously, it was very relative: the bishop was only the first presbyter, the chairman of the presbyterium. The formation of the episcopal degree, in its difference from the presbyters, is not confined to a specific moment by Jerome and Ambrosiaster. Ambrosiaster seems to admit that this happened already under the apostles. Jerome's thought is less clear. Thus, already in that distant era the places of interest to us attracted attention. But different explanations are given. Is it therefore possible to think that we are dealing not with learned exegetes, but with historians who rely on certain facts unknown to us? With the exception of one place of Jerome, the explanations of the Eastern and Western Fathers, apparently compiled on the basis of the demolition of well-known passages of Holy Scripture, represent an attempt at a harmonious agreement of New Testament data with the practice of the 4th century. In a word, these are exegetical hypotheses that could have been compiled at another time, and the strongest among them puts the history of the apostolic age in the least defined outlines. But at least in what form did the church organization exist at the beginning of the post-apostolic period? On this point we have the testimony of Clement of Rome and Ignatius; they are separated by one or two decades. In Clement, the lack of distinction between bishop and elders is all the more surprising since Clement already puts the structure of the Christian church in analogy with the Old Testament, speaks of the division of the Old Testament hierarchy into high priests, priests and Levites, who each had their own special duties [p. 40, 41, 43]. In a word, Clement’s silence about the Bishop of Corinth is so complete that, for example, Rothe, in order to save his theory [about the emergence of episcopate in the church around 70], builds a whole conjecture that at that time the Bishop of Corinth died, and his death served as a signal for an explosion of party passions (R. Rothe, Die Anfange der christlichen Kirche und ihrer Verfassung. Wittenberg 1837. S. 404–405) On the contrary, the epistle of Ignatius presents the episcopal office in the most definite terms. Here we may be interested not so much in this obviously high consciousness of episcopal dignity - the thought of them as the vicars of Christ, not these persistent exhortations to obey the bishop - in which some see evidence of the later origin of Ignatius's letters, others, on the contrary, evidence that the episcopate was then still a new institution. More important is the strict definiteness of expressions that runs everywhere, the firm distinction between the bishop, as one, and the presbyters, as many subordinate to him. Nowhere are the titles “bishop” and “presbyter” used interchangeably. In this sense, Ignatius' terminology differs quite greatly not only from Clement, but also from later writers. For example, nowhere in Polycarp's letter is the line between bishops and elders clearly drawn. In Justin we know only about the primate; in Hermas they also do not find a place where the bishop would stand out from the circle of presbyters subordinate to him. Even Irenaeus, during whom the difference between bishops and presbyters undoubtedly became clear, still, speaking about past times, uses the expressions “bishop” and “presbyter” mixed: he calls the lists of heads of churches either the succession of bishops [III, 3, 1, 2], or the succession of presbyters [III, 2, 2]. The Roman bishops before Victor are called presbyters, Polycarp of Smyrna is also “blessed presbyter” *. Rothe [S. 417–418] explains this, however, by the fact that the title “presbyter” was more honorable than the official “bishop”. “Elder” - this was a tribute to either venerable age or venerable historical prescription, which constitutes the aura of the first generations of bishops. In a word, “bishop” and “presbyter” for the writer of the 2nd century. sounds approximately the same as the names for us: “bishop” or “bishop” and “prelate”. As an echo of the distant past, there is one place in the Statuta ecclesiae antiquae [a Gallic monument of the early 6th century, about the laying on of hands on the consecrated presbyter not only by the bishop, but also by all the presbyters present at the consecration]. Undoubtedly, this ritual practice did not arise when the difference between bishop and presbyter, between “actus episcopalis et actus presbyteralis” assumed an absolute character. Perhaps this practice represents a simple copy of the words of the apostle: “with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery” (1 Tim. 4:14). But, in any case, this was the custom of the ancient church. After this indication, it is natural to give place to the truly puzzling testimony of Jerome [about the election and installation in Alexandria of a bishop from among the presbyters themselves before the first half of the third century] * 64. * [Hieronymi epist. 146 (al. 101, al. 85) ad Evangelum. Migne, Patr. lat. t. 22, p. 1194A: Quod autem postea unus electus est, qui caeteris praeponeretur (bishop), in schismatis remedium factum est, ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi ecclesiam rumperet. Nam et Alexandriae a Marco evangelista usque ad Heraclam et Dionysium episcopos (c. 240) presbyteri semper unum ex se selectum, in excelsiori gradu collocatum, episcopum nominabant; quomodo si exercitus imperatorem faciat: aut diaconi eligant de se, quern industrium noverint, et archidiaconum vocent]. The data (details regarding place and time) are so definite that they cannot be attributed to the ardent imagination of the Bethlehem presbyter, who was not entirely free from ambitious endeavors. Among the ancient news, this place stands completely alone. But the strangest thing is that this news of Jerome meets with some support from the side from which it would be most difficult to expect, from the Patriarch of Alexandria Eutyches of the tenth century * 65. Judging the relative merits of this latter source is not entirely an easy matter. Undoubtedly, this is not a high-quality historian (a fairy-tale character). But what he reported diverges to such an extent from contemporary practice that he himself could not invent it. It is hardly true (as Rothe suggests) that Eutyches simply repeats Jerome - the wrong dates and details. But it is quite possible that the sources from which this historian drew were the most murky: it is already suspicious that the name of Bishop Alexander, Peter’s successor, is involved here. At that time there was a Melitian schism that arose on the basis of hierarchical relations. In this news, at least, what contradicts later discipline, of course, was not introduced in a later time, and from this side it will always retain historical value. It doesn't justify anything; but the news of Jerome, with this support from Eutyches of Alexandria, seems more solid than it would have been without him. [Eutychii, Alexandrini patriarchae, Annales. Migne, Patr. gr. t. Ill, p. 982B: Constituit evangelista Marcus, una cum Hanania patriarcha, duodecim presbyteros, qui nempe cum patriarcha manerent, adeo ut cum vacaret patriarchatus, unum e duodecim presbyteris eligerent, cujus capiti reliqui undecim manus imponentes ipsi benedicerent et patriarcham crearent; deinde viram aliquem insignem eligerent quem secum presbyterum constituerent loco ejus qui factus est patriarcha, ut ita semper extarent duodecim. Neque desiit Alexandriae institutum hoc de presbyteris, ut scilicet patriarchas crearent ex presbyteris duodecim, usque ad tempora Alexandri patriarchae Alexandrini, qui fuit ex numero illo trecentorum et octodecim. Is autem vetuit, ne deinceps patriarcham presbyteri crearent. Et decrevit, ut mortuo patriarcha convenirent episcopi, qui patriarcham ordinarent. Cp. F. Cabrol in Dictionnaire d'archeologie chretienne et de liturgie. Fasc. V (Paris 1904), col. 1204–1210]. The data presented are such that on their basis it is impossible to restore the hierarchical structure of the primal church. When this system is fully outlined, it is done either completely arbitrarily, or they paint a picture of ancient times with colors taken from the era of the 3rd-4th centuries. The supposed democratic principle of the church hierarchy turns out to be the least justified: nowhere do we find facts confirming it; There is absolutely no example of a community ever consecrating a presbyter or bishop. The Orthodox dogmatic view of all times is repugnant to the idea that the episcopacy was a non-apostolic institution that degenerated as a result of various historical accidents. The meaning of the dogmatic demands is perfectly expressed by Ambrosiaster: “after all, it is impossible for the inferior to supply the superior: no one can give what he has not received.” Consequently, the degree of bishop dogmatically precedes the degree of presbyter. Therefore, any historical idea of ​​​​the ancient presbyter-bishops, as presbyters in the strict sense, must fall as inconsistent with the basic dogmatic view of the universal church 66. But for one bishop to be in one city is a fact, not a dogma. The question of the mutual relationship of bishops is again of only historical interest. It seems necessary to admit that the actual relations of presbyters to bishops in ancient times were closer to equality than in subsequent periods. One of them already rises above the presbyters very early on: the “angels” of the seven apocalyptic churches are already attested to by St. John. That these were only the presidents of the presbyteral colleges has not been conclusively proven by the Protestants. But even the epistles of Ignatius the God-Bearer do not give us definite evidence that stops every mouth that the difference between bishops and presbyters was absolute; and we are left with only this modest fact that - if we ignore the lonely voice of Jerome - we do not know of a single specific case in which a bishop was installed by presbyters. We enter solid historical, i.e., well-attested ground at the end of the 2nd century. And here the fact of the existence of bishops and elders, clergy and laity is beyond any doubt. As needs arise, the clergy also increases in number: new lower positions appear. The time of appearance of each of them