Отдел первый. Церковь и государство

The present period of church history opens with the fact of the conversion of the Roman emperor to Christianity. The replacement of hostile relations between the state and the church with normal, legal ones, the transformation of the Christian religion into the state religion - this event, which in its own element affected only the external side of the church, was accompanied by such abundant consequences that it could not but affect the internal structure of church relations. Even such a deeply internal side of church life as the gradually developing clarification of the doctrine of faith, in its historical discoveries is closely dependent on the fact of the changed relationship of the church to the state. Had the Christian Church remained in its former position, whole centuries would have passed before an ecumenical council would have taken place. The fight against heresies would have been of a different nature, and if its dogmatic results had been the same, then, very likely, its history would have been significantly different. The significance of the fact of new relations between church and state for the Christian religion is understood differently. Since the days of Gottfried Arnold, it has been the custom in much of the ecclesiastical historical literature to lament this change. Protestant authors often hear a plaintive note: the “worldliness” of the church dates back to the era of Constantine. With the sharp development of this view, the difference between the two periods is brought to the extreme, and a break in church life is assumed. The fresh, full of strength and energy life of the ancient Christians gives way to sluggish Byzantinism, instead of moral freedom - Caesaropapism, despotism outside and inside; instead of moral ideal aspirations there is a pursuit of material wealth and external dominance. Such a view, in its harshest form and in our spiritual press, was presented as the quintessence of liberal science. But the theologian, who, according to his religious principles, sees in the post-Constantinian period a new phase of development, when church life enters not only normal, but in many respects even exemplary forms, will note with pleasure that now in Protestant literature itself Arnold’s point of view is already considered backward. Scientists who have recently touched on one side or the other the issue that interests us no longer recognize the gap between the two eras and do not think of making Constantine responsible for everything in which the church life of our period differs unfavorably from the previous one. The situation created by Constantine, for the most part, only contributed, favored the disclosure and discovery of those dark sides that were already hidden in the previous history of the church. And it is not particularly difficult to be convinced of the correctness of this view. The opposite view ignores chronology so completely that it can be accused of inability to count. Indeed, the most shameful representatives of the corrupting influences of the Constantinian era are considered to be those bishops in whom the courtier prevails over the primate of the church, who are ready to sacrifice both the dignity of their dignity and their dogmatic convictions for the imperial favor. Such was, according to the general belief of the scholars of this camp, Eusebius of Caesarea. However, did Constantine create this type of bishop? A chronological reference shows us that Eusebius was probably born between 253-259, and that the year 313 finds him a mature 54-year-old husband and, probably, even a bishop of Caesarea. Consequently, by the time of Constantine it was already a fully developed and morally strengthened character, which should have resisted the corrupting influences of the new reign. Another bishop of the same type, Eusebius of Nicomedia, was probably the same age as Eusebius of Caesarea: by 320 he had already changed the See of Virite to the See of Nicomedia. Consequently, this semi-court bishop was brought up under all the beneficial influences of the free church, which did not bend its knee to the Baal of Caesaropapism - the church of the martyrs of the Diocletian era - In a word, chronology tells us that the reign of Constantine was not so long that at that time persons brought up under new influences could take a leading role in the church: perhaps only Ursacius and Valens, who played such shameful role under Constantine, they grew morally under the new conditions of church life. All other church leaders with whom Constantine entered into relations belonged by upbringing to the previous period and owe their position to the free choice of believers, unaffected by the influences of emerging Byzantinism. And if we recall some details from the life of the last decades of this period, we will see that Constantine’s contemporaries acted in the same direction in which their predecessors, whom Diocletian’s persecution swept away, would have acted. The people of Constantine's era valued their alliance with the emperor too highly; but, for example, Bishop Theon, who gave well-known instructions to the chief chamberlain of Diocletian 2, did not value him low. The bishop of Constantine's time considers unworthy persons in his ranks. As we learn from Eusebius, the bishops of Diocletian’s time were not all radiant luminaries of the religious and moral; and their deeds were such that they required the covering silence of our historian. Bringing together all the heterogeneous consequences of the change that has taken place, we will find here not a decline at all points, but a forward movement. Church life is now entering its usual forms, which it retains in its subsequent history. The fact that opens the present period of church history will be the subject of controversy until the ideal form of relations between church and state is found. Let us try to find out the true scope of its consequences and the extent of participation in them of both elements entering into the union, the church and the state. I. Conversion of Constantine the Great to Christianity 3 In establishing new relations between these new allies, much depended on the personal views of the first Christian emperor, on the motives that guided him in adopting Christianity, on the sincerity of his disposition towards the new faith. For many Protestant scholars, it seems indisputable that Constantine did not convert to Christianity through inner conviction. If so, then this fact is no longer a triumph for the church, and the question arises: why did the church accept such a person into its bowels? But such an interpretation of conversion (“not out of inner conviction”) does not change the essence of the matter, and the fact of conversion still needs to be explained: if Constantine accepted Christianity without being convinced of its truth, then where are the motives for such an act? Everyone knows the story of ancient church historians, primarily Eusebius, about the conversion of Constantine on the occasion of a vision before the decisive battle with Maxentius in 312 of a cross with the inscription: “in hoc vinces” (“By this victory”). Troparion: “I saw the image of Your Cross in heaven and, like Paul, the title was not received by man,” resembles a quote from the church history of Theodoret; Sozomen, among the incentives for conversion, also specifically points to this sign. A whole literature has long been written on this issue. They put it in this form: did this event have the nature of a miracle or was it just a providential accident? The fact is that stripes are sometimes visible near the sun, taking - if this is a phenomenon, “Parhelion”, “false sun” - sometimes around noon, the shape of a cross. But in this setting we don’t have to ask this question. In essence, both ideas are separated by a razor blade. After all, a miracle does not require a creative act: God uses here the same forces that are located in the world mass. No matter how we explain this fact: whether by supernatural intervention or natural factors, the matter essentially does not change. We have to reckon with not so subtle distinctions, but with the very establishment of the fact. There are three stories about the θεοσημεία (divine sign): Lactantius, Eusebius of Caesarea and Sozomen. Rufinus, Socrates and Theodoret do not count in this case, because they convey the news of others. The oldest news comes from Lactantius (De mortibus persecutorum, p. 44). The work of Lactantius, which tells about this event, appeared, in my opinion, at the end of 313, as others think - no later than 315. 4 The story of Lactantius is as follows. Constantine stopped opposite the Milvius Bridge. October 27th was approaching. During his sleep (in quiete), Constantine was admonished (commonitus est) to depict the heavenly sign of God (coeleste signum Dei) on his shields. Constantine did as it was revealed to him: he depicted the monogram ☧ on the shields and, armed with this sign, set out on a campaign. There was a battle with Maxentius, and Constantine was victorious. There is no talk of a sign in the sun here, and the command to depict a monogram was received in a dream. If Lactantius alone had reported on this event, then there would have been no controversy about it and the matter would have seemed completely natural. It must be remembered that Constantine had fewer troops than Maxentius: the Gallic legions considered this campaign to be downright desperate; no one approved of the intention to take part in the fight; the troops grumbled; auspices foreshadowed misfortune. On Maxentius’s side were the experienced Praetorians, who in the battle of October 27 proved that they were worth their reputation: they lay there with their bones, but did not yield an inch to the enemy. The battle was going to be fierce, nevertheless, Constantine walked with confidence and with this confidence he wanted to infect his troops. It must be borne in mind that the lack of faith in pagan gods gets along well with various superstitions. Maxentius performed all the pagan sacramenta, inquired into the entrails of the victims, Sibylline Book 5. Thus all the "omina" (omens) were against Constantine. He needed to raise the spirit of his army. For this purpose, he perhaps ordered a mysterious sign to be placed on the shields, telling the soldiers that this would give them victory. The effect of this sign on the minds was all the more powerful the less it was understood. So, everything in this story is natural and psychologically explainable. The next story about the conversion of Constantine belongs to Eusebius of Caesarea. He talks about this event twice. The first time was in Book IX of his history (IX, 9, 2), written between 313 and 323. Constantine is portrayed by Eusebius as a highly moral man who inherited all his good qualities from his father. “When he,” says Eusebius, “went to liberate Rome, he called in prayer on the heavenly God and His Word, Jesus Christ, as allies.” Eusebius makes no mention of external signs on shields. Constantine went to fight, won and testified to his faith in Christ. This evidence is of a hidden nature: he ordered a statue of himself to be erected in Rome, with the saving sign of the cross in his hand; in the hand of the statue there was a cross, but not a raised cross, like the preacher’s, but a spear with the top in the form of a cross. Thus, this sign could be understood in two ways: the pagans believed that the victory was achieved by the force of arms of Constantine, while the Christians attributed this matter to the power of the cross. Another account of the event in question is found in the Vita Constantini of Eusebius of Caesarea, written between 337–340. In the first book of this work (1, 26–31), Eusebius a) conveys the same event about which there is a story in history, and at the same time aa) there is nothing new in the story about the statue compared to the previous story. But bb) when he talks about prayer before the campaign, he adds: “calling on everyone to help God and Christ and the victorious trophy - a sign of salvation...”, i.e. obviously St. cross. But b) in addition, even earlier, Eusebius conveys the news about θεοσημεία, anticipating that the fact is miraculous, but it was borrowed from a reliable source: the king himself many years later spoke about it and swore an oath. “Around noon, when the day was approaching evening (in our opinion, about 3 o’clock), the emperor saw above the sun (ὑπερκείμενον τοῦ ἡλίου) the sign of the cross with the inscription: “hereby conquer” (τούτῳ νίκα – hoc vince). Horror seized him and his retinue. At night, Christ appeared to him with a cross and commanded him to make a likeness of it and with this sign to come out against his enemies. In the morning, Constantine told his dream to his friends, called the artists and ordered them to make this image (labarum) 6. The following is a description of the banner; the description comes down to the same thing as the story of Lactantius. This banner was hoisted on a pole and surrounded by a golden wreath with precious stones; on the silk cloth attached to the shaft were images of Constantine and his sons. The monogram also adorned Constantine’s helmet, but Eusebius says nothing about shields. "Labarum" of Emperor Constantine the Great. Drawing by V.V. Bolotov in the margins of a lithographed course of lectures for 1899/1900, p. 7. Slightly enlarged. Protestants have long had an unfavorable attitude towards this story, based on its difference from the first story. But this difference does not matter: Konstantin could complement the story, convey it more thoroughly and better. Dogmatic considerations are put into play: the God of love and peace is supposedly the god of war in Eusebius’ story, so the whole story should be consigned to oblivion and contempt, as natürlich erlogen (undoubtedly fictitious). Such criticism does not deserve one beautiful soap bubble. I say this not because we are obliged to defend the holiness of Eusebius, which - in this case - does not give room for such assumptions, but because this objection is methodically worthless. They say: if everyone knew about this event, then Konstantin had no need to swear. But when the matter is put in this way, I would advise scientists to wipe their glasses. The story of the oath will come before the story of the miracle. And this miracle, which Eusebius conveys, consists of two facts - a) a sign and b) a dream. For Eusebius, the story of the dream is undoubted because Constantine told about it; but only he alone in reality could accurately convey the content of this dream. Preceding the story of the miracle with the oath of Constantine, Eusebius is an empirically subtle psychologist; Is it likely that a pagan who knew nothing about Christ would see Christ in a dream? This psychologically justified doubt was dispelled in Eusebius by the oath of Constantine. But the overall assurance that the oath was not needed is lame even if we shift the center of gravity in the miracle to θεοσημεία. They say: everyone saw this sign in the sky, and Eusebius could have learned about it not from Constantine. But Eusebius expresses himself very carefully: the sign of the cross, according to Eusebius, was seen by στρατιωτικὸν ἅπαν, that is, in fact, by all the military; and this, perhaps, only means a retinue. Eusebius did not use the expressions στρατιά or στράτευμα, which would undoubtedly mean the entire army. The idea that the sign of the cross in heaven was known to everyone is therefore not critically justified. Moreover, the Gallic legions, probably, due to their length of military service, returned to their homeland and there they reported a story about a heavenly vision, and perhaps not a single soldier from these legions appeared in Palestine; and Eusebius had nowhere to collect accurate news about θεοσημεία. When assessing the legend of Eusebius of Caesarea about the sign of the cross, parallel pagan legends should not be omitted. - In the autumn of 313 in Gaul, the orator Eumenius, who spoke a word of praise to Constantine, expressed himself very vaguely: “Some god prompted Constantine to go on a campaign, as if for a victory already promised by God.” One dream is enough to explain this. In 321, the Gallic rhetorician Nazarius, who spoke a word of praise to Constantine the Great, claimed that throughout Gaul it was said that troops were visible in the sky, declaring that they were sent from God. And although the heavenly does not appear to the earthly, they saw how the help shone terribly, and the shields that the soldiers carried sparkled, and they themselves said: “We are going to help Constantine.” Thus, in the pagan legend one feature is especially emphasized - about the light, interpreted by the pagans as the shine of weapons and the radiance of shields. Consequently, it is not possible to assert that the story of the cross rests on Eusebius alone. It would have been inconvenient for Nazarius to assert the vision so boldly if the story of the vision had not received much publicity in Gaul. But Eusebius is subject to criticism - and serious criticism - from the other end. The section on Constantine represents the worst pages in his writings. He simply did not understand the story told to him by Constantine. The Emperor is not the kind of interlocutor who can be interviewed and asked questions. He said a few words, and Eusebius interpreted them in his own way. Konstantin's mood is outlined very vaguely. When he sees the cross and the inscription, he is confused and does not know what it means. Obviously, he was so ignorant of Christianity that the cross was unknown to him. The Lord appears to him in a dream, and when he wakes up he asks: “Who was it? Who came?" But then, for some reason, he calls on Christian bishops to interpret the dream, who provide Constantine with information about Christ. How did Constantine guess to invite bishops?... Eusebius is also attacked by the other side of the matter. Constantine sees a cross with an inscription and in a dream vision Christ appears to him with a cross. And on his banner and on his helmets he erects not a cross, but a monogram of Christ. Thus, he uses a special sign that is not revealed to him. Obviously, Eusebius was confused by the preconception that Constantine saw the cross, and in this sense understood Constantine’s expression about God’s heavenly sign to him. He saw Constantine's Christian mood in the fact that Constantine erected his statue with a spear topped with a cross. He did not understand Lactantius’s expression about God’s heavenly sign. In any case, a reinterpretation of the heavenly vision was possible, and all difficulties are an admixture of Eusebius’s own misunderstandings. In conclusion, let us note the third narration - Sozomen that Constantine received a sign of God (I, 3). When Constantine set out on a campaign against Maxentius, he saw in a dream the sign of the cross shining in heaven, and the angel who appeared said: “O Constantine, conquer hereby!” And others say that Christ himself appeared. And then comes the narrative of Eusebius. Sozomen's narrative is very characteristic: it is dedicated to Theodosius the Younger and was handed over to him in Constantinople in 440 as the most probable. If Eusebius is cited in it, then, however, he is not given unconditional significance here. Thus, the objective side of the matter is conveyed differently by historians, so that the exact nature of the narrative is difficult to establish: what did Constantine see? in a dream or in reality? Was this phenomenon completely natural or supernatural? Thus, this story, due to its uncertainty, cannot be the subject of a historical narrative, and it can be eliminated. It is much more important for us to establish the connection between Constantine's vision and acceptance of Christianity. Constantine's religious mood was extremely uncertain. His father Constantius was a worshiper of the sun, or the god Mithras, whose cult was very widespread in the west among the troops. Even in the time of Constantine, the image of this deity was found on coins, and the mood of Constantine before 313 was so uncertain that Eusebius is right in saying that Constantine knew very little about Christianity, and his knowledge amounted to almost nothing. For Constantine, the adoption of Christianity was more a matter of politics than of religious conviction. He could observe that the emperors who persecuted Christianity ended their lives unhappily, and his father Constantius, who was favorable towards Christians, died a natural death. This could not help but make Konstantin think. A vision or revelation in a dream could not produce a fatal turning point in his soul. Comparison of Constantine with St. Pavel was unsuccessful. These natures are completely disparate. In 1666, an apple fell before Newton’s eyes, and in 1687 his natural philosophy appeared with an explanation of the law of gravity. Millions of apples fell before and after Newton, but the law of gravity was not discovered either before or after him by some self-taught person. Consequently, one and the same phenomenon can produce different impressions, depending on different moods. Newton was very observant, and from a well-known phenomenon he derived a law. At ap. Paul, before traveling to Damascus, all religious issues were brought to the highest boiling point, and therefore one brief “yes” or “no” could immediately radically change his mood. From Eusebius it is clear that Constantine’s views were vague, and the sign in heaven did not give a definite answer to non-existent specific questions: Constantine was not distinguished by religiosity at all. He approached Christianity not overnight, but gradually. There is no incentive to think that before seeing the sign Constantine was a pagan, and after it he became a Christian. Eumenius makes this clear enough, giving the “sign of God” an indefinite coloring: “some kind of god.” The Senate saw that Constantine, in a religious mood, stood on a special basis, and not strictly pagan. The Senate edited the inscription on the Arch of Constantine (315) in the form of a rather vague property: “Constantine liberated Rome by the inspiration of the deity (instinctu divinitatis”). It was natural for the Senate to write: “by the command of Jupiter,” but he felt that this would be bold and displeasing to Constantine. It is obvious that Constantine's mood was not strictly pagan. But it was not strictly Christian either. Even if the Senate could hide him under the indicated formula, being a great power (as it did, for example, by giving him the name pontifex maximus, or by proclaiming Constantine after his death, that is, after he accepted Christianity, as a god), then Eumenius could not do this. This simple Gallic rhetorician would hardly have dared to make such an interpretation if he had known that everyone knew the Christianity of Constantine. The monogram itself could be a simple abbreviation made up of the Greek letters XP or RH - whatever you like. It was worn by everyone with names beginning with these letters. This monogram in itself did not say anything, and only Christians understood it as an indication of a favorable turn in their situation; for the pagans it was unclear. This monogram is then often found on many other objects, so that one scientist considers it a sign of the disposition of the one who wore it towards the army. In the life of Constantine, she was only the initial step towards Christianity. Only one thing is likely: this monogram was used in the campaign against Licinius. So, a supernatural event, no matter what Constantine considered its center of gravity, could not have a decisive significance for him. What were Constantine's motives for giving Christianity a dominant position? – If he took the side of Christianity without deep religious conviction, then the motives for this, obviously, should be sought in politics. The question can only be about the special nature of the political question with which he turned to the new faith, that - perhaps - calculation that had its share of influence on the conversion of Constantine. Did he see in Christianity people who, due to their moral convictions, were unlimitedly loyal to the government? Or did he view them as a party that would be beneficial to rely on in the fight against his rivals for autocracy? The first is incredible; The history of Christians over three centuries has sufficiently shown that in their beliefs there are such secrets that they do not allow any government in the world to touch. In turn, as a significant political party, that is, as a ready-made, organized force whose assistance could be used in an armed struggle against actual enemies, Christians did not exist. Constantine saw that the persecution of Christians brought fever into the body of the Roman Empire and aroused an unhealthy mood in the minds. Under Diocletian, the mass of pagans no longer sympathized with the persecution, and thus the change in the government’s attitude towards Christians did not pose a danger from paganism, especially since the life of Christians was arranged in such a way that they made the most insignificant demands. They only wanted to believe in God at their own discretion, did not seek positions, and were even ready to refuse to grant special privileges to their religion (for example, allowing processions). It was enough for them to have religious houses in which they could freely pray. Constantine could be satisfied with this, but he goes further: he gives not only freedom, but also a dominant position. People are able to be indifferent to some things when they do not seem like a personal limitation. The pagans may not have been religiously inclined and may not have defended their gods. But when Christianity became the dominant religion, and paganism was relegated to the background, becoming, so to speak, in the category of the humiliated and insulted, then such a turning point was a remarkable risk. It is obviously important to know how many Christians there were in the Roman Empire at that time, what percentage did they make up in the state? 7. If they were half and half, then the choice was, of course, not difficult, for the Christians were energetic. But the question collapses even on how large the population of the Roman Empire in general was. According to Gibbon, under Constantine the Great, Christians made up 1/20 of the total population of the Roman Empire. Friedlander joins him. Another historian, Richter [N. Richter, Das west-römische Reich. Berlin 1865] believes that Christians made up 1/10 of the population: 5–6 million of them accounted for 45 million pagans. The last figure is confirmed by the results of Julius Beloch's study of the population of the classical world [J. Beloch, Die Bevölkerung der griechisch-römischen Welt. Leipzig 1886]. In general, it must be said that there is nothing to even think about accurate statistics in remote antiquity. Classical writers include records of population density and provide numerical data, for example, on the composition of the army; but they should be treated with caution. Baloch concluded that there were 28 million people in the Greek east at the time of Augustus' death. inhabitants, and in the Latin west, including lands on the Danube - 26 million, a total of 54 million in the Roman Empire. Specifically, these figures are broken down as follows: in Europe 23 million, in Asia 19 1/2 million, in Africa - 11 1/2 million; in particular: in Egypt - 5 million, in Italy, Spain, Asia and Syria - 6 million each. What is interesting for us is whether the figure increased by the time of Constantine the Great and by how much? If you rely on Richter, there was even a decline. In any case, the important fact is that under Augustus Mesopotamia, which was subsequently annexed, was not included in the empire. But there are clear signs that if the population has increased, it has been very weak, and perhaps it has decreased. In 252, a plague appeared in the empire - pestis, and lasted 15 years; the devastation was terrible; the hole could not be filled by the time of Constantine. One can generally assume that under the emperors the population did not grow. Of course, now everyone has abandoned the legend that despotism reigned under the emperors and life was bad for everyone. On the contrary, the provinces were worse off under the republic. Noble Romans incurred debts in Rome and went to the provinces to enrich themselves, and it was difficult to find a court and administration in Rome under the republic. Such orders under the emperors were rare and even impossible. Thus, the provinces under the emperors were in a state of prosperity. But politics is not everything. In Greece, population decline was noticeable even earlier due to lack of food. Industry and trade served the interests of the rich, while the mass of the population lived by agriculture. In Italy, farming was extensive: any fertilizer, for example, guano, was out of the question, and such farming depletes the soil. Varro († 27 BC) wrote that for 10 jugeras 5 or 6 modii of barley are sown and the harvest itself is 10. Cicero in his speech against Verres also says that the harvest in Italy itself is 10 and 8, namely from 6 sown modii 48 are harvested, and with an outstanding harvest - 60. Meanwhile, Columella, who wrote under Claudius († Oct. 13, 54 AD) says: “Hardly anyone remembers the case when the harvest itself was 5.” Thus, we see a drop in yield by half. Under such circumstances, life was difficult for the average person. Therefore, Baloch’s figure, which determines the population of the empire under Augustus at 54 million, can also be accepted by the time of Constantine the Great. For further discussions, information about the population of large cities is important: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. In the flourishing times in Alexandria, the total number of inhabitants with slaves was about 1/2 million, and under Augustus and his successors, it may have increased. In Antioch at the beginning of our era there were 300 thousand free people, so that in terms of population it competed with Alexandria. Information about the population of Rome is not so clear. Many have resolved this issue and fallen into exaggeration. It seemed tempting that the government decided, first for a moderate reward, and then for free, to give wheat to citizens. But the significance of this fact should not be exaggerated. The figure for the issue was supposed to be certain, and not everyone could count on receiving it, but only those who were on the list. Moreover, it was issued not only to the Romans, but also to residents of nearby villages. Civis Romanus, even if he lived in Ostia or Florence, remained the same citizen of Rome and had the right to receive bread. But the question is, was it profitable for him to come from Florence to Rome to get 5 modii of wheat? Thus, the figure for the distribution of grain does not provide a basis for judging the number of inhabitants of Rome. Fortunately, we have solid data to determine the entire population of Rome. According to the testimony of Spartian (n. 23), Emperor Septimius Severus († February 4, 211 in York) left the canon frumentarius for 7 years, according to which 75 thousand modii of wheat were to be spent daily in Rome; if less, then famine ensued. Parallel information is found in the scholia to Lucan, namely, that 80 thousand modii were spent daily in Rome. From these figures we can deduce from 750 to 800 thousand of the population of Rome. This figure is determined as follows. It is known that the ancient Greeks and Romans were vegetarians; They ate little meat, not because it was expensive, but because there was little need for strong nutrition: the south showed its effect. And nowadays in Italy they eat more wheat, but in ancient times the entire Roman table consisted of grain bread, and it was assumed that they themselves ground and baked the bread. In Rome, the daily portion of a slave was equal to one quinica 8 barley. But barley was not tasty and therefore was replaced by wheat, which was supposed to be from 3 to 5 hiniki for one person. An infantry soldier was entitled to 4 khiniks, and 5 khiniks was considered generous food. Children under 11 and women received nothing; therefore, the man was expected to share with them. If 4 khiniks were enough for the daily maintenance of a soldier, then for an ordinary person they were quite enough: women and children ate less, so that a round number for each person can be considered 36 modii per year. Based on this calculation, the population of Rome was determined to be 800 thousand. It must be assumed that by the time of Constantine the Great this population figure had not decreased, but increased, because large cities usually attract poor villagers who, with the decline of agriculture, look for work in the city 9 . After these preliminary remarks, we will proceed to examine the percentage of pagans and Christians in the time of Constantine the Great. Some say that Christians made up 1/20 of the total population, others - 1/10. In 1887, Max Victor Schultze took up a detailed consideration of this issue [V. Schultze, Geschichte des Untergangs des griechisch-römischen Heidentums. I. Staat und Kirche im Kampfe mit dem Heidentum. Jena 1887]. He came to the conclusion that there were at least 10 million Christians under Constantine the Great, and probably 16 million, which is the population. But this study had a disastrous outcome: it was reviewed by Berlin University professor Jülicher [Theolog. Literaturzeitung 1887, no. 22, 513–518]. He started counting Christians based on Schultze’s work and came to the surprising result that there were 4 million Christians, not 16 million. If in Asia, the most Christian country, Christians made up, according to Schultze, 1/19 of the total population, then how could they make up the population in the entire Roman Empire? This is all the more surprising because in the West there were fewer Christians - in Italy with Rome, Africa, Spain and Gaul there were 400 thousand, and in general with Germany, Britain and the Balkan Peninsula there were hardly more than millions. Some determine the number of Christians under Constantine by the number of bishops who were at the first ecumenical council. But the number of bishops has a conditional value. From the best list of bishops, which is the Syrian one, it is clear that the dioecesus Oriens, whose metropolitanate was Antioch, nominated 91 bishops: dioecesus Asia (metropolitanate of Ephesus) - 51; dioecesus Pontus (metropolis of Caesarea Cappadocia; Chalcedon, Nicaea, and generally the north of Asia Minor are included in it) – 37; Egypt with Thebaid – 19; Palestine - 19. But does the fall in the bishops' numbers mean a fall in the Christian population? No; firstly, because not everyone was equally interested in the issues of the ecumenical council; secondly, the diocese did not belong to the diocese. In Africa, [294,000] sq. kilometers in 484 there were [450] dioceses, i.e. for each diocese - [680] sq. km. Let us imagine something almost impossible, that each diocese was in the form of a circle, and the cathedral city was in the center; then the radius would be 14 1/2 km. A Russian arshin is equal to 71.119 cm, so a kilometer is slightly less than a mile. Therefore, the bishop could travel around the diocese on a dirty dirt road in 1 1/2 hours. The bishoprics dioecesus Oriens were equal to 1492 square meters. km., in Pontus - 4272 sq. km, in Asia – 799, close to African ones. Reducing to one denominator, we can say that in our Novgorod diocese there would be 29 Pontic, 39 Cappadocian, 82 Eastern, 153 Asian and 185 African dioceses. The difference between 185 and 29 is overwhelming, and the distance between 29 and 153, if we take the eastern dioceses, is also considerable. If we know anything in detail, it is about the diocese of Theodoret of Cyrus - Kirestik. In his letter to Leo the Great, he writes that he has 800 parishes, that is, parishes. Before the civil authority - praefectus praetorii - he testifies that Cyrestica is 40 millia passuum in length and 40 millia pass in width. This evidence is accurate and is not refuted by the calculation of the territory from the map. According to Theodorit, Kirestika had 3498 square meters. km, and according to the map 3562 sq. km. From this it is clear that this bishopric is incomparable with other eastern ones. Thus, calculating the number of Christians by the number of bishops does not lead to anything 10 · Information about the Christian population of Alexandria is borrowed from Athanasius from his apology to Constantius (n. 16). Completely random circumstances prompted Athanasius to give this information. The notorious Cleopatra once decided to build a church in honor of Caesar, something like a half-church, half-museum. The building of Καισάρειον appeared, a church in honor of Caesar. In the 4th century. this church was handed over to Christians for the Christian Church. The construction costs were borne by Emperor Constantius, during whom the consecration ceremony of the church was to take place 11. Naturally, he was interested in the consecration of this church. He himself wanted to arrive in Alexandria, but evil tongues informed Constantius that Athanasius had already completed the renovation of the church and he had to give a detailed explanation about this. He wrote: “There has not yet been a renovation of the church; You will renew it yourself, sir.” Stupid tongues say that the renewal has already taken place, because on Easter a divine service was already performed in this church. When his predecessor Alexander built the church, namely Θεωνᾶ, the renovation was carried out later, although people gathered in the church for worship on the days of St. Pentecost is even earlier than the renewal. In the West, it was customary that in a church that was being built, divine services were performed before the renovation, and then the celebration of the renovation of the church itself was solemnly celebrated. Of course, Athanasius emphasizes that the unrenovated church was consecrated by prayer. All the churches of Alexandria, including Θεωνᾶ, at the present time, by the grace of God, were already crowded, and when people gathered on the days of Lent, many children, young women, old women and young men suffered. They were so compressed that they had to be carried out by hand. Although none of the victims died, there was a murmur. If there was such a crush during Pentecost, then what could have happened at Easter?! Athanasius says that he proposed gathering on Easter in various places, but the people did not want to hear it: they certainly wanted to be together, and he was offered to perform a divine service in the desert under the open sky, if only they would all gather together. The church under construction could accommodate everyone, and Athanasius decided to celebrate the liturgy in it on Easter day 12. Athanasius tells us precious information that in his time there were so many Christians in Alexandria, on the one hand, that they could not fit in one church, and on the other, so few that they could all fit in the cathedral of Καισάρειον. What figure does this message give us? Roman Cathedral of St. Peter's can accommodate 54 thousand people, the Milan Cathedral - 37 thousand, the famous Paris Cathedral - 21 thousand. I am citing foreign information, and you might ask why I am not talking about St. Petersburg churches. Frankly, I don’t know: the guidebooks at my disposal provide rather unique information. It is said about St. Isaac's Cathedral how many three-foot piles are driven under it, but it is not said how many worshipers it can accommodate. About the cathedral in the Izmailovsky regiment it is said that it has 37 soots. height, but not a word about capacity. But the main reason for preferring the above dates is the following: and in the 4th century. and later in the eastern churches, if not everyone, then many listened to the divine service while sitting, and the exclamation “ὀρθοί” - “forgive” had the meaning of an invitation to stand. It can be assumed that not everyone sat with Athanasius on Easter, but still there were many who sat. In Western cathedrals this custom has continued to this day, which is why we have to use Western information, not ours. The Roman Cathedral seats 54 thousand people. Let us assume that the same capacity was available in the Alexandrian church under construction. The conclusion will not be particularly definite. The composition of Christians under Athanasius the Great was not particularly large, since many received baptism in adulthood, and some postponed it until their old days. Children were still preparing to be Christians, young people were in a state of catechumen, and only those of mature age were baptized, became perfect Christians, and were present at the Liturgy of the Faithful. But Athanasius hardly meant only the baptized (who had the right to be present at the Liturgy of the faithful). It is incredible that the catechumens would not want to be present at the Christian Easter service. In all likelihood, Athanasius considers those present in the church not only faithful, but also catechumens. He begins the list with children, includes young people and ends with old people. There were children here, there were old men and women, besides the sick. It can be assumed that some stayed at home to do household chores. For ancient times, the question of domestic servants was a question of slaves; the slaves might not have been Christians. Thus, we cannot consider the number of people staying at home to be great. Probably about 1/3 (and this is the maximum!) remained at home at this time. If we assume that 50 thousand people were present in the church, then we will reach the figure - 70 thousand Christians in Alexandria. If we assume that the total population of Alexandria was ½ million, then we get a very small percentage of Christians - 1 Christian per 7 people, or even per ten. Then we have information about the Roman Church. They are borrowed from the epistle of the Roman bishop Cornelius - ca. 252. He, speaking about the Novatian schism, notes that he, having formed a schism, did not deign