is unknown; together they are named for the first time in the epistle of Cornelius, Bishop of Rome (251, † 252): ὑποδιάκονοι, ἀκόλουθοι, ἐξορκισταί, ἀναγνώσται, πυλωροί (Eus. VI, 43:11). Ἀκόλουθοι, despite the Greek name, exist only in the west. Undoubtedly, deaconesses also existed then. Their beginning dates back to the times of the apostles (Phoebe - deaconess of the Church of Cenchrea, Rom. 16:1, 1 Tim. 5:9, Tit. 2: 3-5; ministrae - in Pliny’s letter to Trajan). Their duties are not known in detail. But the purpose of this institution is self-explanatory: given the disunity between the sexes that existed in the east, and even in the classical world, it was difficult for a bishop or presbyter to maintain relations with Christian women. In view of the need to instruct Christian women in faith and morals, deaconesses taught women approaching baptism what to answer when baptized. They were probably ordained by the bishop in the presence of the clergy and people. Between the ordines majores, the actual hierarchical degrees, the distinction has been established very clearly. Representatives of the collegial principle, the presbyters, retreat before the bishop, the representative of the monarchical principle. The needs of the time, the need for a firm defense of the church against heretics, fully favored this centralization of church power. The fight against heretics, especially Gnostics, could be successfully resolved only on the basis of tradition preserved in the church from apostolic times. The ideal unity of the church had to be translated into reality, and specific bearers of this apostolic succession should be indicated. The letters of Ignatius, the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian give such a statement to this issue. (The influence of the Old Testament priesthood can be left aside.) And the bishop, naturally, rose above his presbyterium as the highly revered πάπας ίερώτατος, άρχιερεύς, summus sacerdos. He has the highest seat in the center of his presbyterium, the highest supervision over his flock; he supplies members of the clergy; on the contrary, since the 3rd century, the election of a bishop has been viewed as a church-wide matter; not only the clergy and people, but also neighboring bishops take part in it. In a word, the presbytery, obscured by the constant presence of the superior glory of the bishop, with whom it acts jointly and inseparably, is reduced to a very modest role, far from corresponding to their hierarchical position; the presbyter actually sometimes stands even lower than the deacons. People whom the general vote recognized as the most worthy were elected to the clergy. There were no special institutions for training for clergy positions yet. This preparation was of a completely practical nature: this should probably explain the examples of the appearance of the clergy even in the primitive church. “And I, the least of you all, Polycrates,” says this wonderful bishop of Ephesus with dignity (Eus. V, 24:6), “I act according to the tradition of my relatives, for I was the successor of some of them. And of my relatives there were seven bishops, I am the eighth.” The question of providing for the clergy in the ancient church did not exist. Wealthy people were often chosen, and they themselves brought donations to the church. Subsequently, when the view was established that the priestly order should not engage in worldly crafts, their maintenance was attributed to the voluntary offerings of believers. Many issues that subsequently became acute were resolved purely practically*. The circumstances of the time naturally favored the selection of persons of very mature age for the clergy. This predetermined the question of the impermissibility of marriage for the initiate. Church rules of the subsequent period confirm this custom (Council of Ancyra 314, sap. 10 on deacons, Ar. Constit. (“Apostolic Constitutions”) pp. 6, 17, Sob. Neocaesarea, sap. 1). Consequently, there were cases. – Respect for the ascetic way of life forced believers to demand it from the clergy. – Hence the natural exclusion of bigamous and trigamous people from the clergy. – In the Roman clergy under Callistus: the denunciation of Hypollitus. Tertullian: bigami praesident apud vos (“bigamous ones are coming among you”). Elvira Cathedral 305, sap. 33. Another issue in the sphere of relations between individual members of the church is that of the clergy and the laity. This difference existed very firmly throughout the entire period; We don’t see any attempts on the part of the laity. Protestants naturally notice traces of the idea of ​​a universal priesthood. So, in Irenaeus they indicate Adv. haer. IV, 20: omnes enim justi sacerdotalem habent ordinem (“after all, all the righteous belong to the priestly rank”). And Tertullian has De exhort. castitatis, p. 7: vani erimus, si putaverimus, quod sacerdotibus non liceat, laicis licere. Nonne et laici sacerdotes sumus? “After all, it’s absurd to think that the laity is allowed to do what is not allowed to the priests. Aren't we, the laity, priests too? Church authority and honor, sanctified by sitting with the hierarchy (per ordinis consessum), this is what established the difference between the clergy and the people (inter ordinem et plebem). Therefore, where there is no meeting of the church rank, there you perform both ascension and immersion, and you alone are your own priest; but where there are three, there is already a church, even if there were lay people. So, since you carry within yourself the right of the priesthood, in case of need, then you should also submit to the discipline of the priesthood, since the right of the priesthood is inherent in you.” In fact, both statements have their full meaning only in the moral realm: as an obligation for all Christians to be morally pure. A jus sacerdotis, which Tertullian speaks of, is not an ecclesiastical phenomenon at all: this is written by a Montanist who, while remaining Orthodox, thought completely differently. “And they don’t have the slightest order! - he wrote about heretics (mainly about Gnostics), - who is their catechumen and who is faithful is impossible to understand. Their ordinations are eccentric (temerariae), frivolous, unstable. They have one bishop today, and another tomorrow; today a deacon, and tomorrow a lector; today a presbyter, tomorrow a layman. For they also assign sacred offices to the laity (nam et laicis sacerdotalia munera injungunt)” (De praescr. p.41). In short, there is no example of the laity encroaching on the prerogatives of the priesthood. But, distinguishing themselves from the clergy, as lower from the higher, the laity had the right to broad participation in church affairs, the best guarantee of which was the very state of things: the dependence of the clergy on the people in the very content and the absence of an external force that could replace the lack of moral influence of the clergy and the trust of the people. Testimonio et sententia cleri, conscientia populi praesentis, suffragio plebis assistentis (by the testimony and opinion of the clergy, the consent of the people present, the vote of the present plebs) - all the most important affairs of the church were done (election to church degrees, acceptance of the fallen). The forms were not strictly worked out: we cannot decide whose upper hand remained in those cases when bishops, clergy and people were hopelessly at odds with each other. But there is no need to put such an acute question on the question: why should bishops necessarily be opponents of worthy candidates? The history of the 1st-3rd centuries does not provide examples of such clashes. – The people participated in church affairs either as a whole or through their representatives. We meet similar representatives in the seniores plebis of the Carthaginian church, who, as Rothe thoroughly proved, were viri ecclesiastici not at all in the sense of members of the clergy - they themselves distinguish themselves from the latter - but in the same sense as church elders differ from village elders. Their rights are not known exactly, and this institution may have been local, African. Each individually representing a complete whole, the churches in general represented a confederation of equals or a universal church. This spirit of unity was theoretically expressed in church teaching - especially in Irenaeus and mainly in Cyprian, practically - in the relations of individual churches among themselves, personal (through random or special representatives) and written. The latter were very developed, which is already proven by the rich nomenclature of such messages - litterae ecclesiasticae: a) εγκύκλιοι, circulares, tractoriae (“district”), 6) γράμματα τετυπωμένα, formatae (“official documents”), c) κοινωνικά, communicatoriae, or ειρηνικά, pacificae (“informational or peaceful”), d) συστατικά, commendatoriae (“recommendatory”), e) ένθρονιστικά, cathedraticae (“positional”), f) άπολυτικά, remissoriae (“forgiving sins”), g) κανονικά (“canonical”) - for general information. The highest expression of this unity were church councils, which, due to the circumstances of that time, were only local. “In addition,” Tertullian notes about his time, “in Greece there are in certain places these councils, at which more important issues are jointly discussed and which serve as a means of solemn representation of the entire Christian name.”