to pay attention to the fact that the Roman Church is not insignificant: in the Roman Church there are 46 presbyters, 7 deacons, 7 subdeacons, 42 acoluthi, exorcists and readers along with ostiarii (ostiarii = πυλωροί, gatekeepers) - 52, widows along with those in need of help (σὺν θλίβομένοις) - over 1500 (ὑπὲρ τὰς χιλίας πεντακοσίας), and all of them are permeated by the grace and love of the Lord (Eus. h. e. VI, 43, 11). Here is a testimony about the Roman church. This requires rejecting the explanation that many people hold. The African Bishop Optatus of Mileus wrote an essay on the Donatist schism. He says that at the beginning of the 4th century. A bishop appeared among the Donatists in the person of Victor of Garben. This Victor garbensis was present at the Council of Numidia in 305. He characterizes Victor as a shepherd without a flock; one cannot count the insignificant number of his followers as his flock. There was no place for Victor's flock in the forty or more basilicas in Rome. So, Roman Christians at the beginning of the 4th century. had more than 40 basilicas. Since Cornelius also counts 46 presbyters, scientists believe that under Cornelius Christians had 40 places of worship. I don't think so. Cornelius names 7 deacons and 7 subdeacons. The Roman Church has always remained faithful to number 7; then many believed that each church (bishopric) should not have more than 7 deacons and subdeacons. In parallel with the subdeacons, the rank of akoluths was held, which was considered honorable along with the subdeacons. The concept of akolufs contains the idea of ​​following, accompanying. Akolufov Korniliy names 42; this figure, divided by 7, gives 6 people, and when divided by 14, it gives 3 people. Civilly, Rome was divided into 14 regions. The division of Rome, even in Christian terms, into 14 parts is an indisputable fact: 7 deacons and 7 subdeacons = 14. These were the persons who were entrusted with the management of 14 regiones, and the acoluths had to accompany the deacons and subdeacons during their rounds in a certain regio. Thus we get a deacon and subdeacon at the head and three akoluths under each of them; 4 people could, for example, easily transfer a patient if necessary, and thus the number 14 has a real and completely understandable meaning. Then the number 52, which Cornelius designates the number of exorcists, ostiarii and readers, will also receive a certain illumination. Exorcists said incantatory prayers, for example, at baptism. It is impossible to think that there would be an equal number of exorcists, readers and ostiarii. There is no doubt that each place of worship required a reader and an ostarius - a gatekeeper. At that time, Christians had to live carefully; the cry - “let us love one another” - and then they even formulated it like this: “look at each other and recognize each other” (a precaution against non-Christians); at that time it would have been imprudent to perform divine services without an ostiary. A reader was also necessary, just like an ostiary. But for 40 basilicas it was impossible to get one reader and ostary out of 52 persons. Consequently, there was less basil. It is easy to assume that there were 14 readers and 14 gatekeepers or ostiarii, and perhaps there were more readers - 2 readers at one liturgical meeting, from which 28 readers + 14 ostiarii + 10 exorcists = 52. Therefore, it is quite possible that at this time each regio had only one place for liturgical meetings, where people gathered for worship on major holidays. But it remains to make a calculation: how many people could such a private basilica accommodate? Unfortunately, exact data is not available, but an approximate calculation is possible. Ancient Christians sat during worship, and a seated person occupies 0.4 square meters. meters, therefore, 10 people occupy 4 square meters. meters and a very large hall is required to accommodate 1000 people (about 5 fathoms wide and 20 fathoms long). Of course, Roman Christians were not so rich that they had many halls that could accommodate so many people. Therefore, we must assume that not everyone gathered for the service, but in turn. We can start with the figure of 14–15 thousand believers. Doubling this figure would be very bold (30 thousand is probably the maximum!). Further, we have information about 1 1/2 thousand people. widows together with those in need of help. It is difficult to decide how to conclude from the number of people in need of help to a certain number of Christians in general. John Chrysostom in one sermon states that the Antiochian population included 1/10 of the rich and 1/10 of the poor, thus he defines the total poor as 1/10 of the population. But in reality, not all the poor needed constant church help. Some of them used help only from time to time. Thus, the figure: 1/10 of the whole = poor is somewhat risky. If we take this ratio, then 1,500 poor people will have to be added to the total number of Christians of 15 thousand, but this figure is overwhelmingly large. According to the 1880 census, 130 thousand people were registered in Paris as completely poor, and there was 1 poor person for every 18 inhabitants. Based on this, it can be assumed that among Roman Christians there was even 1 needy person for every 20 people; and then the total figure would be 30,000 Christians in the half of the 3rd century. How insignificant the purely Christian population could be even in later times in cities with a relatively large population is shown by the data of the life of Porphyry of Gaza, compiled by his deacon Mark (late 4th – early 5th century). This life, as a monument, presents a rather significant mystery for the historian, but the difficulties do not force one to suspect that his testimony is incorrect. Gaza is a coastal, wealthy and fairly populated city in Palestine. This can be seen from the fact that there were 8 pagan temples in it. And since pagan worship consisted of making sacrifices, and sacrifices could be made anywhere, it can be assumed how many inhabitants these temples satisfied; namely, it would not be risky to say that the number of inhabitants of Gaza extended to 30–40 thousand. Porphyry was at least the fifth bishop of Gaza (the first was Silvanus, who suffered under Maximinus). When he came to Gaza as a bishop, the pagan population of the city was very hostile towards him. As you know, the prosperity of Palestine depended on early rains. The rain should fall around November 3 - around the day of George - and if the rain began 15 days before this time, then everyone rejoiced, but meanwhile, in the year of Porfiry's accession to the Gaz department, the rain did not fall by this time. Moreover, November and December passed, the third month arrived, and still no rain. Then the pagans began to say that this happened because of Porphyry, because in his person they allowed the enemy of the god Marne into the city. On the 7th day of the 3rd month, 280 men, women and children gathered and begged Porfiry to perform a Christian litany and walk around the city. It cannot be assumed that we are talking about a deputation from Christians, because for such a simple case it was not required. One might think that these 280 people constituted the entire Christian population of Gaza. It may be, even likely, that this count did not include the elderly, minors, and home guardians. This prayer was performed on the 8th of Abdinai (January 4). When the Christians, having walked around the city, approached the gates, they found them locked. But, fortunately, raindrops suddenly appeared and it began to rain. The pagans opened the gates, a large crowd accompanied the Christians around the city and some shouted: “Great is the Christian God.” On this day, the writer notes, 127 people converted to Christianity, namely 78 men, 35 women, 14 children, including 5 girls. This rain was so heavy that the residents began to fear that their houses, which were built of unbaked bricks, would be washed away. All these small details give us the right to believe that the reported figure is accurate. This means there were very few Christians. Their number hardly reached 400. This is also evident from the fact that later, when Christianity was in full bloom, when the idol of the Marne was destroyed and a Christian church was built, then even then the number of Christians was not very large. This is evident from the fact that the people grumbled at Porfiry for taking the scale of the church too large, saying: “Why is he building such a large church when there are few people.” But Porfiry consoled him with the words that God would replenish and increase the number of believers. If we take into account all this numerical data, we will see what a small number of Christians was needed to found the diocese, and this circumstance should serve as an obstacle to the conclusion about a large number of Christians. We should not count Christians in the dioceses as millions. Even a thousand is too big for many of them. Therefore, it is safe to assume minimum figures both regarding the population of the entire empire and regarding the number of Christians: the first figure ranges between 50 and 60 million, and the second between 4 and 5 million. At one time, Tertullian estimated that there were much fewer Christians than pagans. “What will happen to Carthage,” he says to the Carthaginian proconsul Scapula, “if you subject Christians to decimation?” (decimatio – military execution on the tenth). This shows that by exterminating the Christians, he will lose 1/10 of the population. This figure is very exaggerated. It may very well be that only by the time of Constantine the Great the Christian population amounted to 1/10 of the total population; but maybe this figure needs to be lowered. Any idea that Christians were more than 10% of the population would be risky. But then we must assume that Constantine the Great decided to rely on 1/10 of the population. But relying on 1/10 of the part, for which history knows that it did not interfere in politics, would be imprudent, and from this point of view, the political motives of Constantine the Great turn out to be inexplicable. Relying on 1/10 of the population, relying on that part that did not rush into political calculations, would be a big risk for him, if he did not have, in addition to political calculations, other properties that were more ideal. True, various cases from the time of persecution showed quite clearly that the masses had nothing against Christianity, but this was when Christianity was not dominant. Meanwhile, it was unknown how they would look if the minority were given advantages, and the majority was pushed back. Therefore, in order to decide on such a measure, not only political reasoning was needed, but also faith and conviction that Christianity is the true religion. Constantine, it should be noted, was a sovereign, and not a private person, and therefore the peculiarities of this situation should be taken into account. Tertullian wittily notes that there are so many Christians that the emperor himself could become a Christian if the world could do without an emperor. Therefore, if Constantine were one of those people who are immediately engulfed in religious flame, then he would need to lay down the purple. But the Supreme Hand appoints in his person such a sovereign who is content with the minimum in the field of religion. Constantine gives his children a Christian education, but he himself remains “pontifex maximus”; In the first years, he showed rather modest relations with Christians, mostly of a protective nature, for example, he issued a law protecting Christians from Jews, allowed the church to free slaves, and only by 321 he announced that the venerable “day of the sun” should be free from work in the cities, although he definitely stated that farmers should work on Sunday. He did not call Sunday by any other word than “dies solis,” which also spoke a lot to the pagans. There is no reason to assume that Elena has a particularly beneficial influence on him. On the contrary, Ambrose of Mediolan says that Helen herself owes to the influence of Constantine. In all likelihood, for Konstantin in his youth, the ideal was a father figure worthy of imitation. When Constantius became Caesar, Constantine was forced to see how the ties between his father and mother were severed. According to his position, Constantius had to divorce Helen and marry Theodora, Maximian's stepdaughter. From this marriage there were children who were supposed to share the power of Constantius. True, Constantine was given to understand that he would not be forgotten, namely, Maximian’s little daughter brought him a helmet. But in essence, in the east, Constantine was a hostage. His position under Galerius was unenviable. True, there were cases of distinguishing oneself, but at the risk of breaking one’s head. When Diocletian and Galerius abdicated the throne, Constantine was indelicately bypassed and Severus was appointed to Italy. As soon as he received permission to appear to his father, he had to take into account the fact that in Italy the North met him with hostility and wanted to seize him, as a result of which Constantine’s servants entered the stables at the stations and cut the sinews of the horses so that there would be no pursuit. This is what Konstantin's childhood was like. In his activities, Constantine had to support the peaceful policy of his father, who was close to Christianity and did not persecute him. Constantius was a monotheist. It should be noted that there were two kinds of monotheists. The first are monotheists of the Neoplatonic school. They interpreted the tales about the gods in a philosophical sense, interpreted them in the sense of powers and concluded them with an aquatic theoretical god, mostly in the person of Zeus. Monotheists of this sort were hostile to Christianity. They were led by scientists, and they saw that Christianity was contrary to their monotheism, which they had not yet established, and therefore the destruction of Christianity was their most sincere desire. The second monotheists are fans of the cult of the “invincible sun” - invicti solis, to which Constantius Chlorus belonged. Under this name lies the Persian cult of Mithras, which made a great impression with its various ceremonies. The important thing is that this cult is foreign, imported. Therefore, his admirers could consider Christianity to be homogeneous with him and of the same rights. And Constantine has a cult of the invincible sun, but only it is transformed into the cult of Apollo, as can be seen from the welcoming speech of one speaker to Constantine, where he uses the expression “Apollo tuus” (“your Apollo”). Constantine's further acquaintance with Christians gave rise to an even greater affection for them. He saw that Christians, as subjects, are good people, that they are subject to double discipline - the emperor and the bishop. It can be seen that Constantine conducted affairs very consistently after 312, when at the beginning of 313 he, together with co-ruler Licinius, gave Christians only freedom of religion, and not only Christians, but also the entire population of the empire, the freedom to adhere to each of his own religion, to honor the God in whom he himself believes; if the edict speaks of Christians, it is because they especially persistently asked for freedom. This mercy extended to Christian assemblies as well. The Edict of 313 did not restrict the pagans in their beliefs, but it made it possible to convert not only to Christianity, but also to other pagan cults. This edict contained elements of great religious tolerance. In essence, it can be assumed that a person who was a fan of Mithra could previously consider him the supreme god and at the same time was obliged to recognize Jupiter. Now he had the opportunity to honor only Mithra and not honor the other Roman gods, which he previously could not do without danger. Thus, Constantine’s first step was such that he promised nothing to Christianity except equality with other religions, except freedom of confession. What happened next was only a manifestation of Constantine’s nobility; he saw that Christians were the cruelly injured party: their property was taken away from them only because they honored God in their religion. Constantine was so magnanimous that he gave the order to return to the Christians the seized property (places of liturgical meetings). One step led to another. At the first word of the emperor, it was easy to return to the Christians the property that was still state property (transferred from the Christians to the treasury). But there were many properties that became private property when they were sold at auction. This would introduce inequality among Christians: some could receive, while others could not. It was decided, therefore, to buy the property from private owners. Then the third category opened. The churches of Christians were not only taken away during the previous persecution, but were also destroyed: they did evil for evil. It was necessary to restore equality between Christians here too. Constantine decided to restore the destroyed churches: he began to allocate sums for the construction of churches; his mediator was the proconsul of Africa, Annulinus, who had previously persecuted Christians. Constantine thought that if he gave the Christians what they had previously lost, then he would not offend any of the pagans, or even if he would offend the more zealous of them, then at least a few, since the previous persecution was carried out only formally. Thus, Constantine could take the first step favorable for Christianity in 313 completely safely. It would require no supernatural agency to explain it, no heavenly sign or revelation in a dream. This is the outpouring of the nobility of the spirit of Constantine. But these first steps do not at all explain the fact that he himself took the side of Christianity. In this direction he walked very slowly and carefully. He was a wise, enlightened and prudent sovereign. He could remain a pagan forever, as we see from the circumstances of his life. Constantine did not consider it necessary to relinquish the title “pontifex maximus”. The pagan priests and the priestly college were not constrained in any way. Of course, paganism inevitably had to suffer some destruction: now it was impossible to attract unwilling persons to perform religious pagan duties. At the same time, the pagans were not forbidden to build new temples in honor of him. One church was built, for example, in honor of the emperor's family name - gens Flavia. If Constantine had to limit the “freedom” of the pagans, it was only in its ugly manifestations: the blows were directed against those pagan temples in which immoral cults were practiced; True, temples that stood in those places that were primarily sacred to Christians were also taken away from the pagans; but this was only a conclusion from the general position that Christians also have the right to honor their God. As a holy place for Christians, for example, the famous Mamvrian oak was returned to them. Equally insignificant were the other restrictions to which the pagan religion was subjected under Constantine the Great. The government persecuted the pagans for "divinationes"; these were dark, secret fortune-telling in order to find out the future regarding the emperor; Other fortune telling, recognized as a pagan religion, was not prosecuted. In recent years, Constantine the Great tried to abolish sacrificia - blood sacrifices. If this law was not enforced, it was only because this measure was unpleasant for many. It is therefore quite right that the position of religion under Constantine the Great should be considered as Parität - as equality between religions. Constantine the Great tried to maintain this equality everywhere, even in small things, for example, in symbolic images on coins there are both Christian and pagan symbols, although over time Christian symbols begin to predominate. All this, obviously, does not in any way define Constantine as a person who formally declares that he is no longer a pagan, but a Christian. However, he, although slowly but surely, came closer to making Christianity the dominant religion. While remaining on neutral ground himself, he, however, gave the children a Christian education, which made it impossible for them to maintain neutrality. It was obvious to everyone that such an event by Constantine would be replaced by the triumph of the Christian religion. It is impossible to think that Constantine did this without realizing the superiority of Christianity; if this consciousness had not existed, Konstantin would have raised his children so that they could play the role that he played - however, he prepared a better future for them. Constantine himself approached Christianity gradually 13. Pagan writers notice in his character not progress, but regression. As one of them noted, Constantine the Great “began as a man, ended as almost a youth” (paene puer). The energy of his character weakened, and this probably affected his determination to accept Christianity: although he wanted to be baptized in the waters of the Jordan, he postponed his baptism. This circumstance did not represent anything strange from the point of view of the contemporaries of Constantine the Great. Constantine lacked only faith in himself, and not faith in Christ. He hoped to be mysteriously cleansed in baptism in order to enter the future life completely pure. True, against this Christian mood, they indicate that some of his actions were non-Christian. They point to the execution of Maximian, Constantine's father-in-law, Licinius, Constantine's son-in-law, Licinian, son of Licinius, and finally Crispus, son of Constantine. The execution of Maximian was a matter of political necessity. Maximian, according to an agreement with Diocletian, had to renounce the title of Augustus after 20 years and lay down the purple. But he did it against his will. At this time, the troops who were in Britain and Gaul proclaimed Constantine Augustus, and the Roman troops (praetorians) proclaimed Maxentius, the son of Maximian. For Maximian this was a good reason to seize the crown. He came to Rome, tried to induce Diocletian to return his rule, and even tried to incite Roman troops against his son. But ridiculed, he had to flee to Gaul. Here he met Constantine and gave him the hand of his daughter Fausta with the title of August. The relationship between Constantine and Maximian was fragile. Maximian spread the rumor that Constantine died in a campaign against the Gauls in order to take the crown himself. Constantine exiled him to Marseilles so that he could live there as a private person. But Maximian did not stop there. He invited his daughter Fausta to be a participant in the murder of her husband. Fausta, therefore, had to choose between her father and her husband. But she preferred her husband and revealed to him her father’s plans. When Maximian walked with a dagger with the aim of killing Constantine, the slave, hidden by the latter for observation, grabbed him, and the convicted father-in-law was executed. As for the execution of Licinius, they say that Constantine the Great punished Licinius contra fidem sacramenti - against the oath promise to spare his life. But this very weighty expression is destroyed by the testimony that is read in the Anonymus Valesianus (pars prior, Origo Constantini imperatoris, part one, The Origin of the Emperor Constantine), a source of undeniable historical value: “tumultu militaribus exigentibus in thessalonica jussit occidi” (“when the soldiers rebelled in Thessalonica, he ordered execution”). No sworn promise can have permanent validity if the other party is forced to break the promise. For example, the state NN made a promise to spare another state RR. But if the state of RR invades the state of NN with armed force, then it would be strange for the state of RR to continue to spare NN. The soldiers feared that Licinius might conspire in Thessalonica, and they forced Constantine to order his execution. The execution of Licinius’s son, Licinian, remains a moral stain in the life of Constantine. But the same legions loyal to him could force Constantine to do this. That they were able to force Constantine to do such an act is evidenced by the fact that they beat Constantine’s relatives, the children of Theodora, and the second wife of Constantius Chlorus. After Constantine's death, out of loyalty to Constantine and his children, they did not want there to be any other claimants to his throne. Finally, they point to the execution of Constantine’s son, Crispus (by his first wife, Minervina). This matter is extremely dark, and there is no reason not to trust the story of the pagan Zosimus, in which it is noted that the emperor himself repented of this act and erected a statue to the murdered man with the inscription: ἠδικημένῳ (victim of injustice). The execution was arranged in a somewhat mysterious manner, and it is very possible that Crispus was accused of plotting against his father. In any case, whether this was a political crime or a family misunderstanding (accusation of adultery with Fausta, who was also soon executed) is difficult to say. II. The importance of the national characteristics of the Greeks and Romans and the traditions of the Roman state and the Christian church in establishing relations between church and state Another actor in determining the relationship between church and state is the members of the Christian church themselves. At that time, Christianity for the most part coincided with the boundaries of the classical world, and the national character traits of the Greeks and Romans, formed under the influence of natural inclinations and history, brought their share of influence into the practical elaboration of the details of these new relations. With the idea of ​​the Greeks, the thought naturally arises of a people richly gifted with mental abilities, who have distinguished themselves with glory in philosophy, science, art - a people with a fiery sense of freedom, with hatred of tyranny, a republican tribe par excellence. Modestly, almost in the shadow, along with the ideal Greek, appears the figure of the Roman, with his limited horizons, poverty of theoretical principles, weakness of speculation, often dry practicality, and narrow positivity. The world empire that the powerful Romans realized, Caesarism, which appeared as the completion of their historical development, often descending into despotism, does not speak in favor of the energy of the sense of freedom inherent in the Roman race. And when we just think that with Constantine the Great the political center of gravity is transferred from the Latin west to the Greek east, then, apparently, we can only welcome this happy historical coincidence. However, a detailed examination of the case puts it in a different light. The question of the relationship between church and state is essentially a legal one. Meanwhile, the legal principles by which the Greek world lived do not arouse any particular interest in anyone, while the legal meaning of the Roman people has always been the subject of respectful surprise to scientists. The Romans were not far off in the field of speculation; under the pen of their thinkers, philosophical questions very soon received a narrowly practical formulation; but this people was strong in administrative and organizational talent; he knew how to rule, but he also knew how to manage. Meanwhile, this gift was precisely what the Greeks lacked. During the flourishing period of their history, they were never able to form their republics into a dense, solidary political whole; even when hegemony in the Greek world passed into the powerful hands of the sovereigns of Macedonia, and then centrifugal forces prevailed over centripetal ones: Alexander’s monarchy did not survive him. More prone to speculation, the Greek was naturally disposed to concentrate all his attention on the development of dogmatic thought and leave the area of ​​practical relations in oblivion. Likewise, the sense of freedom that animated the Greeks hardly gives their national character many advantages over the Romans. Freedom for the Greeks is a very relative concept; their constant fear of tyranny was perhaps one of the saving instincts, the help of which they needed more than other peoples. Indeed, in the reign of the purest representatives of the Greek race, the Athenians, the personal element makes itself felt very strongly. The history of Athens can be described quite fully in the biographies of famous persons who stood at the head of their republic; this can hardly be said about Rome. Among the Greeks, highly talented people predominate in the category of historical figures; among the Romans - more or less mediocre; there the genius of the individual matters more, here it is the established system. The heroes of the Greek world controlled the destinies of their fatherland in a sense much more complete than can be said of the Romans. There is a significant difference in the attitudes of these two peoples towards their representatives. The statesmen of Athens were more than trusted representatives of the people, they were their favorites; Roman consuls were usually just officials. After his term had passed, the Roman consul naturally faded into obscurity and joined the honorary rank of consulars. For the historical figures of Athens there was no such period: they stood at the head of the administration all their lives; if they left their post, then there was popular disgrace. They ended up even worse - almost high treason: remember Themistocles. The Athenians loved their prominent figures; if they were only respected, then they were already beginning to be feared, and they were in a hurry to get rid of their presence by ostracism. In this practice one feels an acknowledgment of helplessness before the charm of mental power, of the inability to keep its activity within proper boundaries. The Athenian oscillated between the extremes of rebellion and reverence. The Romans simply knew how to respect their heroes: while the Quirites gave well-deserved honor to their official general, the soldiers loyal to him splattered him with mud as a private person. The personality of the hero did not mean very much in Rome; the scene of Roman triumph on the streets of Athens is simply incredible. In Greece, a statesman could carry public opinion with him to the point that he became a tyrant of his mobile, often frivolous people; The tyranny in Athens is of a civil nature. In Rome, a gifted individual could do little against firmly established forms of legal relations; and if tyrants were known in Rome, they still had to rely on brute military force. Tyranny in Rome was the reign of militarism. Another circumstance significantly influenced the character of the Greeks: with their love for freedom, they fell under the iron power of Rome, and could never overthrow this yoke. Slavery had a corrupting effect even on the stable Romans; even they were morally humiliated. It simply suppressed the Greek: not being able to achieve space in the open way, he acted by dark means, went to it through a roundabout path of intrigue, conspiracies, deceit and revenge. These base manifestations made the Greeks hated by the Romans: Juvenal, who did not represent the moral state of his compatriots in a rosy light, speaks of the Greeks with deep contempt: natio tota comoeda; they seem to him completely false and basely flattering. This side of the Greek character, of course, cannot be admitted without strong restrictions; the decay affected, of course, mainly the cultural strata of the Greek tribe; Moreover, not all who spoke Greek were pure Greeks. But the mixture of nationalities did not always ennoble them. In any case, these two classical peoples oppose each other as more resilient, harsh, direct and stable - and on the other hand - more refined, soft, sometimes frivolous, fickle, evasive to the point of slyness and cunning, flattering and seeking. Both of these peoples had their advantages and disadvantages. It is more natural to expect from Roman Christians a more steadfast, and most importantly systematic, defense of church freedom against a possible encroachment on it by state power. But they could exaggerate the importance of controversial issues and turn the struggle for freedom into a struggle for dominance. Greek Christendom, after three centuries of suffering, could easily succumb to the charm of the new relations of the Christian sovereign and weaken the necessary control over his actions. For the sake of dogmatic prevailing interests, a Greek could easily give up some formal prerogatives. The former could resolve the question of the relationship between the state and the church incorrectly, turning the question of freedom into a question of lust for power; in the character of the Greeks there were inclinations not to resolve this issue at all, not to understand it in its simplest, elementary formulation, to rely too much on the actions of a well-disposed sovereign and to begin the struggle for church freedom only when the claims of state power touched the area of ​​dogmatic beliefs. It goes without saying that such an influence of national differences is difficult to justify in every particular fact; If we do things this way, we will certainly encounter many exceptions. And this is understandable. The main flavor of historical facts depends on the general properties and weaknesses of human nature: a Roman most often acts in the same way as a Greek, for the same reasons that a German or a Slav would act. What the national element introduces is weakly but constantly reflected in the secondary tones of the general coloring; but in the end it gives such a sum of influences that the Roman Church wages a strong struggle for world power, for dominance over the state, while the Eastern Church could never be accused of a serious encroachment on the rights of the state. In addition to the personal characteristics of Emperor Constantine, on the one hand, and the national character of the Greco-Roman Christians, on the other, the relationship between church and state should have been influenced, and even more than anything else, by the historically established characteristics of these members of the emerging union. The emperor, willy-nilly, had to be a representative of the traditions of the ancient state, and these traditions are such that they most of all led to the denial of the equality of the new ally. The Roman state historically developed together with the Roman cult, in the strict sense including it within itself, as a part of its whole. There was no talk about the separation of church and state, about the fundamental difference between religious and political institutions in the previous history of Rome. On the contrary, his history developed in such a way that he had no reason to recognize the unique character of these institutions. As a natural religion, the religion of the Roman people contained too few moral elements that could impose on the Roman people duties contrary to its political tasks and aspirations. Collisions between religion and statehood could not be much stronger than the possible clashes between various departments in a modern state. There could be no serious clashes. And even where religion made its significance felt by state power (of course, where this authority was a fact, and not an oratorical phrase), and in these cases religion most often turned out to be only a screen behind which the organs of the aristocratic party act. As proof of the mixture of state and religious principles, one can refer, for example, to the fact that the same patricians, in whose hands the most important government positions were concentrated, were also priests. Finally, since Augustus, the Roman emperors have been the supreme high priests. Combining these titles in one person could only complicate the task. Christians had to obey the force of habit. It is not the case that Christian emperors should consciously and deliberately act as pontifices maximi of the Christian Church. But it is dangerous that the Roman emperor was accustomed to looking at everything around him with the gaze of an unlimited ruler; It was unusual for him to see a limit to his will, which extended to the entire state, and therefore to his religion. The prerogatives of the title of pontifex maximus were an integral part of his consciousness of himself as a supreme, autocratic sovereign. While retaining full autocratic rights, the Christian emperor could unconsciously make such claims, which were based on his title of high priest of the pagan cult. And given the difference in the basic tone of Christian and pagan religion (the latter was primarily an external cult, the former was an internal conviction in dogmatic truth), this old leaven could transfer violence from the surface inward, could respond with pressure on the deepest recesses of the human spirit. Official religious syncretism could not help but dull the subtle sensitivity to the nuances of religious concepts; they were little appreciated. And in Christianity, these shades sometimes contain the whole essence of dogma. Consequently, syncretism could respond both with humane tolerance for differences in dogmatic opinions, and with senseless violence against this difference of opinion, as unimportant and insignificant. The historical traditions of the Christian Church were completely opposite. She carried with her a spirit of independence and religious freedom. For three centuries it existed as a state within a state; persecuted by him, she was nevertheless independent of him in her inner life, in her structure. At a time when all state rights were concentrated in the hands of the emperor, each member of the church had the right to vote in choosing members of his hierarchy. And the Christians knew how to use this right so effectively that the Roman statesmen sadly set them as an example to the Quirites. Thanks to this, the Christian church had an already strengthened organization, the moral dependence of the laity on the clergy, the clergy on the bishops, the sacred power of the latter - all this was established so firmly that it could successfully withstand external pressures. The awareness of the difference between what belongs to God and what belongs to Caesar - in the ancient period of church life became clear at the most essential point, in the question of freedom of religious belief. The classical state allowed the worship only of deities recognized by it and officially permitted. The principle of legislation, according to Cicero, is that no one should worship any gods, nisi publice adscitos, except those recognized by the state authorities. Closely connected with this negative side was a positive one: permission turned into a forced obligation. The patron advised Augustus: “Hate and punish those who introduce foreign gods. Honor the gods according to the custom of your ancestors and force – ἀνάγκαξε – others to honor them.” On the contrary, the Christian did not recognize any other legislation in the field of religion other than his own religious feeling. Christians opposed freedom of religion to the official religion of the classical state, the only one allowed, the confession of which was mandatory for everyone and guaranteed by coercive measures. In matters of faith, a Christian did not recognize any other legislation than his own religious feeling and conscience, expressed in a certain religious conviction. Christian writers not only expressed this principle, but also surrounded it with very strong psychological motives. “Every man,” wrote Tertullian, “has a natural right and power to honor that which he recognizes as worthy of worship. The religion of a famous person does no harm or good to anyone else. But it is irreligious to force anyone to perform religious reverence. It must be given voluntarily, not as a result of violence; because sacrifices are also required from a free state of mind. Therefore, even if you force us to make a sacrifice, you will not do anything pleasing to your gods. They cannot desire forced victims unless they are pretentious, and God cannot be like that” (Ad Scapul. 2). “See if the fact that you take away our religious freedom and impose a ban on our desire for the Divine will not serve as proof of your irreligion, so that they do not allow me to honor whom I want, and force me to honor whom I do not want. After all, no one, not even a person, would want to be honored involuntarily” (Apologet. 