* The councils were first mentioned around 160 (Eus. V, 16), in Asia Minor, on the occasion of the Montanist movement. Then the councils were mentioned during the Easter disputes - around 196. During the time of Tertullian, they represented a regular institute (twice a year). De jejuniis, p. 13: Aguntur praeterea per Graeciam ilia certis locis concilia ex universis ecclesiis, per quae et altiora quaeque in commune tractantur et ipsa repraesentatio totius nominis christiani magna veneratione celebratur. Thus, the church appears to us as a union of independent units, united among themselves by the common purpose of their existence and expressing this unity in fact when the occasion presented itself. But these means of expressing church unity are also of an extraordinary nature. The next question is how this unity was expressed in the organization itself, in administrative procedures? Did this free union of churches represent a harmoniously dissected whole, the parts of which stand among themselves in relation not only to arrangement (coordination), but also to subordination (subordination)? Subsequently, this administrative unity was carried out consistently: the episcopal district, παροικία, was a union of individual parishes, or even several chorepiscopies; a certain number of παροικίαι constituted a ἐπαρχίαν - a metropolitan district, and several dioceses formed a διοίκησιν - a patriarchate. To what extent were these relations prepared in the pre-Constantine period? As the basic unit before us is παροικία, the local church in the narrow sense, the bishopric. The bishop is to such an extent a necessary component in the concept of the church that - one might say - a church without its bishop was unthinkable. But we know so little about any internal division of this unit that this incomplete historical information almost contradicts the most necessary assumptions to which the then state of affairs entitles us. Namely, we have no positive information about the existence of city parishes (governed by elders) in the pre-Constantine period. On the contrary, the presbyters are constantly presented together with the bishop; all church life is concentrated, in the language of our time, around the cathedral. Justin the Philosopher, who tells us one of the oldest information about Christian worship, presents the matter in such a way that all believers, not only city, but also surrounding villagers, gather in one place on Sundays for the Eucharist (Apol. I, 65). But, on the other hand, in the half of the 3rd century (251–252), as we know from the words of Cornelius, the Roman church supported more than one and a half thousand widows and the needy; Based on statistics, we can conclude that the number of believers in Rome then reached 30 thousand. It is unlikely that such a mass would gather constantly in one place, even if it were a fairly extensive church *. [In all likelihood, in each of the 14 regions into which Rome was divided in civil terms, there was a special place for liturgical meetings]. The first news of parishes [in cities] belongs to the post-Constantinian period, although the beginnings for their formation could have been prepared in the present period. We have equally little news about rural parishes. Christianity usually spread from cities to villages. At first, a few rural Christians gathered for worship in the city (Justin). But as their numbers increase, shouldn’t they form an independent community? But there could be exceptions: Christianity could spread first in the village, then in the city. In the latter case, naturally, the head of the rural community had to be a bishop; when a branch rural community was separated from a city bishopric, both a bishop (which is more likely) and a presbyter could be placed at the head of the latter. In what relationship should the rural parikia stand to the urban one? In the first case, the bishop could naturally enjoy complete autonomy; in the second, one can assume the dependence of the branch church with its bishop on the city one, but the extent of this dependence remains unknown. Probably already before the 4th century. there were χωρεπίσκοποι (first mentioned in the 4th century), with which the city bishops waged a struggle, which ended in the complete subordination of the chorepiscopies to the bishoprics and the destruction of the position of chorebishop. This process perhaps dates back to the pre-Constantinian period. This lends credence to the idea that 46 elders were in charge of 46 separate places of worship. This hypothesis is further supported by the fact that the number of akoluths, exorcists, readers and gatekeepers, also fluctuates around 50 (42–52). So, in the middle of the 3rd century there were about 40 parishes in Rome? But no matter how probable this may be, we do not have the right to such a conclusion: there could be surrogates for parishes, and yet not parishes. The order of the ancient church could represent something very original: as early as 416 (Innocent I ad Decentio Eugubino, 5) in Rome there was such a practice that the presbyters gathered with their parishioners according to their titles - but to express their unity - they did not perform the liturgy, but received through the acoluths the Holy Gifts, consecrated by the bishop (ibid parochia - in the sense of a rural parish). The occurrence of the expression diaconus plebem gevens shows that the leadership of liturgical (separate) meetings was entrusted to deacons: clearly this was not a parish. Thus, the fact is that the unity of the church in ancient times was expressed more clearly even in form. Different views have been expressed on the history of the formation of the metropolitan administration. Chrysostom seems inclined to present Timothy as a kind of metropolitan. The idea of ​​the apostolic origin of the metropolitan degree was expressed in a rather crude form by Anglican theologians (Usserius [Usher], De origine episcoporum et metropolitanorum, 1641; Beveregius [Beveridge], Codex canonum ecclesiae primitivae vindicatus ac illustratus, 1678). It has already been softened by Catholic scholars, who derive from the apostles only the principle of this system, but its implementation is attributed to a later time. Petrusde Marca (De concordia sacerdotii et imperii, ed. Baluze. 1663) indicates first of all that the Apostle Paul writes his letters to cities that were centers of political life; St. Peter addresses the newcomers from Galatia, Pontus, and Bithynia. But already E. du Pin (De antiqua ecclesiae disciplina, 1686) quite rightly noted that such indications do not prove anything: believers did not live outside of geographical space; it was necessary to indicate their place of residence. The only truth in this Catholic theory is that the metropolitan system developed from the same natural causes that disposed the apostles to begin their preaching from political centers. Large cities, as the center of civil life, naturally attracted masses of believers from the provinces. Since the gospel preaching was sent from the main cities to the interior of the country, many provincial churches stood in a branch relationship with the bishopric of the main city; natural respect for their ecclesia matrix conditioned a certain relationship of their dependence on it - first moral, then turned into administrative. As the starting points of apostolic preaching, large cities naturally turned out to be apostolic sees. And - according to the general conviction of the ancient church - the apostolic tradition was preserved in greater purity and more clearly in these sees founded by the apostles; Naturally, the eyes of the churches founded subsequently turned to them when any ecclesiastical issue arose. “To this church,” says St. Irenaeus of Lyons about the Roman Church, - due to its primarily primacy position [propter potentiorem principalitatem], it is necessary (necesse est) to gather [convenire] of the whole church, that is, all the faithful everywhere, and in it, those believers who gather from everywhere, always preserve the apostolic tradition.” Finally, like ancient churches, they were the most numerous; like city churches, they included the most educated believers; hence the natural opportunity to nominate the most enlightened bishops to the see. Thus, the centralization of the private churches of the province around its main church should have taken place naturally. The name of the metropolitan first appears at the first ecumenical council; but it sounds very firm here. The rights of metropolitans are already an ancient custom, and they are confirmed at the council. The first hints of this grouping of churches are the news of Eusebius about the Easter disputes around 196. The councils convened on this occasion are presided over (V, 23) - in Palestine: Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Jerusalem (VI, 25: Narcissus and Theophilus), in Gallic - Irenaeus of Lyons, in Greece - Bachillus of Corinth, but on Pontic - Πάλμας ώς αρχαιότατος προύτέτακτο - Palma, bishop of the city of Amastris. Thus, the primates of the main cities are nominated; but the personal principle still successfully holds out against the territorial one. It is remarkable that in Africa he maintained his victory to the end: there were no metropolitans there (except for Carthage); districts were grouped around the oldest bishops. The autograph of this section of V.V. Bolotov’s academic readings is currently stored in the OR RNL, f. 102, units 415, pp. 39–48, and the first two leaves are probably lost, since fol. 39 has the handwritten number 3 by A.I. Brilliantov. In the 1910 edition of the Lectures, the autograph was not printed in full (only pp. 41–49; A.I. Brilliantov’s notes are also preserved here). On sheets 39–41 there is the following text by V.V. Bolotov (A.S): Based on an analogy with the structure of Jewish synagogues and Roman municipalities, Rothe believes that the government of the first Christian communities was based on a democratic principle. The election of the people, which is often mentioned in the New Testament books, meant everything here; ordination meant simply a blessing, and not consecration or ordination in the catholic ecclesiastical sense. Pastors were officials of the community, not of the church (S. 155, nur Gemeindebeamten, nicht Beamten der Kirche), representatives of the interests of the community, and not of apostolic powers. The administration of each community (like synagogues and municipalities) had a collegial character: its primates were προϊστάμενοι, there were bishop-presbyters, its ministers (executive body) were διάκονοι. The latter have an analogy with the synagogue hazanim, although with an honorable position, incomparably higher than the position of these latter. Presbyters, i.e., leaders of Christian communities from Jews or believers in general who are familiar with Jewish orders, is a literal translation of Heb. zekenim. But, since the name “elder” has no analogue in the official staff of Greco-Roman cities and - with a possible discrepancy with the age of the primates - would sound strange