24). “There is no need to resort to violence,” wrote Lactantius, “because religion cannot be forced; in order to arouse her voluntarily, you need to act with words, not blows (verbis potius, quam verberibus). One must defend religion not by killing, but by dying; not by cruelty, but by patience; not by crime, but by honesty. And if you decide to defend religion with bloodshed, torture, and atrocities, you will not defend it, but will disgrace and insult it. For there is nothing as free (voluntary) as religion, and if there is no heartfelt disposition in the person making the sacrifice, then religion is already undermined, it no longer exists at all (jam sublata, jam nulla est)” (Instit. divin. V, 19). As can be seen from here, Christians are entering a new period with clearly realized and well-established principles of religious freedom. The question is brought from a, so to speak, dogmatic basis to a purely moral one: the pagan government is reproached not for the fact that it attracts people to the worship of false gods, but for the fact that it resorts to violence, acts not by persuasion, but by coercion, and through this comes into conflict with the very essence of religious relations. Likewise, the organization of church society took such stable forms that it could successfully withstand external pressures: the moral dependence of the laity on the clergy, the lower clergy on the bishop, based on faith in the divine, sacramental character of the priesthood, could successfully withstand external pressures. These are the theoretical possibilities for the development of right or wrong relations between church and state. The representatives of this new union are, on the one hand, a sovereign who has a shallow understanding of Christianity, disposed to consider it as a political force that can become a solid foundation of the state system, but who is capable of appreciating it for the fact that he is a believer without strong enthusiasm, but sincerely. His soul is not closed to the beneficial influences of representatives of Christianity; he, apparently, is disposed to completely abandon pagan beliefs, but he can unconsciously take the position in relation to Christianity that he occupied in the pagan cult, as its supreme representative. On the other hand, believers, with a clear, historically established consciousness of their independence from the state, due to the difference in national characters - some are capable of defending this freedom from external force [only] hesitantly, ineptly, others - [ready] to turn the struggle for freedom into a struggle for dominance. III. History of the relationship between church and state since the time of Constantine the Great 14 1. Religious policy of Constantine the Great and his sons How did these relations between church and state actually manifest themselves during the first reign of the Christian emperor? Did the state recognize the church’s right to exist as an independent society with its own specific task, which it can and should solve by its own means? Theoretically, an exact and definite answer to these questions has not yet been given in clear formulas, but as far as one can judge, it would be positive. However, the practically important question in these relations lies beyond these general formulas. It can be defined as follows: if the Christian church is an institution in whose welfare and comprehensive development the state cannot but be interested, then how, for its part, can it contribute to its prosperity? The question, in a word, was about the method of patronage of the church by the state. There was no doubt that it could patronize her; that it, for its part, as an independent institution, can patronize it without deviating from a special purpose, there was no question of this. But what are the means for this impact? Should the state limit itself only to negative measures, eliminating purely external obstacles that it itself has placed in the path of church life? Or can it influence it positively, creating an external environment favorable for it, or penetrating directly into the area of ​​internal church relations? Finally, in this last role, cannot it recognize for itself a certain right over the church? The first steps of Constantine the Great, as the patron of the church, are such that it is difficult to condemn them even from the point of view of the strictest non-interference of the state in the affairs of the church. Until now, the state did not recognize Christianity and forbade joining this society; During the persecution, churches and church real estate were confiscated or sold into private ownership. By the Edict of Milan in 313, Constantine allowed anyone to accept Christianity, ordered the property taken from them to be returned to Christians, and forbade the involvement of Christians in public pagan sacrifices. As a society recognized by law, the Christian Church asserts its right to accept gifts under spiritual wills. Clerics are exempted from burdensome public positions and duties, and in this case they are subject to a privilege that has long been enjoyed not only by pagan priests, but also by physicians, rhetoricians, and heads of Jewish synagogues. Legal proceedings and other work cease on the “venerable day of the sun, “venerabili die solis” (321). In a word, in his patronage Constantine still does not step out of the role of an ordinary legislator, and in the last law he even looks like pontifex maximus. No intrusion into the church's premises is visible; Only external artificial barriers are removed, and greater scope is opened for the activities of its members. Constantine’s peculiar attitude towards Christianity, the political calculation that guided him, shines through only in one feature of the law, however, one of the most original, issued in 313. In this edict, given in the name of Anulinus, proconsul of Africa, it is said that freedom from all duties is granted to “the clergy of the Catholic Church, in which Caecilian presides.” These apparently insignificant words conceal the meaning that these rights do not apply to the clergy of heretics and schismatics. Obviously, Constantine, with his view of Christianity as a force that should strengthen the ties of the state, would act against his goal if he began to support abnormal phenomena in Christianity, weakening its unity, at the expense of the state. This edict gave rise to a whole series of relations between Constantine and the church on the issue of the Donatists. In the same 313, the same proconsul Anulin sent Constantine the libellum of the Donatists, in which they appeal to him as a just sovereign, the son of that Constantius Chlorus, who alone was not a persecutor of Christians, and ask to give them judges from Gaul in order to end their dispute with Caecilian, the bishop of Carthage. By appointment of Constantine, a council was held (in October 313) in Rome under the chairmanship of Pope Melchiades (15 Italian bishops and 3 Gallic); he decided the case against the Donatists. They protested this verdict on the grounds that the fathers of the council had not sufficiently examined some important points of their complaint. Constantine ordered proconsul Aelian to investigate this issue locally in Africa, and appointed a new council in Arles in 314 (in August). The council decision was again not in favor of the Donatists. However, they did not stop there and appealed to the court of the emperor. This aroused great indignation in Constantine. “What insane stubbornness! They are asking me for judgment, while I myself am awaiting the judgment of Christ! The verdict of the bishops must be accepted as if the Lord himself were presiding over the trial.” At first, Constantine did not recognize himself as competent to investigate the matter decided at the council; then he gave in to the constant requests of the Donatists, who found support for themselves in the court spheres, and perhaps thinking of preventing the disturbances that the Donatists dissatisfied with the court could cause. This time the emperor sentenced their bishops to exile in 316 (in November) and ordered the confiscation of their churches. This sentence was overturned in 321, and the renegades were given complete religious freedom, which they enjoyed until the death of Constantine. Such was the course of this original case. This was the first lesson in the practice of non-interference in church affairs, given to the emperor, perhaps even to a pagan catechumen, by Christian bishops. A somewhat similar example of this kind is the case of Pavel Samosatsky. This noble bishop, deposed by the council, did not want to leave the episcopal house he occupied. Those who deposed him were forced to resort to the assistance of police force, and asked Emperor Aurelian to expel the rebellious bishop. The pagan emperor decided the matter in favor of those with whom the bishops of Rome and Italy maintain communication. The Donatist cause does not have even such a justification for itself. These people had so little respect for the internal freedom of church relations that they started directly with secular power. It is unlikely that their motives were completely disinterested: if the court had recognized them as Catholic bishops, this would have been an excellent opportunity for the emperor to extend, and perhaps even transfer to them, the privileges that he granted to the Catholic clergy; For the Donatists, the emperor's acquaintance with their case seemed, therefore, very, very unnecessary. Their complaints put the emperor in the need, against his desire, to intervene in a purely ecclesiastical matter. Their protests against the verdict of the Roman Council force the emperor to introduce a civil official into this trial as an investigator; fortunately, its role is limited to purely archival reference. The new verdict of the Council of Arles also does not satisfy them, because it is against them, and they are appealing from the church court to the court of the emperor... as if his verdict, even if favorable for them, was enough to inform them of the nature of Catholicism. The emperor showed the first example of interference in the affairs of the church. But in the behavior of the Donatists, the egoistic lining shines through so strongly, and the emperor for so long - for the autocratic sovereign and for the pontifex maximus, so conscientiously resisted the call to intervene in this church matter, that we have to admit that if in this process anyone stood below his position, then it was not the emperor 15. Constantine the Great could draw two conclusions from the Donatist case: a) there are representatives of Christianity who are ready to recognize its very broad right to intervene in church affairs, to place its competence in them even above councils; b) repressive measures taken to establish church unity do not always lead to the goal. A further instance of Constantine's intervention in ecclesiastical matters took place in the east. It was an Arian controversy. As in the first case, Constantine acted as a defender of the interests of the church world. The only difference is that here he himself intervened in this matter without appeal. It was a friendly exhortation to reconciliation; but since the emperor very poorly understood the dogmatic significance of the issue, he could not create a basis for reconciliation between those who argued. Probably, the explanations of the bishops around him pointed him to an ecumenical council as a means to restore church peace. The role that the council fathers gave to Constantine was quite significant. His intervention probably greatly influenced some to accept the expression "consubstantial." “Having listened to this exposition of our faith,” writes Eusebius of Caesarea, “no one found in it a reason for contradiction; on the contrary, our most God-loving king himself was the first to testify that it is completely Orthodox; “This is what he said, and I myself think,” and ordered everyone to accept it, sign these dogmas and agree with them, adding only one word: “consubstantial.” The Emperor is speaking here; her tone was too high for a person who was, from a Christian point of view, nothing more than a catechumen. He apparently had the right to vote, albeit an advisory one. The dogmatic insight of the emperor at this time was still so limited that he very vaguely understood the meaning of the words; "born before all ages." The council ended with the condemnation of Arianism and the deposition of its main adherents. The emperor, for his part, ordered the exile of stubborn adherents of Arianism, ordered the Arians to be called the shameful name of Porphyrians and the writings of the Arians to be burned under the threat of death for anyone who tried to hide them. Thus, with the first ecumenical council, the persecution of heretics for their faith by criminal justice measures begins. The energetic consciousness of the purposelessness of religious persecution, its inconsistency with the very essence of religious feeling, is apparently obscured. At least these actions of Constantine were not protested by the fathers of the council. This moment is of deep importance in the history of relations between church and state. – There is no need to consider the speech on behalf of the council to the emperor as authentic. “The reason for this meeting and our reasoning is the frantic Arius... For he does not recognize the only begotten Son and the Word of the Father as consubstantial and equal to the Father... Command, sir, that he abandon his error, do not rebel against the teachings of the apostles, or, if he remains stubborn in his wicked opinion, expel him from the society of the Orthodox Church, so that he no longer shakes the faith of weak souls with wicked opinions” (Apud Gregorium presbyterum Caesariens). But in any case, the fact is that the conciliar definition is given the meaning of state law; Church condemnation of heretics is accompanied by punitive measures against them from the state, and the fathers of the council, as far as is known, do not protest with a single word against such zeal of the emperor. The question here is not even that this fact violated the rights of conscience and free religious belief, eloquently defended by Christian apologists (violence against the human soul, surpassing even the practice of pagan sovereigns; there: make a sacrifice to this statue and think about it to yourself as you know; here: stop thinking about the Son of God as you think). Generalize only this single fact, accept as a general rule that the definition of councils is accompanied by well-known civil consequences. Then the state will have to proactively place its criminal penalties at the disposal of either any assembly of bishops that has adopted the name of a holy council, or not all of them, but only some of them. The dangerous consequences of the first answer are all too obvious. But it is no less dangerous to assume that only some cathedrals should receive such significance. Then the question of the criterion arises, and the state, and, of course, it alone, is called upon to distinguish true councils from false ones, legal councils from illegal assemblies. A wide path opens for state intervention in the church. It must know what it is assisting with its strong hand, and therefore it must recognize itself as competent in ecclesiastical matters, administrative and dogmatic, which can be discussed at councils. And representatives of the church cannot essentially object to such control over the cathedrals, to these claims of the state, without at the same time denying its right to provide patronage to the church through pressure measures. Between the right of the state to assist those religious societies that it recognizes as beneficial, and the right to punish those who deviate from these societies, only for the very fact of apostasy, lies what seems to be an immutable boundary of normal church policy, which was violated in 325. Apparently, by the time of the Council of Nicaea, Constantine had moved significantly away from the point of view on which he stood in 313. However, even in 325, he was no lower than his position - he had enough self-control to reject the trial of the bishops, who turned to him with a mass of petitions against each other; The emperor expressed his respect for the sacred character of these representatives of the church in the following words: if I saw the bishop at the scene of adultery, I would cover him with my purple, so that only this spectacle would not seduce the spectators. At dinner, which the emperor gave to the fathers of the council, he said to them; “You are the bishops of the internal affairs of the church, I am the bishop of external affairs appointed by God” (τῶν εἴσω τῆς ἐκκλησίας and τῶν ἐκτός). These words are given a very important meaning - which is not entirely [accurate]. It was more of a joke, a courtesy, than a serious program of church policy. However, according to the panegyrist historian [Eusebius], this expression correctly characterizes the position occupied by Constantine. The meaning of these words is found obscure. Their best commentator is, of course, Eusebius himself; and in his opinion, from this principle flowed Constantine’s care to guide, as far as it depended on him, all his subjects along the path of salvation - his legislation aimed at limiting pagan worship, the active participation that he took in church councils, exhorting everyone to be of one mind, convincing those who were stubborn, encouraging with signs of his favor those who expressed a conciliatory mood. In these same forms, Constantine allowed himself actions of a church nature: he read the Holy Scriptures in his consistory, spoke a kind of sermon to the courtiers, cared - in his own way - about the spread of Christianity, composed prayers for his army, etc. Thus, the episcopate of Constantine extended to all his subjects, both pagans and Christians, and was limited not only to the political side, their civil rights, but first of all and most of all was directed to religious relations: the bishop of external affairs limits the freedom of pagan cult - and convenes councils and takes an active part in them 16. In his relations with the Christian church, Constantine goes in the same direction: he deposes the Arians, sends them into exile, returns them from there when they express a desire to repent, he himself accepts the confession of faith from Arius, gives orders to join the church of Alexandria and Constantinople. However, one cannot strictly blame him for the exile of St. Athanasius of Alexandria. The history of this case serves as new evidence that the emperor stood morally higher than the episcopate around him: he allowed the bishops to investigate the charges brought against Athanasius through church order, and the Alexandrian bishop was forced to seek from the emperor the justice that he did not find before the tribunal of his brothers. The last orders of the emperor in this matter are very characteristic: if he had not exiled Athanasius to Gaul on charges of a political crime, but had left this process to its natural course, then the world would have seen a whole council of bishops at the trial of a layman emperor. The relationship of the church to the state, as it developed during the reign of Constantine, is of course not ideal. The emperor renounces the position he originally occupied, his neutrality beneficial for church life, and allows himself to quite often interfere in the affairs of the church. Not yet becoming her son, he acts as her patron, even as her leader. His relationship with her is not limited to creating conditions favorable for her existence. But it is also difficult to say whether this intervention acquired a legal character in his mind. The sphere in which Constantine the Great lives and acts is very favorable for the development of power at the expense of the church. It seems that weakness rather than a subtle understanding of the state of affairs guided the behavior of most of Constantine’s entourage: he is surrounded by a stuffy atmosphere of courtly flattery; his actions, in which there is a noticeable desire to guard the church, have not been protested; every step he takes in this direction is marked by the sympathy of his panegyrist-historian. The emperor encountered few obstacles, and one can marvel not at the fact that he crossed the line that separates God from Caesar's, but at why he did not violate it more often. It is remarkable, for example, that he exiled bishops who disagreed with the council, but did not interfere with their places with his power. He always acted according to his best understanding of church interests, but he did not always have good advisers nearby who would reveal to him the true needs of the church. It was not he who created with his influence those who surrounded him: they were chosen by the free voice of the independent church, and what was wrong in the established relations depended not only on the excellent imperfections of Constantine, but also on the shortcomings of the moral and intellectual members of the church themselves 17 . Under Constantine's immediate successors, these relations did not change for the better. On the contrary, the children of Constantine, especially Constantius, go even further in the direction that their father followed in recent years. Constantius (337–361), without inheriting the best aspects of his father’s character, his moderation, political sense, caution, combined in an increased volume his shortcomings, a tendency towards despotism, towards cruelty, with a weakness of character that opened up strong scope for all sorts of court influences; his cunning, vindictiveness, even treachery, show how little personal greatness he had. In the person of Constantius, for the first time in history we encounter a type of theologian on the throne. The predominance of church interests over state interests is best seen from the words of Constantius himself. The removal of such a criminal man as Athanasius the Great from the management of church affairs would have given the emperor more joy than his happy victories over Magnentius and Silvanus. Constantius' actions against paganism took on an aggressive character. He openly entered into the fight against paganism, passing laws against it. The law of 341 demanded the cessation of superstitious pagan cults (superstitio) and the destruction of blood sacrifices (sacrificatio). In 353, night sacrifices were banned, and in 356, terrible punishments were imposed for the victims 18. But these laws were carried out where it was convenient to carry them out. In Rome, overcrowded with pagans, they could not be performed. Symmachus says that when Constantius