to non-Jews, the primates of pagan Christians were called επίσκοποι, a name that had long been applied by the Greeks to various officials. But both bishops and presbyters represent absolutely the same degree, both of them are only members of the college, πρεσβυτέρων: there was no difference between them in rank. And in general, in the apostolic period there were no officials elevated above the bishop-presbyters: James, Timothy, Titus and others are arbitrarily considered bishops in the later sense. Around 70, a very major transition took place in the consciousness of believers. The fall of the Jewish theocracy turned and focused their thoughts inward, and they clearly recognized themselves as a distinct religious society. Until then there were Christian communities (Gemeinden), but there was no Church (Kirche). The inherent desire for unity among Christians has so far manifested itself only in the close sphere of relations of a separate community. Inspirational word up. Paul expanded Christian consciousness to the idea of ​​a single Church - the body of Christ. But this consciousness during the apostolic period had a theoretical character. In practice, it was expressed only in the relations of all communities with the apostles (the communities did not come into contact directly, but in their common center). The apostles and their delegates (like Timothy, Titus), mediating the relationship of unity, were only a surrogate of unity, a temporary unity, because it rested only on their personality, and was not rooted in the very structure of communities. As death more and more reduced the number of apostles, the concern for strengthening communication between Christian communities became more and more urgent: it was necessary to turn its extraordinary means into organic ones; and this meant - to realize, to bring into reality the idea of ​​the Church, hitherto realized only in theory. Since it was impossible to find in the Christian world such persons who, in their deep comprehension of the truths of Christianity, in moral purity, would be equal to the apostles and, like them, would be freely recognized as the supreme authority by the entire Christian world: then the succession of the apostleship in its pure form was impossible. But it was possible in every community - and most naturally among its leaders - to find at least one person who enjoyed generally accepted respect among the flock. It was them who the apostles authorized to be their successors. In their person, the apostolate branched out into plurality: the autocratic character of the apostolic rule now takes on a predominantly aristocratic connotation. On the one hand, they are representatives of their communities (the democratic character remains in force), but on the other hand, by virtue of their sovereign authority, they stand high above it, have powers above the rights that free election gave them: in their person the community should have seen representatives of the entire episcopate, apostolate, dignitaries not only of the community, but also of the church. The apostles exercised their authority in solidum, as members of a single whole; so their successors must exercise their authority in solidarity, mutually limiting each other and together forming an indivisible and united power. On the one hand, they are a true representation of the communities, but on the other, their sovereign will is independent of the will of the communities they represent; and yet, in their will, Christian communities must recognize their true will, because in their voice the will of the churches, their true self, is reflected collectively. The apostles themselves gave this direction to the Christian organization. On this indication, Rothe sees in the Jerusalem council of the apostles for the election of Simon as bishop (Eus. h.e. 3:11), in the testimony of Irenaeus about the secondary orders, δευτέραις διατάξεσι, the apostles and in the testimony of Clement of Rome, that the apostles made έπινομήν, additional decrees that were bequeathed regarding the succession of the primates of the church. – These primates, bishops in the proper sense, are already known to apostolic men, like Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, not to mention Irenaeus. The epistles of Ignatius, in a brief Greek version, are authentic and represent the fullest expression of the idea of ​​Christian episcopate - and its historical significance. The “Catholic historian” also criticizes in part and repeats in part. – As a necessary means for human salvation, Christ founded the church and placed in it the fullness of the gifts of grace, however, in such a way that not every believer, but only its leaders, can have them. Hierarchy and the laity - this division was already ordained by Christ Himself. But in turn, the church as a whole is higher than all its leaders. The bride of her Lord, she is the mistress of all believers: the apostles themselves are only her servants, her organs. Church positions were established by the apostles, of course, with the consent of the believers, but this was not a contractual relationship, which emanates difference (?) and coldness, but a living and free interaction of one organism. Ordination is the most significant moment: it is an act of transfer of authority, which could not be performed by everyone, but only by those with power. Already in the deacons, no matter how strongly the everyday, everyday side of their office appears, the ecclesiastical character of their office is reflected: they must participate in the distribution of St. Darov. But the actual heads of the church, the elders, the successors of apostolic powers, are undoubtedly not community officials: they have the right of teaching and administration (the power of the keys) and the performance of holy things. Darov. This last puts beyond doubt the apostolic dignity of this rank, the identity of presbyters and bishops. For the one by whose word the Body and Blood of Christ is accomplished, there is no higher action on earth; whoever has the right to perform this greatest of sacraments must have the power and consecration. To deny this would mean to preach subordinationism of the Son to the Holy Spirit. These presbyter-bishops were the primates known to Christian writers of the first two centuries, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Hermas, Irenaeus. “But it must be recognized that the established positions of the primate of the presbytery - whether under the name of bishop or presbyter - were in themselves a completely healthy development. This was their formal advantage, which was caused by the need to firmly protect believers and elders against various external and internal dangers. The completion (Zusammenfassung) of the presbytery in the elective bishopric took place by the free decision of the individual churches that needed this ideal and practical representation of their unity. The bishop was rather the most prominent expression (der pragnanteste Ausdruck) of the apostolate living in the church, rather than the official bearer of apostolic succession (Erbnachfolge)” (S. 115). Thus in the second and third centuries, on the foundation laid by the apostles, the bishopric arose for a holy purpose and in a holy order. As an institution born of internal necessity, it truly deserves the name bearers of apostolic succession. The Church of God has placed a high seal on him: “It has pleased the Holy Spirit and us.” – This episcopate is depicted in the letters of Ignatius. – Of course, each individual church enjoys complete freedom in relation to others. The apostles did not establish any papacy. Neither the Gospels nor the epistles of the apostles speak of the supremacy of Peter: and it would be a crime on their part not to point out such a cornerstone of the visible church as the supremacy of Peter, if it were a reality. The Roman bishopric of Peter itself is a fable created by the imagination of the power-hungry Romans and too soon inflated to the illusory significance of a historical fact by the flattering servility of the Greeks. The points of similarity and difference between the anonymous Catholic and Rothe are clear. Not to mention the fact that for the first the church from the very day of Pentecost enters into real existence, his reasoning about the nature of the church and apostolate shakes the ground for building a church organization from a democratic beginning. On church grounds, it makes almost no sense. In any case, deacons and elders, already under the apostles, are officials of the church, not the community. Rothe, like all Protestants, focuses primarily on the importance of primates as rulers: for a Catholic historian, they are primarily priests. Presbyters and bishops are identical for this reason, but the emergence of the subsequent episcopate according to Rothe was an important turning point in church life, for the anonymous person - its healthy and legitimate development. The apostolic origin of the bishopric in Rothe is given even more clearly and directly than in the anonymous one, but for the latter its existence is no less sacred. For Rothe, the transition from the old system to the new took place very quickly: Clement of Rome already knows bishops in the exact sense. For the anonymous person, the process of formation of the episcopate was rather slow: Clement of Rome knows only presbyter-bishops. – 477. Wed. V.V. Bolotov, Origen’s Teaching on the Holy Trinity. St. Petersburg 1879 (A.B.). The same in the book: V.V. Bolotov, Collection of church historical works. T. 1: Origen's Teaching on the Holy Trinity. M. 1999. (A.S.) – 329. Wed. A. Spassky’s assessment of these two trends in monarchianism: “Some of them, the modalist-dynamists, claim that Christ is a simple man (ψιλός άνθρωπος), in whom a special Divine Power acted; others, modalist monarchians, teach that Christ is God the Father Himself, who took on flesh for the sake of our salvation. From here it is clear that the essence of the monarchist movement lay not so much in the doctrine of the Trinity, but in Christology, and that the conventional term monarchianism or anti-trinitarianism refers to two diametrically opposed directions that coincided only in one of their final conclusions - in the denial of the idea of the Logos and the associated doctrine of the Trinity" (A. Spassky, History of dogmatic movements in the era of ecumenical councils, vol. 1. Sergiev Posad 1914, pp. 31–32). (A.S.) – 336. It should be noted that this Theodotus is educated. “Epiphanius calls him a well-read man and a man of “much learning” - πολυμαθής τφ λόγω. In all likelihood, he was brought up mainly on the positive sciences; because about the followers of that community, the head and founder of which was Theodotus of Byzantium, Eusebius expresses that they studied the geometry of Euclid, the philosophy of Aristotle, read Theophrastus, and almost idolized Galen” (D. Gusev, Heresy of the Anti-Trinitarians of the Third Century. Kazan 1872, p. 89). (A.S.) – 336. The attribution of this word to Athanasius the Great is currently not recognized by everyone (Draseke 1893, Stfflcken 1899, Hoss 1899). (A.B.) – 343. A detailed analysis of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity by Tertullian, carried out by one modern researcher, allows him to conclude that the main leitmotif of this teaching was Church Tradition: “It is impermissible to believe in what [we] have not been transmitted,” nonlicet credi (quod) nonitatraditum est. Limited, naturally, by place and time, Tertullian in his Trinitarian theology was forced, first of all, to rebuff monarchist tendencies, emphasizing the “numerical difference” of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, but, at the same time, he managed to solve the problem of Her unity (unus Deus) quite adequately for his era. In general, Tertullian “created a new theological language,” and the specificity of this language was that it combined explanations based on Holy Scripture and Tradition with philosophical reasoning and dialectical evidence. This language, created by Tertullian, became the basis for all subsequent development of Latin patristics. See: J. Moingt, Theologie trinitaire de Tertullien, t. 3. Aubier 1966, p. 1078–1091. (A.C.) – 351. A. Orlov points out the close connection between the Christology of St. Irenaeus with the teaching of the apostles John and Paul, as well as with the Christology of the apostolic men. They are all united by a common tendency, which A. Orlov characterizes as “mystical-realistic Christology.” Its main idea “is the idea of ​​the deification of humanity in Christ, understood in a strictly real, almost naturalistic (physical) meaning - in the sense of a substantial transformation of human nature, its qualitative mixing, communion with the Divine, by analogy of the union of fire with metal in a red-hot piece of iron. “God became man so that man became god” - this is the main thesis and vital nerve of the Christological speculations of Irenaeus and theologians related to him” (A. Orlov, Christology of Hilary of Pictavius ​​in connection with a review of Christological teachings of the 2nd–4th centuries. Sergiev Posad 1909, p. 1). In addition to the emphasis on the human nature of Christ, St. Irenaeus is also characterized by emphasizing the unity of the God-man (again, in polemics with the Gnostics). See: A. Houssian, La christologie de saint Irenee. Louvain-Gembloux 1955, p. 143–256. (L.S.) – 356. Modern researchers also note the “theological accuracy” of Tertullian’s Christological terminology. A number of his Christological formulas, especially: “two essences in one Person” (dual substantiae in una Persona), were far ahead of the theological consciousness of his era, having been developed only by Bl. Jerome and Augustine. See: R. Cantalamessa, La cristologia di Tertulliano. Friburgo 1962, p. 150–176. (A.C.) – 357. Some modern scientists also express suspicions of “Docetism” regarding Clement, but, as A. Grillmayer notes, they are not entirely fair: the reality of Christ’s humanity is by no means questioned by the Alexandrian theologian. See: A. Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, n. 1. London-Oxford 1975, p. 136. In the Incarnation of God the Word, Clement emphasizes the moment of “sacrament”, and this is the mystery of God’s love for man (τά της αγάπης μυστήρια). See: P. Th. Camelot, foi et gnose. Introduction a l'etude de la con-naissance mystique chez Clement d'Alexandrie. Paris 1945, p. 88–90. (A.C.) – 358. The personality and worldview of Pavel Samosatsky never ceases to cause lively discussions in church historical scholarship. These discussions are largely related to the poor state of the sources, which are very scarce and often contradictory (the bulk of them are collected in the book: F. Loofs, Paulus von Samosata. Eine Untersuchung zur altkirchlichen Literatur – und Dogmengeschichte. Leipzig 1924, S. 323–339). The main guideline remains the information reported in the seventh book of the “Church History” of Eusebius of Caesarea. See: Burke, Eusebius on Paul of Samosatä A New Image. Kleronomia 1975, t. 7, No. 1, p. 8–20. Fragments of the council acts of 268 are collected and analyzed in the book: N. Riedmatten, Les Actes du proces de Paul de Samosate. Etude sur la christologie du III au IV siècle. Friborg in Suisse 1952. However, some researchers express very serious doubts about the reliability of these acts, considering them a forgery of the 4th century. See: I L. Sample, The Christology of the Council of Antioch (268 S.E.) Reconsidered. Church History 1979, v. 48, p. 18–26. Sources concerning the personality and theology of Paul of Samosata are increasing. See, for example, the recent publication: J. H. Declerck, Deux nouveaux fragments attribues a Paul de Samosate. Byzantion 1984, t. 54, p. 116–140. A classic work that comprehensively illuminates the life and worldview of this heretic remains the book: G. Bardy, Paul de Samosate. Etude historique. Louvain-Paris 1923. Apparently, in the person of Pavel Samosatsky, for the first time in the history of the church we meet a “secular bishop” with clearly adventuristic character traits. As a bishop, he simultaneously held a very lucrative secular position of “ducenary” (procurator ducenarius - financial manager); actively participated in the political intrigues of his time, coming under the patronage of the Palmyra queen Zinovia; did not hesitate to introduce liturgical innovations: he prohibited hymns in honor of the Lord and, on the contrary, introduced hymns glorifying himself, etc. (A.S.) – 361. Such a modest assessment of the significance of Clement of Alexandria in the history of Christian theology is unlikely to correspond to the truth. For he “occupies a special place in church literature: he is a Christian philosopher. Already in ancient times, among the writers who followed him, who call him “the most excellent teacher of Christian philosophy,” “a philosopher,” “a truly philosopher of philosophers,” Clement’s fame as a philosopher was established” (D. Mirtov, Moral ideal according to Clement of Alexandria. St. Petersburg, 1900, p. 1). Such a reputation reflects the fact that “Clement of Alexandria is considered the founder of Christian science, because he was the first to lay the foundation for church-Christian gnosis, i.e. scientific and philosophical, but standing on the basis of church understanding, the understanding and presentation of revealed truths” (D. Mirtov, The Moral Teaching of Clement of Alexandria. St. Petersburg, 1900, p. 219). The latest research shows that although Clement put the main emphasis on the doctrine of Christian morality, other areas of doctrine (the doctrine of God, Logos, soteriology, etc.) also received coverage in his works. See: W. Volker, Der wahre Gnostiker nach Clemens Alexandrinus. Berlin 1952; E. F. Osborn, The Philosophy of Clement of Alexandria. Cambridge 1957; S. R. C Lilla, Clement of Alexandria. A Study in Christian Platonism and Gnosticism. Oxford 1971. (A.C.) – 368. Montanism is sometimes compared to Protestantism, seeing in it a movement of “religious enthusiasm.” See: J. Lebreton, J. Zeiller, Histoire de l'Eglise, t. 2. De la fin du 2' siècle a la paix constantinienne. Paris 1935, p. 35. (A.C.) – 381. The exact date of the appearance of the sect is difficult to establish, due to conflicting information from sources, but most likely it arose in 156–157, although some scientists adhere to a later date. See: A. Pokrovsky, Chronology of early Montanism. Christian Reading 1913, p. 1442; 5. L. Greenslade, Schism in the Early Church. London 1953, p. 223. (A.C.) – 382. Initially, a number of small local councils (“cathedrals” as defined by A. Pokrovsky) were held in Asia Minor, and then (in the 70s of the 2nd century) the relatively large Council of Hierapolis was convened. See: A. Pokrovsky, The earliest “small” anti-montanist councils. Christian Reading 1913, p. 928–943; A. Pokrovsky, Great Hierapolis Cathedral against Montanism. There, p. 1060–1084. (A.S.) – 383. G. N. Bonwetsch, Die Geschichte des Montanismus. Erlangen 1881, S. 165 Anm. 3,211, also in Hauck's Realencyklopadie fur protest. Theologie u. Kirche. B. XIII (1903), Artik. "Montanismus", S. 423 - identifies "cenones" in Hieronymi epist. 41 with "κοινωνοί" in Cod. Justin. 1, 5, 20. Wed. also A. Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzerge-schichte des Urchristenthums. Leipzig 1884, S. 578, 598. (A. B.) – 384. According to the observation of D. Kasitsyn, the difference between the Montanist “false prophets” and “many of the brethren in the Church who had the gifts of prophecy” was that in the Catholic Church the prophets only revealed and explained the meaning of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments under the leadership of the Church itself, and the Montanist “false prophets” introduced something alien to the Scriptures and Tradition of the Church, speaking fabulously about the onset of a new and higher stage of Divine revelation. Therefore, “Montanism, with its preaching of a new, most perfect revelation and its constant development, essentially overthrew all modern Christianity, relegating it to a lower, already experienced stage of religious development, which has now been outgrown by Montanistic Christianity, the Christianity of the “third testament” and the mature age of the Church." See: D. Kasitsyn, Schisms of the first centuries of Christianity. M. 1889, p. 33–34, 41. (A.S.) – 387. “I hear that an edict has been issued - and how vain it is! It is the supreme pontiff, that is, the bishop of bishops, who says: “I forgive the sins of fornication and adultery to those who repent” (Latin). - At present, almost everyone, apparently (cf., however, for example, Hauck in Realencyklopadie fur protest. Theologie u. Kirche B. III (1897), S. 641, accepts the opinion once expressed by De Rossi (1866), that Tertullian in this case (De pudic. 