was in Rome, walking through the city, he admired the architecture and asked about the inscriptions of the statues. The worship of idols in churches continued. Just no blood sacrifices were made. He tried to act with external force against those whom he considered heretics. The history of the persecution of Athanasius the Great presents more than one example - one might say - of the war of a sovereign against his subject. When they wanted to arrest him, troops from Libya and upper Egypt were forced to march towards Alexandria. Five thousand soldiers, ready for battle, were required to search the church of St. Theons (356 Feb. 9). When, despite these energetic measures, Athanasius the Great managed to hide, then tribunes, prefects, comites, even armies moved to capture him according to the edicts of the emperor; rewards were assigned to the one who would hand over Athanasius, alive or even dead; a message was sent to the Abyssinian princes with a request not to accept Athanasius; The emperor's officials searched numerous monasteries in Egypt, and everything was to no avail. Despite these crude, external measures, the recognition - in theory - of the church as a separate society from the state remains in full force. The spirit of correct relationships disappears, but the form is saved. The sole Roman emperor feels the weakness of his power in church affairs, realizes that his decrees are not enough to depose even the bishop of Alexandria, and spares no effort to sanction his actions with the authority of the council. The emperor interferes in the choice of bishops of Constantinople, becomes furious when he learns that this see was replaced without his permission, and illegally transfers Eusebius of Nicomedia to Constantinople. But most often he covers himself with the authority of some council. It is unlikely that so many councils ever met as under Constantine, and not without reason they complained that the travel of bishops to councils at the behest of Constantine exhausted all the funds of the postal department of the empire. That there was little freedom at these councils can be assumed from the first time. The cunning machinations of the court bishops, subtle in form but strong moral oppression, were not the last means to turn these church institutions into a blind instrument of the Arian party. At the Council of Milan in 355, the emperor directly and decisively demanded that the bishops sign the condemnation of Athanasius. They said that this would be against the canons. “What I want is the canon for you,” the emperor thundered at them, “the Syrian bishops allow me to speak in this way. Either obey, or you too will be exiled.” The Western bishops had such presence of mind that, raising their hands to heaven, they boldly protested this new formula of relations between church and state, which their Syrian brethren listened to patiently, reminded the emperor that his kingdom belonged not to him, but to God who gave it - “fear lest he deprive you of it,” - reminded him of the future judgment, and advised him not to create disorder in ecclesiastical affairs and not to confuse the power over the Roman Empire with the ecclesiastical management. These fathers of the Council of Milan were not afraid even when the emperor decided to threaten them with a naked sword, and courageously went into distant exile. Pope Liberius just as firmly withstood the emperor's interrogation and went into exile, rejecting the sum of 500 gold pieces offered to him by the emperor and empress, saying that the emperor himself needed it more - to hire soldiers, and perhaps even court bishops. The events of the Council of Milan, the exile of such persons as Lucifer of Calaris, Hilary of Pictavia, served as the reason for the Orthodox bishops to speak out stronger and more fully than ever about the freedom of the church from state interference. Athanasius the Great and Hilary of Pictavia protested against the actions of Constantius on the grounds that violent measures were contrary to the very essence of religious belief. Hosius of Corduba objected to Constantius from another, more practical (legal) point of view - from the point of view of the separation of church and state. “The new and vile Arian heresy,” wrote Athanasius, “is trying by violence, beatings and imprisonment to attract to itself those whom it cannot convince with reasonable arguments (λόγοις), - showing by this that it is anything but piety (γνωρίζουσα ἑαυτὴν καὶ οὕτως, ὡς πάντα μᾶλλον ἐστιν ἢ θεοσεβής). For it is characteristic of godliness (= religion), as we said, not to force, but to persuade πείθειν). For the Lord himself does not force, but gives to free will (τῇ προαιρέσει διδοὺς), when he says to everyone: “If anyone wants to come after Me” (Matthew 16:24), and to the disciples: “Would you like to go away too?” (John 6:67). This heresy is completely alien to godliness” (Hist. arian. ad monachos 67). “If it is shameful in all respects that some bishops changed their faith out of fear, then it is even more shameful and characteristic only of people who themselves do not believe in the validity of their confession (οὐ θαρρούντων οἷς πεπιστεύκασι) to use violence and coerce those who do not want to. So the devil, since there is nothing true in him, comes “with axes and poles” (II p. 73, 6) and breaks down the doors of those who receive him. And the Savior is so meek that he teaches “if anyone wants to come after Me” (Matthew 16:24) and “whoever wants to be My disciple” (Luke 8:20) and, coming to everyone, does not invade with violence, but only (μᾶλλον) knocks (Rev. 3:20) and says: “Open to Me, My sister, bride” (Song. 5:2); and when they open, he enters, and when they hesitate and do not want to accept, he leaves. No, not with swords and arrows, not through military detachments, but with conviction and advice, the truth is proclaimed. And what conviction where there is fear from the king? What advice is there where the objector is punished with exile or death? And David was the king; but when the enemy fell into his hands and the soldiers wanted to kill the enemy, he did not forbid them with authority, but - as Scripture says (1 Sam. 26:9), David convinced the men with his words and did not allow them to kill Saul. And this one (Constantius), having no arguments (λόγον), forces everyone with authority in order to show everyone that their wisdom is human, and not according to God, and that the Arian wise in truth have no king except Caesar; since through him these Christ-fighters do whatever they please” (ibid. 33). “This is why you were appointed,” Hilary addresses Constantius, “for this you see that all your subjects enjoy the freedom that is dear to them (dulcissima libertate). The disturbed peace of the church cannot be restored, the scattered cannot be brought together otherwise (alia ratione) than by giving them complete freedom to live (integrum vivendi arbitrium) according to their convictions, without any slavish coercion” (Ad Const. I, 2). “And even if you used such violence in the interests of the true faith, then the bishops, with their teaching authority, would go against you and say: God is the Lord of the entire universe, He does not need forced obedience, does not require forced confession. He cannot be deceived, and His favor can be earned by sincerely confessing Him. Not for His sake, but for our own sake, we must honor Him. Even before baptism I can admit only those who wish, listen only to those who ask, and seal with the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit those who profess faith” (I, 7). “Stop coercing (βιάζεσθαι), - Hosius wrote to Constantius, - do not issue edicts, do not send comites, return those expelled - Stop, I ask you, and remember that you are a mortal man. Fear the day of judgment, keep yourself clean for this day. Do not interfere in church affairs and do not give us orders; It’s not for you to teach us in this area, you yourself must listen to us. God entrusted you with the kingdom, He entrusted us with the church. Whoever undermines your authority resists the God who appointed you; Be careful, too, lest you fall into a serious crime by bringing the affairs of the church into your charge. It is written: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). We should not rule on earth, nor should you burn incense” (Ar. Athan. Hist. arian. ad monachos 44). The principle of freedom of the church, freedom of religious belief, independence of the church from the state was expressed very clearly and energetically. However, these protests hardly made the proper impression on the emperor and his supporters, and this is not only because the voice of reason is rarely listened to during passionate excitement, but that Constantius was a despot by nature. No, the significance of these protests was weakened by the fact that they came from a persecuted party. If these words had been spoken when the thunder of imperial power burst over the Arians, their effect might have been stronger. And now the opposite, triumphant party could naturally look at these words of their rivals as an ordinary appeal to law on the part of those who cannot act by force. Thus, freedom of religion was strongly defended by persecuted Christian apologists; and as political circumstances changed, eloquent pagan orators swelled the ranks of its energetic defenders. - Moreover, the most important practical question: whether state power should provide at least some external assistance to the orders of church power was not resolved even by the statements of Hosius. And the sublime consciousness of the need for complete freedom in matters of religious belief was not the property of all Christians of that time. To the same Constantius, to whom Hilary of Pictavia addressed his work, Julius Firmicus Maternus also dedicated his work “De errore profanarum religionum” (“On the error of pagan religions”) in 348, where he recommended that the emperor take care of the eradication of paganism by violent measures, pointing to the biblical example of the extermination of the Canaanites. The consequences of such a point of view for church politics are generally clear. And in any case, the actions of Constantius were controlled by Christian bishops, even if they were courtiers. However, even those who were elected not only not due to the influence of Constantius, but even despite his views, not all set an example of high respect for the internal freedom of church relations. Supporters of Macedonius praised him for the holiness of his life (Socr. IV, 6; Soz. III, 3). Meanwhile, the means that this Bishop of Constantinople practiced against those who shied away from communion with him (that is, against the Orthodox and Novatians) were reminiscent of the times of pagan persecution. So, up to 4,000 soldiers were sent by him against one Novatian community in Paphlagonia to attract it to an alliance with the Church of Constantinople. The massacre was so severe that very few of the sent detachment returned. Children were torn from the hands of their mothers and given to the bishop of Constantinople for baptism. They used a stick to open the teeth of the sectarians, thus honoring them with St. communion - and brought into communion with the bishop. Women were subjected to such refined tortures that even the executioners of Diocletian’s time, it seems, did not think of (Socr. II, 27-38; Soz. IV, 20, 21). Due to such actions of the Christian bishop, Constantius's violence and cruelty lose their grandiose dimensions. In a word, the general mood of Christians at that time was still such that if many sympathized with the protests of Athanasius the Great or Hosius, then for the majority this sympathy lacked a fundamental basis. Constantine could be condemned for his violence, but more because his actions were aimed at suppressing the true faith, and not because he interfered in the affairs of the church; They condemned rather the direction, the point of application of the emperor’s actions, and not their very nature. 2. Pagan reaction under Julian the Apostate In 361 Constantius died. During the reign of his successor Julian, a reaction occurred. This reaction was associated with the nature of Julian and the circumstances of the reign of Constantius. Constantius was a theologian, took part in theological disputes, and held councils. The councils led to large government expenditures, and thus prepared the ground for resentment against Christians. The defeated pagans dreamed of the restoration of paganism. Flavius ​​Claudius Julian (361–363) was Constantius's cousin by one of the sons of Constantius's second wife Chlorus. After the death of Constantine, this entire line was killed. Only two brothers were spared: Gall, because he was sick, and Julian, who was 7–8 years old. [Gal was exiled to Asia. Julian] was given to be raised by Eusebius of Nicomedia. Mardonius, an educated man, who introduced Julian into the world of classical poetry, was also with him as an uncle. Consequently, the boy’s education proceeded in parallel. On the one hand, he received a classical education under the influence of Mardonius, on the other, a Christian education under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia. After the death of the latter, Constantius placed the brothers in Macella in Cappadocia. Both brothers were baptized and were readers in the church. Julian was a gifted man, but he was distinguished by oddities, had a penchant for theurgy, astrology (he spent whole nights watching the course of the stars), observed the attitudes of others towards him, and in Constantius he saw the culprit of all his troubles. Suspicion developed in him very early: he saw intrigue everywhere. Therefore, he early got used to pretending, his will took a strange direction, he met the advice of others with suspicion and saw good in what was forbidden to him. From Makella, Constantius summoned the brothers to Constantinople. Here Julian listened to the rhetoricians. But Constantius thought his stay in Constantinople was dangerous, and he sent him to Nicomedia, and advised him to study the Holy Scriptures and not listen to the rhetorician Libanius, because he was a pagan. Julian did not go to Livanius, but he read his works with great enthusiasm. Constantius made a huge mistake in sending Julian to Nicomedia. Constantinople, by its very foundation, was a Christian city; the pagan element was not very strong in him. Meanwhile, the old religion with all its characteristic features prevailed in remote places. Julian ended up in these places, in the circle of fans of the old faith, and studied science under the guidance of pagan scientists who developed special plans for the restoration of paganism. Of these individuals, Eusebius, Chrysanthius and Maximus are especially remarkable. Eusebius was a great expert on the classical world. He usually ended his speeches on this subject with the admonition to “beware of deceivers and beware of charlatans.” Chrysanthius tried to draw Julian's special attention to these last words; but he himself refused to explain them, and advised turning to Eusebius himself for clarification. Eusebius explained his words in this way: “We must beware of charlatans, of which Maximus belongs. “One day,” he continued, “we entered the church together with Maxim. Here, by the way, Maxim told us that the statue of one goddess would smile and look as if alive. We, of course, treated his words with distrust. But the statue really smiled and began to look as if it were alive. Maxim noticed that he could do even more, and at that very moment the torch, which was in the hands of the goddess, blazed brightly.” After listening to these explanations, Julian went to Maxim. The latter, with his mysterious actions, made an irresistible impression on Julian. It was then that his actual falling away from Christianity took place. But only at this time Julian could not openly declare his sympathies for paganism, especially since at this time his brother Gall unhappily ended his life. As is known, Gall was appointed ruler of Antioch, but with his cruelty he aroused the displeasure of its inhabitants and had the misfortune of incurring the suspicion of Constantius. Constantius summoned Gallus to [Milan] and executed him. After this, the emperor's suspicious eyes turned to Julian. He was also summoned to [Italy] and spent [7 months] there as a prisoner. Only at the request of Empress Eusebia was he allowed to go to Athens to complete his education. Julian's stay in Athens lasted only a few months. It is remarkable in that Julian’s educational comrades turned out to be Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian. The latter speaks of Julian as a very fickle nature: his look, according to St. father, had no integrity; his speech was evasive, fragmentary and ironic; one could always notice that he was hiding something; There was a certain mystery in his whole character. Based on this, Gregory the Theologian foresaw that Julian did not promise to be a good ruler, although, as St. father, “I wouldn’t even want to be a prophet.” Everyone at this time paid attention to Julian and saw in him the successor of the childless Constantius. Julian's studies in Athens were short-lived. In 355, Julian was appointed Caesar to Gaul. During his trip from Athens, Julian decided to turn to Asia Minor and visit the places where the wars between the Achaeans and the Trojans were fought. When he arrived there, the local bishop Pigasius volunteered to be his guide. They, by the way, examined the statues of Trojan heroes. It struck Julian that the altar, located in front of these statues, was hot, which indicated that the sacrifice had recently been made. Julian expressed bewilderment to the bishop whether sacrifices were really being made on the altar contrary to imperial laws. Pigasius replied: “Why shouldn’t the pagans make sacrifices; after all, we honor martyrs as they honor heroes.” Julian paid attention to these words of the bishop and made him his cicerone when inspecting pagan temples. When entering the latter, the bishop did not whistle, as other Christians did to ridicule pagan deities, and did not make the sign of the cross. Based on this, Julian began to see Pigasius as a secret pagan and, upon ascending the throne, made him a priest, to the surprise of many pagans. When Julian arrived in [Milan], Constantius announced that he was appointing him Caesar to Gaul to protect its borders from attack by the Germans. Thus, the Athenian scientist became a Roman general. The ceremony of Julian's consecration as Caesar took place in November. Julian felt uneasy when he was clothed in the purple of Caesar. At the same time, Julian received Constantius's sister Helena in marriage. Since the appointment of Julian as Caesar, rumors began to spread in the east about Julian's sympathies for paganism. One blind soothsayer said that this man would unlock pagan temples. While ruling Gaul, Julian was happy in the fight against the Germans. He also paid attention to the internal improvement of the country. Julian's entire behavior during his Caesarship in Gaul bears the imprint of secrecy, hypocrisy and double-mindedness. Julian tried to show himself not to notice Constantius's suspicious attitude towards him. By order of the latter, all persons close to Julian were removed from him. Only by cunning did Julian manage to keep several close servants around him: he pretended to be unfamiliar with them, although secretly he was in the closest communication with them. Meanwhile, Constantius surrounded Julian with many spies who were supposed to monitor his every move. Julian's reign was favorable for Gaul. The capitation tax (payment from a certain plot of land), which previously extended to 25 solids (a solid is equal to our 3 rubles 87 k.), was lowered by Julian to 7 solids. With such actions, Julian gained the sympathy of the population of Gaul. When Constantius, entangled in a war with the Persians, around 360, demanded Gallic troops to help him, they proclaimed Julian Augustus. In a letter to Constantius, Julian notifies the latter of his election and exposes himself as an innocent victim of a political conspiracy, but nevertheless does not hesitate to enter into negotiations with Constantius, agreeing to recognize his power over himself, but refusing to surrender to his complete will. During this time, Julian continued to appear to be a Christian. On January 6, 361 - the day of Epiphany - Julian was in church. A fight was expected between Julian and Constantius. Constantius moved to the west, and Julian to the east. On November 3, 361, Constantius died. Julian learned about this in Naissa, present-day Nis. In a speech to his friends, Julian expressed his joy that good times were returning for the free worship of the gods. When Julian thus openly took the side of paganism, even Christians began to convert to it. By the way, the Christian rhetorician Eulogius crossed over. Julian quickly moved towards Constantinople. Everywhere he honored the gods, and upon his arrival in Constantinople he participated in the pagan festivals of Saturnalia and even delivered a speech in honor of the gods. Around the same time, he established himself as a writer. He wrote a satire on previous kings. In it he especially mocks Constantine. Even Marcus Aurelius came out of his pen not entirely pure. In addition, Julian wrote many religious treatises. He often sat over them for whole nights. In this way he prepared the restoration of paganism. At the same time, Julian continued the war with the Persians, started by Constantius. On his way to the east, he visited various pagan temples. But in essence, Julian did not show himself as a clear thinker, and his task of restoring paganism was beyond the power of even a man of genius. This is explained by the fact that paganism was in decline even during the reign of the Roman religion. There were various attempts to support the declining paganism. Philosophers found Roman religion to be too vulgar and agricultural in nature. The Greek religion, in their opinion, is filled with myths that are more suitable for presentation on stage. Nevertheless, they did not want to introduce new religions. Some dreamed of restoring religion by removing its shortcomings. Various attempts were made to achieve this, but all of them were unsuccessful. In general, they tried to comprehend the myths of the Greek religion and interpret them spiritually. As for Julian, he was passionate about Greek culture and paganism as its integral part. At the same time, as he was prone to theurgy and magic, he was especially attracted to Eastern cults. He intended to formulate a theosophical religion that would include both classical and non-classical elements. Nevertheless, his main view was Neoplatonic, namely the doctrine of three worlds: 1) about the world of thought (νοητός), 2) about the thinking world (νοερός) and 3) about the sensory world (αἰσθητός). The world of thought is the highest, unable to enter into mediation with the sensory world: it communicates with the latter through the thinking world, at the center of which is the sun god, something like Philon’s Logos. Julian revered the sun god more than other gods and almost more than Zeus himself. His ideas about minor deities are difficult to determine. Sometimes he looked at the gods as ideas expressing the supreme deity, sometimes he saw a national character in the deities and thought that for each nation there was its own special god, in which the religious views of a certain people were combined. With this view, all pagan religions had to be justified. Julian borrowed many religious views from Christianity. He was shocked by the behavior of the priests, who did not recognize any moral rules. From the priests he wanted to make models of moral life for the people: he forbade them to engage in suspicious crafts and visit the taverns of that time; demanded that they lead a pious life, not be atheists (Christians), and generally serve as lamps for the people. He recommended removing unworthy priests from office and himself suspended for several months one priest who had struck his brother. The priests, according to Julian's instructions, had to read the works of poets in order to learn proper worship of God. They could also engage in philosophy, but only high and serious and far from Pyrrhonism, which led to skepticism. Julian intended to introduce something like monasticism into the priestly class - “ἁγνευτήρια τε καὶ παρθενῶνας” 19. Paying attention to the mutual relationship between the priests, Julian established something like the position of provincial bishops - the main pontifex. They were supposed to monitor subordinate priests and remove faulty ones from office. Such provincial pontifexes were: Theodore for Asia, Arsacius for Galatia, and another in Pessinus. Julian paid special attention to the attitude of the pagans themselves towards their faith and was struck by their moral coldness and lack of mercy. Philosophers tried to justify the latter philosophically. If God, they said, condemns a person to need, then it is useless to help such a person. To this Julian objected that it was completely shameful for the pagans not to provide help to the needy and the poor, when the Jews do good to their poor, and the Galileans (Christians) help not only their own, but also strangers. He himself decided to come to the aid of the poor pagans as a sovereign. He sent 30 thousand modii of wheat and 60 thousand sextarii of wine to Galatia; 1/5 of this was assigned to servants at the churches, and the remaining 4/5 of it was assigned to the poor. Then, he expressed the desire that others would encourage the pagans to donate, for even in the time of Homer mercy was shown to strangers, and whoever insults a stranger insults Zeus. Thus, Julian thought of restoring paganism on a new basis. While moving towards Antioch, Julian had to encounter troubles from Christians, but in Antioch he was faced with even greater disappointment in the pagans themselves. Antioch was then perhaps the second city after Alexandria in terms of freedom of language. If the Alexandrian differed from others in freedom of speech and a tendency to indignation, then the Antiochian, in terms of freedom of speech, left all others behind him. The Antiochians felt themselves to be true descendants of the Hellenes and behaved as such. Julian thought that by proclaiming the restoration of paganism, he would arouse joy in the pagans. But it turned out that the pagans themselves did not sympathize with him. Familiar with theurgists and philosophers, the emperor did not know what the average pagan was like. In essence, he was an atheist who held on to old convictions and was not aware of them. He had no firm concepts about the gods. Paganism, in any case, was a religion that was closely connected with Hellenic culture. The pagan enjoyed the fruits of this culture, but he did not ask the question of its connection with the pagan religion. The average pagan did not have a common worldview. Paganism did not impose anything on him, and he maintained the pagan religion, like the religion of his ancestors, considered only himself a pagan, but did not declare such in practice, and if he declared his devotion to religion, then only apparently and in the form of a demonstration to the government. Soon Julian learned about the discontent of the pagans against him because he demanded that they fulfill religious instructions. The Antiochians said that neither X nor K (that is, neither Christ nor Constantine) had caused their city grief, and that they still wanted to live in peace. The emperor himself was not like that. He not only declared himself a zealous pagan, but wanted to be and was in fact the head of the pagan priests: he himself brought wood, made a fire, examined the insides of sacrificed animals, and knew the pagan calendar, which contained an indication of pagan holidays, almost better than those priests who were his advisers. Thus, mutual displeasure arose between the Antiochians and Julian, which were resolved by satire on both sides. Many of the Antiochians said that with his petty participation in the technique of sacrifice, he humiliates the dignity of the emperor, appearing as “βωμολόχος.” This word literally means a person looking around the altar (βωμός + λοχάω). Some of the city residents crowded around the altar and begged for pieces of meat left over from the sacrifices, and if they succeeded, they stole them as thieves, or, finally, lured them out through clowning. Such persons were called by the name “βωμολόχοι”. The Antiochians also called Julian by the same name, because he had to be among a company that was all sorts of rabble, where the men were bad and the women even worse. Therefore, the processions made a scandalous impression on some. This fact speaks about Julian’s jealousy of paganism and the indifference of the pagans themselves to it. Near Daphne (a suburb of Antioch famous for its cypress trees) there was once a church of Apollo the prophet. This church was closed. Julian was told that the gods stopped speaking because there were many dead near the church (in the Christian cemetery). Julian, wanting to restore the service of pagan soothsayers, ordered the cemetery to be cleared. Christians, in denunciation of the pagans, with the singing of psalms, transferred the relics of the martyr Babyla. At the same time, the youth Theodore and the woman Publius suffered, but were not tortured, so they are only confessors. After the place was cleared, the church burned down on the night of October 22. Public opinion blamed the arson on Christians, who allegedly did it in retaliation for being ordered to clear the cemetery. But this suspicion represented more than one version. Many attributed the fire to chance. Some wandering pagan philosopher came to the temple, placed a figurine here, lit candles in front of it and left. At night [the fire started from these candles] and the fire spread. Be that as it may, Julian accused the Christians and ordered [the destruction of churches in honor of the martyrs near Miletus] as punishment. The cathedral church in Antioch was closed, the vessels were blasphemously plundered with the cruelty characteristic of Julian's renegades. However, the perpetrators of this defeat died. They even started making fun of Julian. He had the following title: “Julianus Felix Augustus”, but the pagans pronounced these words separately: “Julianus”,... “Felix”,... “Augustus”,... hinting at the death of Julian, for among the dead perpetrators of the destruction of the Christian church were individuals bearing the names “Julianus” and “Felix”; consequently, there was a queue for those bearing the name "Augustus". Julian was especially irritated by the indifference of the pagans to the festivities. A festival was held annually in Antioch in honor of Apollo. One day on the day of this festival, early in the morning, Julian went from the church of Zeus Casius to Daphne, and thought there to find a solemn meeting of the people for sacrifices, but instead he met only a priest carrying a goose. Julian asked what sacrifice would be made? The priest replied: “I am carrying a goose on my own behalf.” “Why aren’t there people?” The priest explained that the people did not find it necessary to spend money on sacrifices. As a result, Julian reproached the Antiochians. He said: “I believed that each phylum (union) would bring a white bull, or at least the whole city would present one bull.” The Antiochians repaid him for this with a couplet: “white bulls greet Julian; if he defeats the Persians, then the white bulls will not live.” Julian thought with his condescension to win the favor of the pagans, but his condescension was abused. So, Julian wanted to replenish the composition of the decurions. But the Antiochian Senate acted unceremoniously: it even assigned liturgies (λειτουργία) to the decurions, that is, public duties. By this, the Senate over-salted the matter: the decree was only about increasing the composition of the decurions, but nothing was said about assigning their jobs. One day, when Julian arrived at the theater, the people greeted him with shouts: “There is a lot of everything and everything is expensive.” It turned out that the traders in the market entered into transactions with each other and raised prices for goods. Julian used his income to buy bread, wanting to help the Antiochians. Indeed, there was a lot of bread on the market, so they began to sell it not at 10, as before, but at 15 modii. But even here the Antiochians remained ungrateful. They began to shout to Julian: “There is bread and butter, but no fish and meat.” Julian had already answered that there would be bread, and fish and meat would be a luxury; For a moderate person, what he has is enough. It came to ridicule of Julian's appearance, especially of his beard, which he philosophically grew when he became an Augustus (it ended in a point and was really solid). They also laughed at his strange lifestyle. Julian responded to these ridicule with the essay “Ἀντιοχικός ἢ Μισοπώγων” (“Antiochian, or Beard-hater”), from which we learn about his relationship to the Antiochians. By the end of 363, these relations had become so strained that Julian was forced to leave Antioch. The Antiochians were right: they had to pay for the maintenance of the emperor's court, and therefore they did not like his stay with them. “Let them,” they reasoned, “let August punish other cities.” As a result of such hostility of the Antiochians, Julian, setting out on the Persian campaign, directly declared that he was leaving Antioch forever and choosing Tare as his place of residence. Thus, Julian could not get along even with the pagans. But Julian was happy because he died in glory. Deceived by his guides, he went to Persia and here he was suddenly surrounded by the military forces of the Persian king. In the heat of courage, without putting on his armor, he rushed to go around more dangerous points, and was wounded in the arm and side, so that the dart reached the liver. However, there is another opinion about the death of Julian, as if he deliberately did not put on armor in order to at least die with glory, since he was disappointed in life, due to dissatisfaction with him on the part of his subjects. Sozomen claims that Julian fell at the hands of a Christian, and this, in his opinion, is not at all outrageous, since zeal for piety was at work here. But Christians are innocent of Julian's death. He was wounded in the confusion and still died a hero's death. When Julian was found wounded, he was carried into a tent and the wound was bandaged. This eased his suffering and he demanded a horse, intending to ride to the battlefield again. But they didn’t let him in because the bleeding was very severe. He began to talk with philosophers and friends about the afterlife, about the immortality of the soul. On the night of June 27-28, Julian passed away. About Julian’s relationship with Christians, it must be said that he decided to act as an enemy of Christians, but a wise and cautious enemy. He declared that the godless Galileans should not be beaten or punished, but should be persuaded by persuasion to turn to reverence for God. He, as a well-read person, understood that it was possible to harm Christians in another way - through the Jews. And in literature he declares himself a polemicist against Christians. In his writings he pursues the idea that Christianity degenerated from Judaism, that Christians took from the Jews everything that was bad, that Jews are religiously superior to Christians, at least in that they have a national faith. Julian wrote very kind letters to the Jewish high priest. In them he promised to visit Jerusalem and the church and restore the latter. But, as we know, he failed. Julian's direct repressive measures against Christians were 1) their removal from public positions and 2) restrictions on receiving a classical education. These measures were carried out by Julian with a cunning policy. So, he said that Christianity prohibits the use of the sword. How will he appoint a Christian to serve and how will he serve without violating his faith? Wanting to restrict the education of Christians, Julian decreed that the openings of teacher positions should be filled with candidates approved by local curiae. This means was effective in eliminating Christian teachers from the schools of that time, since the curiae themselves consisted of pagans. In letter 42 to Proeresius [?], whom Julian tried to persuade to paganism and offered him the position of his historiographer, he consistently discusses the inconvenience of filling teaching positions with Christians. According to his letter, teaching literature without studying classical examples is unthinkable; and whoever studies them must of necessity become acquainted with pagan religious views and explain them. But should a Christian humiliate himself over a few drachmas? Therefore, it is better to let pagans be teachers, and let Christians interpret Matthew and Luke in churches. This measure of Julian was understood and interpreted by some in an exaggerated sense, as if he completely deprived Christians of classical education. But Julian only demanded that in schools youth be taught under the guidance of pagan rhetoricians, and Christian parents themselves did not send their children to school where pagan teachers were. However, Julian's reign was short-lived and did not have time to leave a big mark on the education of Christians. In his relations with the heads of the churches, Julian tried to flaunt his generosity, but with goals favorable to paganism and harmful to Christianity. There were divisions among Christians. The perpetrators of these divisions were exiled, but Julian allowed them to return, no matter who they were - Orthodox or sectarians. Julian explained this imaginary generosity among his friends by the fact that no one hates each other as much as Christians, so if they are united and given free rein, they will squabble like dogs. Therefore, Julian issued permission to return from the place of exile to representatives of both Orthodoxy and all Christian sects. At that time, the bishop of Alexandria was George the Cappadocian, who lived far from Alexandria - in the east. Based on Julian's decree, he returned to Alexandria. His return caused a riot, for he was distinguished by cruelty, and it ended with him being killed by the population of the city. Julian, in a letter to the Alexandrians, severely reprimanded them for this murder. He ordered to find the library of George of Alexandria and hand it over to him, Julian, in its entirety. The fact is that during the murder of George, his house was looted and his property was stolen. After the liberation of the Alexandrian see in January, St. returned to Alexandria. Afanasy. Having taken the pulpit, St. Athanasius actively began to put in order the affairs of the Alexandrian church. Instead of division, he established complete unanimity among Christians. Under his influence, even some of the pagans began to be baptized. Seeing that the affairs of the Alexandrian church had taken a good turn, Julian assumed an air of offended grandeur. He said that they were given permission - the previously exiled bishops only to return to their homeland, and not to occupy their sees, and that Athanasius did not understand the decree. And when Athanasius converted some pagans, Julian exclaimed in indignation: “And he dared to baptize some ἐλληνίδας, that is, noble women?!” Athanasius was forced to leave Alexandria, and then from Egypt. But Julian could not contain himself. He only flaunted his generosity and apparently tried to get closer to the leaders of the church; in fact, he did not hesitate to make fun of them. He mocked Marius of Chalcedon, who was blind. But Mari showed himself to be a hero. He said directly to Julian: “I thank God for my blindness, because I have the happiness of not seeing the ugliness of the apostate.” Julian reacted to this with apparent indifference. In Antioch, Julian appeared unstable. Here he tried to stir up quarrels between Christians and the bishop with his messages. In 362, discontent arose between Christians and pagans in Antioch. Julian had previously written to Bishop Titus in Bostra that he held him responsible for the unrest caused by Christians. Titus answered the emperor that Christians would never be guilty of the general movement, that they were obedient to the shepherd, and there were no signs of any unrest. Julian answered the Christians of Antioch that they humiliated themselves, not daring to do anything without the bishop, because they lived quietly because the bishop restrained them. Julian openly declared that he himself would not allow harm to be done to the Galileans; Meanwhile, others intercepted over the edge, so that through them Julian was also guilty of violence against Christians. These violence were carried out especially during the destruction of the churches in Syria. The following circumstance speaks about how Julian treated these misfortunes of Christians. Not far from Gaza, by the sea, there was the harbor of Mayum, in which all the inhabitants were Christians during the previous reigns, for which they received independent control from the Christian emperors, independent of Gaza. It was at this point that a clash occurred among the residents of Mayum and Gaza, and up to 10 Mayum Christians were killed. When this was reported to Julian, he replied: “What is the importance that the hand of a Hellenic crushed some 10 Galileans!” Julian not only persecuted Christians, but also mocked them, taking advantage of his familiarity with their teaching. So, one day, driving past the cave of the ascetic Dometius, he drew attention to the crowd of Christians gathered near the cave and, wanting to mock them, turned to Dometius with the following words: “If you want to be saved, then why are you gathering people? lead a solitary life” - and ordered to fill the cave with stones. The ascetic was thus buried alive in it. “Another time, going on a Persian campaign, he passed by Harran, famous for pagan sacrifices, and offered sacrifice to the deities here. Hence, he fined the