1) also means Callista. Cf. E. Rolffs, Das Indulgenz-Edict des romischen Bischofs Kallist kritisch untersucht und reconstruirt. (Texte u. Untersuchungen herausgeg. von Gebhardt u. Harnack, XI, 3). Leipzig 1893. G. Esser, Die Busschriften Tertullians de paenitentia und das Indulgenzedikt des Papstes Kallistus. Bonn 1905. P. Batiffol, Etudes d'histoire et de theologie positive. 4 ed. Paris 1906, pp. 78–110. (A.B.) – 399. St. Hippolytus was a fairly prolific writer and, in addition to “Philosophumena” (more accurate title: “Refutation of all heresies”), a large number of his works are known, although many of them survived only in fragments or in translations: “On the Antichrist”, “Apostolic Tradition”, exegetical works, etc. See: J. Quasten, Patrology. V. II. The Ante-Nicene Literature after Irenaeus. Utrecht-Antwerp 1975, p. 163–207. (A.C.) – 399. Novatian (or Novatian), born at the end of the 2nd - beginning of the 3rd centuries, converted to Christianity in adulthood, having previously been a Stoic philosopher. He was a fairly prolific writer, but very few of his works have reached us; the most famous of them is the treatise “On the Trinity”, in the manuscript tradition attributed to Tertullian. In the Roman church, Novatian was, in fact, the first “systematic theologian,” and his treatise is compared with Origen’s work “On the Elements.” In the treatise, a large place was devoted to the problems of Christology: polemicizing against Gnostic docetism, on the one hand, and Adoptianism, on the other, Novatian defended both the true Divinity and the true humanity of the Lord. See: A. D'Ales, Novatien. Etude sur la théologie Romaine au milieu du IIP siecle. Paris 1924, p. 1–30, 83–134; R. J. De Simone, The Treatise of Novatian the Roman Presbyter on the Trinity. A Study of the Text and the Doctrine. Roma 1970, p. 7–137. (A.C.) – 411. In recent times, the question of the authenticity of various documents relating to the original history of Donatism has been raised in scientific literature. More or less negative views were expressed by: M. Deutsch, Drei Aktenstiicke zur Geschichte des Donatismus. Neu herausgegeben und erklart. Berlin 1875. D. Volter, Der Ursprung des Donatismus. Freiburg 1883. O. Seeck, Quellen und Urkunden iiber die Anfange des Donatismus, in Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, B. X, 1889, S. 505–568. Seek was opposed by L. Duchesne, Le dossier du donatisme, in Melanges d'archeologie et d'histoire publies par l'Ecoie franchise de Rome, t. X, 1890. Under the influence of Duchenne's argumentation, Seeck changed to a large extent, although not completely, his original view in the article Urkundenfalschungen des 4. Jahrhunderts, in Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, B. XXX, 1909, S. 181–227. Wed. more about Donatism W. Thiimmel, Zur Beurteilung des Donatismus. Halle 1893. (A.B.) – 426. Instead of the year 311, the usually accepted date for the death of Mensurius and the beginning of the Donatist schism, O. Seeck, Urkundenfalschungen des 4. Jahrhunderts, in Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, B. XXX, 1909, S. 224–225 (cf. his, Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt. B. III. Berlin 1909, S. 318:505) sets an earlier date - 307. (A.B.) – 429. D. J. Chapman, Donatus the Great and Donatus of Casae Nigrae, in Revue bene-dictine, 1909, no. 1, p. 13–23, recognizes Donatus the Great as the same person as Donatus of Casae Nigrae. Wed. also O. Seek, Urkundenfalschungen des 4. Jahrhunderts, in Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, B.XXX, 1909, S. 225–227 (and his Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt. B. III. Berlin 1909, S. 509–510). (A.B.) – 435. Modern researchers emphasize that Donatism arose as a result of a complex interaction of religious, social and political factors. Its center was Numidia, where powerful relics of pagan beliefs existed (the cult of Baal-Hammon in the romanized form of the cult of Saturn), and in the middle of the 2nd century. after R.H. human sacrifices existed here. Saturn was a jealous and terrible deity, demanding from his admirers the fanatical performance of all rites and rituals. See: W. N. S. Frend, The Donatist Church. A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa. Oxford 1952, p. 25–93. Montanism, which took deep roots in the North African church, also played a certain role in the emergence of Donatism. See: N. Kutepov, The Donatist Split. Church historical research. Kazan 1884, p. 1–5. (A.S.) – 436. Wed. V.V. Bolotov, From the history of the Syro-Persian Church. Πάρεργον: From the era of disputes about Easter at the end of the 2nd century. Christ. Thurs. 1900, I, 439–454, especially 450–454 (div. ot. 111–126:122–126); Wed also excursion E: Church Year of the Syro-Chaldeans. 1901.1, 937–938 (169–170) approx. 1 (about the “oblique Easter” of the Armenians). – Journals of the meetings of the Commission on the issue of calendar reform at the Russian Astronomical Society in 1899. Appendix V, pp. 31–49 (V.V. Bolotov’s report on Easter, read at the 3rd meeting of the Commission on May 31, 1899). - Day and year of the martyrdom of St. Evangelist Mark. Christ. Thurs. 1893, II, 143–174 (separate from 281–312), 409 (317) approx. 71. – This section was edited by Priest. D. A. Lebedev, who owns all further notes marked with the initials D. L. (A. B.) - 460. This dispute, according to the assumption of V.V. Bolotov, is from the era of disputes about Easter at the end of the 2nd century, in Chr. Thurs. 1900, I, 450–454, flared up over Easter 189, which was probably celebrated in Alexandria on April 20, and in Asia Minor on March 20. (D.L.) – 460. The assumption of Weitzel, Hilgenfeld, Schurer, etc., that Tricentius always celebrated Easter on March 25, has no solid basis in the surviving fragments of his polemic with Peter of Alexandria. In all likelihood, Trikentius was a protopaschite. Wed. E. Schwartz, Christliche und judische Ostertafeln, S. 109, 116. (D. L.) – 463. These words of the fourteeners are quoted by St. Hippolytus in a fragment preserved in the Easter chronicle. (D.L.) – 464. See: note below. 35. (D L.) – 467. L. Duchesne, La question de la paque au concile de Nicee a Revue des questions historiques. t. XXVIII, 1880, p. 5–42. – In 1905 they took the side of Duchenne in the most decisive manner. Schmid, Die Osterfestfrage auf dem ersten allgemeinen Konzil von Nicaa. Wien 1905, and the authoritative E. Schwartz, Christliche und judische Ostertafeln. Berlin 1905. Duchenne's article in Schwartz (S. 104) is called "epochenmachendes Aufsatz". (D.L.) – 468. This exact distribution of the emvolimic years was according to the most probable opinion (Peto and Unger), see: G. F. Unger, Zeitrechnung der Griechen und Romer in Iwan Muller, Handbuch der klassischen Alterthumswissenschaft. B. I. Nordlingen 1886. 2nd Aufl. Munchen 1892 (§ 28), in the cycle of the inventor of the 19-year circle among the Greeks - the Athenian Meton (his cycle began in 432 BC). (D.L.) – 470. According to the witty assumption of V.V. Bolotov himself (in the Journals of the meetings of the Commission on the issue of calendar reform at the Russian Astronomical Society in 1899, Appendix V, in his report on Easter, B, p. 33), Constantinople = Jewish 19-year lunar circle, known to Western medieval Easterists (starting with Dionysius the Less) under the technical name “cyclus” lunaris" (as opposed to the Alexandrian cyclus or circulus decemno-vennalis ([although both of these cycles were lunar and both of 19 years]) is of Syro-Macedonian origin: in its 1st year, the 1st Tishri falls on September 24th - the day of the autumnal equinox (according to the calendar of Julius Caesar) - the ideal beginning of the Syro-Macedonian year. Consequently, The “lunar” circle was not a Jewish invention: the Jews themselves borrowed it from the Syrian pagans (D.L.) - 470. The exception is that (cf. V.V. Bolotov, Day and year of the martyrdom of St. Evangelist Mark, in Christ. Reading 1893, II, 157 = From the Church History of Egypt, 295, 4 [cf. 3]). According to the modern Jewish calendar, the Moled tiSri of the next 4071 year of the Jewish era is indeed 6d [= Friday, August 31, 311] 3h 947 Hlakim, and only as a result of “r” the 1st Tishri was moved to Saturday, September 1. Passover according to the Jewish calendar (cf. V.V. Bolotov, Calendar of the Persians, in Christ. Read. 1901.1, 445 = From the history of the Syro-Persian Church 133) always falls 163 days before the next 1st Tishri; next in 311 it would have been on March 22. But the true new moon in this year fell on March 7 at 3:57.4 a.m. Alexandrian average, at 4:22 a.m. average. Antiochian time. Consequently, at sunset on March 7, the moon was only about 14 hours old and could hardly be seen. Consequently, “a visu” (Day of the Death of St. Mark, p. 157 [p. 295], 7) the 1st of Nisan could only be scheduled for the 9th of March, therefore, the 15th of Nisan (Passover) would not have occurred before Friday 23 March, and in view of BaDU, the 1st of Nisan could even be scheduled for March 10, the 15th, therefore, March 24. On the other hand, according to the Syro-Macedonian lunar circle (see: above note 30), the 15th of Nisan in the 5th year of the circle falls on March 20, in the Anatolian cycle (in the 16th year of its 19-year cycle) on March 21. (D.L.) – 470. A slightly different explanation for the difference between the Alexandrian and Syrian calculations of Easter is offered by £. Schwartz, Christliche und judische Ostertafeln, S. 421–125. – In the famous codex Veronensis 60 (cf. V.V. Bolotov, Rehabilitation of 4 documents of 343, in Chron. Read. 1891, II, 80–81 = Liberia bishop of Rome and Sirmian councils, 63–64), containing the now so-called “collection of Theodosius the deacon” (see: about him E. Schwartz, Zur Geschichte des Athanasius, Mithei-lung II in Nachrichten von der Konigl. Gesellschaft des Wissenschaften zu Gottingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse, 1904. Heft 4, S. 357–391) contains, among other things, an excerpt from the letter of the fathers of the eastern Serdik. (“Philippopolis”) Council of 343 (according to Schwartz 342) to the western. The Easterners here inform the Westerners that they have sent them the Easter table for 30 years. This message is also contained in the Syriac Codex Parisinus 62. But the codex Veronensis also preserves the table of Easter full moons for 30 years, starting with the 1st Indict under Constantine, i.e., as Schwartz thinks, from the year 328, and before it the table of Jewish Passovers for 16 years, next. - thinks Schwartz - for 328-343. The days of full moons and Jewish Passovers are expressed here in the numbers of March (mar) and April (ar), and all 16 Jewish Passovers are shown in March, once (in the 10th year = 337) “II mar” on March 2 (the Christian Easter full moon coincides with the Jewish Passover only if the latter falls no earlier than March 21). Since under the acts of the “Philippopolis” Council the signature of Stephen, Bishop of Antioch, is in the first place, then, Schwartz thinks, these tables were compiled in Antioch, and in the Greek original instead of March and April there were distr and xanthic. Assuming that the translation of these Antiochian dates into Roman ones was carried out correctly, Schwartz concludes that, therefore, the Antiochian Jews in the middle of the 4th century did not celebrate their Easter according to any cycle, but simply around the full moon in the Syro-Macedonian distra, corresponding to our March; The protopaschites celebrated their Easter on the Sunday following this March full moon. Consequently, their Easter was not 2 times every 19 years, as according to the hypothesis of V.V. Bolotov, but approximately 2 times every 3 years, falling a month earlier than the Alexandrian Easter. Without limiting himself to this conclusion, Schwartz suggests that the Jews acted in a similar way in other countries, and, for example, in Asia Minor they celebrated their Passover in the Asian Xanthic, which began ante diem IX kalendas Martias = 21 (biss.22) February and ended a. d. X kalendas Manias = March 23; and therefore St. Polycarp of Smyrna could have suffered on February 22, 156 (Schwartz, S. 130) and, however, on “Great Saturday,” that is, on the day of the Jewish and Asia Minor Passover. And the Jews of the time of Jesus Christ, according to Schwartz, celebrated Easter in Xanthic according to the Tyrian calendar, therefore, no earlier than April 18 and no later than May 18. – Schwartz’s hypothesis has the advantage over V.V. Bolotov’s hypothesis that according to it there were much more reasons for clashes between Alexandria and Antioch than according to V.V. Bolotov. – It is permissible, however, to raise the question: the table of the Verona Codex, on which this hypothesis is based, is not a later interpolation in the collection of Theodosius the Deacon; or, if such a table of Jewish Passovers was included in the appendix to the original Greek letter of the Philippopolis fathers, then how accurately are its dates conveyed in the Latin translation? The assumption is that the Jews in an era when the solar calendar was just introduced in the east and did not supplant the lunar year everywhere (see, in particular, the report of V.V. Bolotov on Syria in 411, in the Journals of the meetings of the Commission on the reform of the calendar at the Russian Astronomical Society in 1899. Appendix V p. 39), in calculating their Easter were guided by the solar Antiochian calendar, incredibly to a high degree. Back in the 3rd century. the Jews, according to Julius Africanus, kept an 8-year cycle, and this message is confirmed by the apocryphal book of Enoch. At this time, Christians also adhered to the 8-year cycle (not only in the west, but also in Alexandria). The 8-year cycle was replaced by a 19-year cycle among both Christians and Jews in the east. Consequently, the timing of both proceeded in parallel. And since the 19-year cycle appeared among Christians in the 3rd century, there is every likelihood that at the same time (and probably somewhat earlier than Christians) the Jews also adopted it. (D.L.) – 471. 333 years - according to V.V. Bolotov, From the history of the Syro-Persian Church. Excursion G. What does history know about the beginning of Christianity in Persia? in Christ. Thurs. 1900, I, 436 (108) approx. 43; Wed report on Easter, in the Journals of the meetings of the Commission on the reform of the calendar at the Russian Astronomical Society in 1899. Appendix V, p. 35, and a note on the publication of Lauchert’s canons in Christ. Thurs. 1896, II, 183. – Wed. E. Schwartz, Zur Geschichte des Athanasius. VI, in Nachrichten der Konigl. Gesellschaft der Wissensch zu Gottingen. Philologisch-his-torische Klasse. 1905. Heft 3, S. 281. Amn. 1. (D.L.) – 472. However, the Protopaschites did not disappear in Antioch even by the year 387, when St. spoke against them. John Chrysostom. From his argument against these individuals who opposed the definition of the Council of Nicaea, it is most clearly seen that they always celebrated Easter on Sunday. In the 2nd half of the 4th century, disputes about the relationship of Easter to the vernal equinox arose among the Novatians. During the reign of Valens, the Phrygian Novatian bishops at a council in the Phrygian village of Pase decided to celebrate Easter together with the Jews. But the most prominent Novatian bishops were not present at this council (Socr. IV, 28, Sozom. VI, 24). During the reign of Theodosius the Great in Constantinople, Presbyter Savvatius (a Jew) became a follower of this resolution of the Pasvik Council. On this occasion, the Novatian bishop of Constantinople Marcian convened a council of Novatian bishops in the Bithynian village of Sangar; the fathers of this council recognized that the question of Easter cannot be a sufficient reason for separation from the church, therefore let everyone celebrate Easter whenever he wants, and published a canon about this, which they called άδιάφορον (Socr. V, 21, Sozom. VII, 18). (Savatiy nevertheless later separated from the Novatian society. Socr. VII, 12). – What lunar cycle the Phrygian Novatians and Savvatius followed is unknown. But Sozomen directly says that they always celebrated their Passover on Sunday (VII, 18: ). – And the unknown Asia Minor shepherd in 387 (see: below note 49), defending the Alexandrian date of Easter for this year (April 25 = 2nd day of the 8th month of Asia), did not actually mean the Syrian protopaschites, but the Novatian protopaschites. (Cf. Schmid, 75, 78, Schwartz, 119–120 (D. L.) –472. When exactly Easter was celebrated in 326 in Alexandria and in the west - on April 3 or 10 - strictly speaking, it is unknown. Easter messages of St. Alexander of Alexandria has not survived. And in the table in the chronograph of 354, where - according to generally accepted opinion - a list of historical Roman Easters for 312-342 is preserved. (at least) under the year 326, as well as under 315 and 320, when Easter fell on April 10th according to the Alexandrian Easter, there is an impossible date III id. arg. = April 11 (Monday), which some correct to III id. arg. = April 10, others on III non. arg. = April 3. On the other hand, according to the cycle of Anatoly of Laodicea, Easter of 326 was supposed to fall on April 10 (on the 21st day of the moon), and in this case astronomy was on his side (the true new moon in 326 was on March 20 at 4:18 p.m. Oppolzer-Ginzel, - 12 min Newcomb, 3:58 min Lehmann , 4 hours 12 minutes Πτολεμαίος ; full moon - April 4 6 hours 58 minutes Op.-Ginz. - Newcomb, - 44 minutes Lehm , 6 hours 57 minutes Πτολεμαίος ; therefore, April 3 was only the 14th day of the moon, counting from the true one. new moon). It is possible, therefore, that in 326 either in the west they celebrated Easter on April 3 (according to the hypothesis of van-der-Hagen - Krusch, not refuted by Schwartz, the Roman Church between 312-342 appointed Easter not on 16-22, but on 14-20 Nisan), or in the east it was celebrated on April 10. The assumption that already in 326 the resolution of the council was violated - to celebrate Easter for all Christians on the same day, is therefore incredible that in 333 Athanasius the Great himself appointed Easter for April 15, although according to the rules of the Alexandrian Easter it should have been appointed for April 22, obviously yielding to the Western ones, for whom April 21 was the terminus post quernnon of Easter, although astronomy in this case was on the side of the Westerners, and Athanasius the Great probably had this in mind. (D.L.) –472. In 333, in fact, both Alexandria and Rome celebrated Easter on April 15, on the 14th day of the moon according to the Alexandrian cycle, but on the 15th from the true astronomical new moon. (D.L.) – 472. Wed. V.V. Bolotov, Report on Easter, B, II, p. 41, in the Journals of the meetings of the Commission on the reform of the calendar at the Russian Astronomical Society in 1899. Appendix V. (D.L.) - 473. The assumption of such a commission, supposedly given by the Council of Nicaea to the bishop of Alexandria, rests on the words of Leo the Great in his letter to Emperor Marcian of July 15, 453 (Krusch, 258) and on the message of the pseudo-Cyril Prologus paschalis copied from it (n. 2 Ar. Krusch, 339, cf. 95). But in 1899 (report in the Journals of the Commission on Calendar Reform, 42–3, B, III) V.V. Bolotov himself was rightly skeptical of this message from Leo the Great. The main reasons for this skepticism: 1) “the fathers of the Council of Nicea wrote a deliberate letter to the Alexandrian church, but in it they did not say a single word that the Ecumenical Council entrusted such a highly honorable task to the Pope of Alexandria.” At the end of the letter, the fathers of the council “preach the good news” to the Alexandrians “and about agreement regarding our holy Easter.” “Is it natural that the fathers of the council forget to inform the Alexandrian church of another “good news”, that the bishops of Alexandria will henceforth proclaim the day of Easter to the entire church from the ends to the ends of the earth?” 2) “If the archbishops of Alexandria worked out Paschalia as authorized to do so by the ecumenical council, then it is not easy to explain the very possibility” [for the Roman Church] of evading the Alexandrian definitions of Easter day and, in the old days, being content with the 84-year cycle.” – The custom of the Alexandrian bishops to notify not only the Egyptian, but also other churches about the day of the future Easter, according to the fair assumption of V.V. Bolotov, arose by itself from their custom of writing Easter messages. (D.L.) – 473. In his report on Easter, V.V. Bolotov already proves that the Council of Nicaea refrained from decreeing that Easter must be celebrated after the spring equinox. In his argumentation of this position, a mistake crept in: Hippolytus in 222 and Q. J. Hilarianus in 397 believed the vernal equinox was not on March 18, but on March 25. But it is indisputable that the council did not discuss the issue of Easter day in detail (otherwise the difference between Alexandria and Rome would have surfaced already in 325) and the decree usually attributed to it: to celebrate Easter on the Sunday after the 1st spring full moon, is only a later formulation of the principle of the Alexandrian Paschal: Easter on the 1st Sunday after the 14th moon, which falls no earlier than the day of the vernal equinox (March 21) (hence, on days 15–21 of the moon). – But the 14th moon according to the Alexandrian cycle in the 4th century. almost never coincided with a full moon. The full moon usually occurred on the 15th-16th, rarely on the evening of the 14th of Nisan according to the Alexandrian reckoning. For example, in 323 ιδ᾿ τοΰ πάσχα according to the Alexandrian cycle fell on April 5th (= 10th φαρμουθϊ), and Easter on April 7th, and the true full moon in Alexandria was only at 12:40 a.m. on the night from April 7 to 8 (Oppolzer-Ginzel), therefore, It’s even already the 17th of Nisan. (D.L.) – 473. March 18th was for Hippolytus only the earliest limit of the Easter 14th moon; he believed the equinox, in all likelihood (as can be seen from the De pascha computus of the anonymous author of 243), on March 25. (D.L.) – 473. About the cycle of St. Hippolyta cf. V.V. Bolotov, Day and year of the death of St. Mark, in Christ. Thurs. 1893.1, 145 (= From the Church History of Egypt 283), note 35. In 243 - it is not clear where exactly, in Rome or in Africa - a new corrected edition of the 112-year-old Hippolytus cycle appeared, which began in 241 and was preserved between the works of St. Cyprian. The de pascha computus of this anonymous person has come down to us entirely in two manuscripts, and in one of them, the codex Remensis (cf. V.V. Bolotov, Day and year of the death of St. Mark, 146/284, note 35), the Easter tables for 241–352 have also been preserved. Since the cycle of Hippolytus gave an error (ahead of the moon) at 16 years by 3 days, the full moon here was moved 3 days later than that of Hippolytus. But after another 16 years, this cycle turned out to be just as unsuitable as the Hippolytus cycle. (D.L.) – 473. There is an excellent study on the 84-year cycle by Bruno Krusch, Der 84-jahrige Ostercyclus und seine Quellen. Leipzig 1880. Recently, the question of this cycle was addressed by E. Schwartz, Christliche und judische Ostertafeln. Berlin 1905. (D L.) – 473. Wed. V.V. Bolotov, Day and year of the martyrdom of St. Evangelist Mark, in Chr. Thurs. 1893, I, 410 (= From the church history of Egypt, 318) approx. 72. Here V.V. Bolotov takes it as a fact that the Anatoly cycle began in 277 and does not mention 266. And this is understandable: for Anatoly, in the 1st year of his cycle, the new moon of the 1st month (1st Nisan) fell on the 26th Famenot = March 22nd, and in 277 the true new moon occurred at 1 am on March 22nd (12 hours 43 minutes according to Oppolzer-Ginzel, 12 hours 36 minutes according to Ptolemy). And in 266, the true new moon occurred only on March 27 at 6:35 a.m. [± approx. 40 minutes] in the morning according to R. Schram according to the average Alexandrian time, and the average new moon on March 23 at 4:52 in the evening, so that that year even the Alexandrian 1st of Nisan, March 23, actually belonged to Adar. E. Schwartz, Christliche und judische Ostertafeln. Berlin 1905, S. 16–17, takes the 258th year as the 1st year of the Anatolian cycle (corresponding to the 277th year in a 19-year cycle). But even in 258, the true new moon fell according to Oppolzer-Ginzel on March 22 at 4:27 pm, according to Ptolemy at 3:56 pm Alexandrian time, so the 1st day of the moon was not the 22nd, but the 23rd of March. (D.L.) – 474. The 19-year cycle, which we now accept, is dated to the era of Diocletian (284 5) and, therefore, appeared in Alexandria and, therefore, its author could not be Eusebius of Caesarea. (D.L.) – 474. No, March 25th. – And starting from 343 in Rome, March 22nd is already accepted as the day of the vernal equinox. (D.L.) – 474. But between 312–342. – according to the hypothesis of van-der-Hagen and Krusch (a hypothesis constructed on the basis of the dates of the Easter chronograph table of 354), the Roman Church appointed Easter starting from the 14th day of the moon and ending on the 20th. (D.L.) – 474. So, according to Hippolytus (according to the anonymous author of 243, the earliest Easter fell even on March 19), but the Roman 84-year cycle of the 4th-5th centuries. It already recognizes the day of the vernal equinox, March 22, as the terminus ante quem non of Easter, and only once, as an exception, allows Easter on March 21. (D.L.) – 474. The point here was not in the canon of Hippolytus, but in the fact that on April 21 in Rome they celebrated the founding day of Rome, Natalis Urbis Romae, and therefore Roman Christians did not want this day to fall during Holy Week. (D.L.) – 474. Strictly speaking, nothing is known about the disputes between Rome and Alexandria over Easter 387. But the unusually late Passover of this year (the last time before the year 387, the Passover according to the Alexandrian Paschal would have fallen on April 25 in 140 AD) brought forward the old question of Passover “together with the Jews.” Before Easter of 387, the Antiochian presbyter John Chrysostom and an unknown Asia Minor shepherd, whose 7 words about Easter were also preserved among the works of St., talked against the protopashchites. Chrysostom. (D.L.) – 475. According to the pseudo-Kirillov "Prologus paschalis". But what Krush found in cod. Lugd. Seal. 28, Theophilus’ dedicatory letter to Emperor Theodosius (Krusch, S. 220, paragraph 2, cf. S. 85) showed that Theophilus compiled his Easter table at the request of private individuals (maybe clergy) and only dedicated it to the emperor. Feodosia. (D.L.) – 475. Krusch, 92–93, 221. (D. L.) – 475. Wed. V.V. Bolotov, Lectures on the history of the ancient church. I. Introduction to Church History. St. Petersburg 1907. p. 86, the same V.V. Bolotov, Collection of church historical works. T. 2. M. 2000, p. 88. - E. Schwartz, Ostertafeln, 22–23, considers the table attributed by Dionysius the Lesser to St. Cyril a forgery (on the grounds that neither Leo the Great nor Proterius of Alexandria know anything about it), however, hardly fundamentally. (D.L.) – 475. Victoria compiled the first Easter table in the West for 532 years (“great indiction”). (D.L.) – 476. There is a study on Easter disputes in Britain by J. Schmid, Osterfest-rechnung auf den britischen inseln. Regensburg 1904. (D.L.) – 476. From the latest, very extensive literature on the church system in ancient times, one can mention in particular E. Hatch, Die Gesellschaftsverfassung der christlichen Kirchen im Alterthum. Vom Verfasser autorisirte Uebersetzunb der zweiten durchgesehenen Auflage (Oxford 1882), besorgt und mit Excursen versehen von A. Harnack. Giessen 1883. A. Hamack, Entstehung und Entwickelung der Kirchenverfassung und des Kirchenrechts in den zwei ersten Jahrhunderten. Leipzig 1910. In Russian: P. Gidulyanov, Metropolitans in the first three centuries of Christianity. Moscow 1905. F. Mishchenko, Church structure of Christian communities (“wig”) of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, in Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy, 1908, December, pp. 525–574. V. Myshtsyn, The structure of the Christian church in the first two centuries. Sergiev Posad 1909. (A. B.). “As for the fact that later they elected one who would stand before the others (bishop), this was a healing remedy for schisms, so that anyone who draws the Church of Christ to himself would not destroy it. For in Alexandria, starting with the Evangelist Mark and up to the bishops Hierakles and Dionysius (c. 240), the presbyters always named one of them bishop, elected and placed him at the highest level, just as an army treats a general, or as deacons choose the most diligent from among themselves and call him archdeacon” (Latin). – 481. “The Evangelist Mark, together with Patriarch Alania, appointed twelve presbyters who stayed with the patriarch, so that when the patriarchate was vacant, they chose one of the twelve presbyters, and the remaining eleven, laying their hands on his head, themselves blessed him and appointed him patriarch; then they chose some outstanding man, whom they appointed presbyter instead of the one who became patriarch, and thus always remained in number twelve. And in Alexandria this regulation regarding the presbyters was preserved, namely, that they elected patriarchs from twelve presbyters, until the time of the Patriarch of Alexandria Alexander, who was from among the 318. He also forbade the presbyters from henceforth to appoint patriarchs. And he decreed that after the death of the patriarch, bishops would gather to install him” (Latin). – 482. It is advisable to cite one correct observation by F. Mishchenko: “Due to the gift of grace received at ordination and the rights based on it, the sacred hierarchy can never be democratized: the gift of grace and the rights of priesthood are received not from below, not from the demos-people, but from above, from the Lord God Himself” (F. Mishchenko, Church structure of Christian communities, p. 540). (A.S.) – 483.