Edessa church and at the same time put it this way: “Christians are unhappy if they are not persecuted,” and in order to “make it easier for them to enter the kingdom of heaven,” he ordered all the treasures of the Edessa church to be taken away. - In the interests of paganism, he made the following order in relation to his soldiers: his person was to be depicted in statues and paintings along with pagan deities, so that a Christian soldier, worshiping the emperor, against his will had to worship pagan deities. In the same way, when distributing cash gifts to soldiers, he ordered that the soldier, when approaching him, supposedly for hygienic purposes, throw incense on the fire; behind the curtains were hidden images of pagan deities, so smoking actually related to pagan deities. When the pagans pointed this out to the Christian soldiers, the latter indignantly threw the money they received on the ground. In the same way of oppressing Christians, he ordered that all products in the markets be sanctified with sacrificial blood. Julian granted Christians freedom of religious views; but, on the other hand, he left unpunished the brutal acts of pagans against Christians. The worst form of persecution has established itself, and we see such excesses that were difficult to encounter in previous times. Thus, in Gaza and Ascalon, a crowd of pagans, having killed priests and virgins, dismembered their bodies and, stuffing their entrails with barley, threw them to be eaten by pigs. In the Phoenician city of Heliopolis, one savage pagan tore out a piece of liver from Deacon Cyril and began gnawing it with his teeth. The pagans destroyed Christian cemeteries and pulled out the bones of buried Christians. There were attempts to destroy the uncovered relics of John the Baptist in Sebaste, but the latter failed. The pagans hung the skull of one tortured Christian bishop instead of a lamp. The solemn restoration of pagan honors in Egypt was accompanied by mortal blows for some Egyptian bishops. The pagans offered the Arethusian bishop Mark a demand to restore the destroyed pagan temple. He refused. Then the pagans demanded from him at least part of the money, which was again refused. Then the crowd smeared the bishop with honey and exposed him to the sun to be stung by insects. Nevertheless, Mark remained unharmed, and the prudent pagans themselves saw this as a warning to stop the mockery. Livanius himself petitioned Julian on behalf of the Christians, pointing to the example of Mark. 3. Religious policy of the emperors after Julian After Julian, the throne passed to Jovian (363–364). His short reign was marked by the strict application of religious toleration. Having declared himself for Orthodoxy, Jovian returned the bishops exiled under Julian, but granted both Christian sects and pagans complete freedom in matters of faith, finding that disagreement is the inevitable lot of human limitations. The emperor came to this point of view rather in spite of the demands of the majority of bishops than in accordance with their suggestions. Jovian's successor, Valentinian I (364–375), maintained the same policy of non-interference in religious affairs. In contrast, the east suffered from the patronage of Valentinian's co-emperor, Valens (364–378), to what he considered orthodoxy. Valentinian I's successor, Gratian (375–383), spoke out in terms of his principles, granting religious freedom to the majority of Christian parties (excluding the Manichaeans, Eunomians, Photinians). During the reign of Valentinian II (383–392) a hesitation was noticed. His eastern co-ruler Theodosius the Great (379–395) declared himself for Catholic Orthodoxy, the faith held by the Roman bishop Damasus and Peter of Alexandria, and against heretics. “Only those who observe the Catholic law should enjoy privileges in matters of faith. We wish that heretics and schismatics not only be alien to these privileges, but also subject to various obligations. Branded with the shameful name of heretics, they, in addition to the condemnation of divine justice, must expect even more severe punishments, which, through the inspiration of heavenly wisdom, our Majesty will choose to subject them to” (Cod. Theod. XVI, 1, 2). In general, Theodosius the Great was not free from interference in matters of faith. During his 15-year reign, he issued at least 15 laws against heretics (Cod. Theod. XVI, 5, 6–23), which severely limited their civil and religious rights: they were forbidden to gather in the city for public prayer, preach, or ordain. The reign of Theodosius the Great was in many respects a very remarkable era in the history of the church. Personally, he was one of the few sovereigns who graced the throne of Byzantium. Raised in a pious Christian family, Theodosius humbly obeyed the orders of the church, was accessible to all the best moral influences of the bishops close to him, and knew how to respect them for the steadfast fulfillment of his moral duty, even when they made him feel all the differences between the power of a bishop and a sovereign. Theodosius, as a person, was higher than Constantine, so his church policy could be directed quite in accordance with the needs of the church. If we add to this that a contemporary of Theodosius was such a great bishop as Ambrose of Mediola, that this pastor, deeply imbued with the consciousness of church dignity and church interests, stood in close relations with Theodosius and his free word was even heard against the emperor, then we can imagine the interest of those factual data from which the relations between the church and the state during this reign were formed. We see that at the very first stages of his reign he declared himself for Catholic Orthodoxy. How Theodosius acted can be seen from the following examples. Upon his entry into Constantinople, he ordered the Arian bishop Dimophilus to either recognize the doctrine of consubstantiality or leave the churches of Constantinople. Dimophilus preferred the latter, and the Arians began to gather outside the city (Soz. VII, 5; Socr. V, 7). The emperor himself brought Gregory the Theologian into the cathedral church of St. Apostles. Having demanded a confession of faith from the bishops of various parties, the emperor approved the Orthodox symbol by the legislature and tore up all the others (Soz. VII, 12; Socr. V, 10). However, according to the remark of the historian Sozomen (Soz. VII, 12), the emperor only wanted to intimidate the heretics with strict laws, but did not carry them out, and the expulsion of Eunomius because he continued to disseminate his teaching among the Orthodox in Constantinople was the only violent measure the emperor took against the Arians (Socr. V, 20; Soz. VII, 17). Of course, in these events the emperor did not act without the influence of the bishops. How did the representatives of the Christian episcopate view these actions of the emperor? What were their views on the relationship between church and state? – One can notice some contradiction between their word and deed. In 385, Ambrose of Milan received an invitation to appear in the imperial consistory regarding his dispute with the Arian bishop Auxentius. Emperor Valentinian II (b. 370–371), who was under the strong influence of his mother Justina, a zealous Arian, wanted to be the arbiter between them. This is what Ambrose replied to the emperor in his letter (epist. 21). “When did you hear, most merciful emperor, that in matters of faith the laity were judges of the bishop? And some flatterers persuade us to forget about our priestly right and voluntarily give to others what God has given me! And if a bishop must learn from a layman, then what will happen?! 20 But who can deny that in matters of faith - matters of faith, I say - it is not emperors who are judges over bishops, but bishops over Christian emperors (n. 4).” “When you become, God willing, older, then you yourself will understand the worth of that bishop who lays the priestly right, jus sacerdotale, at the feet of a layman. Your father, by the grace of God, a man of mature age, used to say: “It is not for me to be a judge between bishops”; and your mercy says: “I must judge.” He, baptized into Christ, considered himself incapable of lifting such a burden as the trial of a bishop; you, most merciful sir, have yet to be granted the sacrament of baptism, and, however, you make a claim at the trial about faith, while you do not know the sacraments of this faith (n. 5).” (No, I cannot appear at the consistory; and my flock will not allow me to go to this trial; besides, it is unknown which laymen will be judges: what if Auxentius chooses the Jews for this. No,) “if we are already reasoning, then reasoning in the church: this is what they did, and this is what my predecessors taught me. If there is a conference (conferendum) about faith, then it must be a conference of priests, as it was under Constantine. This sovereign of sacred memory did not pre-issue any laws, but provided the priests with a free trial... (n.15).” “If Auxentius appeals to the council to discuss the faith (although one should not bother so many bishops because of one thing: even if he were an angel from heaven (Gal. 1:8) - and then he should not be preferred to the world of churches): then when I hear that a council is gathering, I myself will be at it (n. 16)" 21. In the same year, the emperor demanded that Ambrose hand over Auxentius to the basilica. Ambrose refused. This is what he said about this (epist. 20; sermo p. Auxentium). “They give me the order: “Give it to the basilica.” I answer: “And it is impossible for me to give it back (sermo n. 5: what I received for preservation, not for issuing), and it is not good for you, emperor, to take it.”... They refer to the fact that everything is permissible for the emperor, that everything is his (allegarur imperatori licere omnia upsius esse universa). I answer: “Please do not imagine, sir, that you have some kind of imperial right over divine objects (epist.).” “We render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's (Matthew 22:21). Tribute (tributum) – Caesar’s; it is not denied; the church is God's; therefore, it cannot be awarded to Caesar; because the right of Caesar cannot extend to the church of God (sermo n. 35).” “The palace belongs to the emperor, the priest belongs to the church. You have been entrusted with the right over public walls, and not over sacred ones (epist.).” “What could be more honorable for an emperor than to be called the son of the church? But the emperor is in the church, and not above the church, imperator enim intra ecclesiam, non supra ecclesiam est (sermo n. 36).” “Finally, they say that the emperor said: “I should also have (at least) one basilica.” I answered: "It is not permissible for you to have her; why do you need an adulterer? And a church that is not united by legal marriage with Christ is an adulterer" (epist.) 22. Thus, we see that, on the one hand, the state power is not recognized as competent in the trial of bishops or in matters of faith in general, on the other hand, the question of Orthodoxy is left to the discretion of the emperor, he is left to indicate the catholic among heterogeneous symbols. They demand from Dimophilus that he surrender his churches to like-minded people of the emperor, the Arian bishop obeys, and church writers do not find that the emperor had no right to act in this way. When the imperial power turns to the Orthodox with similar demands and demands from Ambrose no more than what it demanded from Dimophilus, the great bishop firmly points out to it the boundary that should separate the church from the state. But how far did Ambrose carry this separation between church and state? Did he go so far as to demand that the emperor always and in everything act only according to the legal principles that underlie the state? No; When, in 384, the senators submitted a request to Valentinian II for the restoration of the pagan altar Victoriae and the return of state subsidies to the priests, and the emperor apparently found that he should grant this request, Ambrose sternly reminded him that as a Christian he had no right to even indirectly support pagan worship, that if he agreed to the request of the senators, he was in danger of excommunication. When in 388 the mob, at the instigation of the bishop, destroyed the Jewish synagogue, and the monks destroyed the Valentinian prayer house, and Theodosius ordered that the bishop, if he was found guilty of incitement, rebuild the synagogue at his own expense, then Ambrose turned to the emperor with the strongest ideas and convinced him that he, as a Christian, would not allow such a triumph of Jews over Christians, would not allow anything to be done about Christians prayer houses of the enemies of Christ. Ambrose made it his direct responsibility to the emperor to protect and support the true faith. Now Ambrose had to enter into correspondence not with the boy, but with August Theodosius himself. He wrote to him: “I ask the Imperial Majesty to listen patiently to my speech, for although I am unworthy to be listened to by you, at the same time I am afraid of being unworthy to make sacrifices and prayers for you. When they informed you that the synagogue was burned due to the fault of the bishop, you ordered that all those responsible be punished, and the bishop built a new synagogue at his own expense. But you should have waited for the bishop’s answer, for bishops are supporters of peace, tamers of indignation. Let's say that the bishop burned down the synagogue. But what if he, being a coward, agrees to your resolution and does not object? He will obviously need to either take back his action or become a martyr. But both should be alien to your reign: if he turns out to be a hero, then be afraid, for he will end in martyrdom; if he turns out to be unworthy, then be afraid of being the culprit of the fall, for the seducer is more guilty. What if others chicken out and agree to build a synagogue? Then your banner will be at the head of the people, who have the goal of restoring a building that does not know Christ, and you can write on the pediment of the house: “this church of wickedness was built at the expense of indemnities taken from Christians.” You are motivated by the interests of public order. But which order is higher? Religion should always have the main importance in the state, therefore there should be moderate severity of laws. Remember Julian, who wanted to restore the Jerusalem temple: the builders were then burned by the fire of God. Are you really not afraid of what happened then? And what kind of severity? Should it really collapse just because they burned down a public building? After all, how many houses of Roman prefects were burned, and no one was punished. So, order the decree to be invalid, if you want, so that there is no shock. And the synagogue, the house of unbelief, wickedness and madness, was burned. And how many churches did the Jews burn under Julian in Gaza, Ascalon, Berita and other places? You didn’t take revenge for the churches, but now you will take revenge for the synagogue. How will Christ help you after this? Will He not reproach you with the words of Nathan to David (2 Sam. 7:8ff.): “I chose you, the least of the brothers, and made you king, and you gave your enemies a triumph at the expense of My servants?” Understand that my love for you makes me talk to you, sir! I am your debtor, for at my request you have had mercy on many. You pardoned the recently indignant Antiochians, freed the enemy, returned his daughters and gave them the opportunity to be raised by relatives, and sent the mother of your enemy food from the treasury. But this new fact darkens your glory. I did what needed to be done in the interests of the church. And it’s good that you listened to me in the palace, otherwise I would have expressed the same thing to you in the church” (epist. 40). He said the same thing in a letter to his sister. “When the report came about the synagogue and the Valentinian house of prayer,” he wrote, “I was in Aquileia. Having heard that the emperor ordered the construction of a new synagogue and the punishment of the monks, I wrote him a letter, a copy of which I enclose here. In the church, he said to the king in response to the text: “Take for yourself a nut rod” (Jer. 1:11), and applied it to the fact that a priest, like a prophet, should also say bitter things if they are useful. Therefore, the apostle says: “What do you want me to come to you with a club, or with love and a spirit of meekness?” (1Kop.4:21). And in the Gospel now read it says that the Pharisee invited Christ to his house for a meal. Christ came and lay down. Then one sinful wife came to Him, and standing at His feet, she doused them with tears and wiped them with her hair and poured ointment on them (Luke 7:37, 38). "Emperor! - I concluded, - be like this wife. Love the church. For the sake of love, forgive those who are found guilty in the decree. For the sake of the church, cancel your order. Pour the ointment so that the whole house where Christ dwells will be filled with its fragrance." “Why did you start talking about this?” “Because it tends to your advantage.” “Of course, I acted strictly, but the monks do a lot of criminal things.” After these words from the emperor, the military commander began to reproach the monks, but I told him: “I speak this way to the emperor, for he has the fear of God; with you, I would speak differently.” And I said to the emperor: “Allow me to perform the Eucharistic sacrifice with a clear conscience, untie my soul." He nodded his head, but did not say anything. I again remarked to him: “Suspend the orders.” He promised. “I will act based on your word,” I said and repeated these words again. “Act on my word.” And I approached the altar and, truly, felt the grace and invisible presence of God. Everything happened as I wanted (epist. 41).” At the Council of Constantinople in 381, Flavian was installed in the place of the deceased Meletius of Antioch. Rome, and after it other Western bishops, maintained communication with the party of Paulinus, and, not recognizing Flavian as a legitimate bishop, demanded that he appear in Rome for the trial of the Western bishops. Since Flavian was slow to fulfill this demand, three Roman bishops, Damasus, Siricius and Anastasius, successively besieged Theodosius with requests that he order the sending of the Bishop of Antioch to Rome, and even reproached the emperor for deposing his own enemies, the usurpers, but leaving unpunished those who tyrannically encroach on the laws of Christ. And the emperor himself persuaded the Western bishops to peace and communion with Flavian. Thus, the bishops themselves encouraged the emperor to interfere in church affairs. From the reign of Arcadius in the east (395–408) and Honorius in the west (395–423), the following facts about the relationship between church and state can be noted. The course of the Pelagian dispute was greatly influenced by the edicts of Honorius in 418, by virtue of which the Pelagians were subjected to civil persecution. These edicts were issued at the request of the African bishops, but at a moment in the dispute when Pope Zosimus had not yet expressed his final judgment on the issue of the dispute and was awaiting more detailed information on this matter. In the case of Chrysostom, the imperial power - in form, at least - was only the executor of the verdict pronounced against him by the church authorities. But when Pope Innocent demanded a reconsideration of Chrysostom’s case at an ecumenical council, his demand in Constantinople was left without consequences, as offensive to the supreme power (Socr. VⅢ, 28). To characterize the consciousness of church representatives of that time, the following statements are interesting. In one of his writings, Chrysostom says that it is not permissible for Christians (οὐδὲ θέμις) to overthrow error by violence and coercion, but salvation should be accomplished by man through reasonable and meek persuasion (in Babyl.); in another place he says that it is better to suffer persecution than to persecute others (in Phoc.). When the military leader of Arcadius the Goth Gaina demanded from the emperor that one of the churches of Constantinople be ceded to the Arians, Chrysostom, then already the bishop of Constantinople, declared in the presence of the emperor that this demand was contrary to the laws of Theodosius the Great, that a pious emperor should not encroach on the rights of the church, that it was better for him to lose his kingdom than to become an impious traitor to the house of God (Socr. VⅢ, 4). Having become the bishop of Constantinople, he zealously persecuted those who disagreed with the church (Novatian and Quartodeciman, Socr. VI, 19). On the other hand, Augustine, who previously held the idea of ​​the illegality of coercion in matters of faith, through experience in the fight against the Donatists, came to the opinion that the path of moral persuasion, of course, is beautiful and the best, but is not always practically applicable, and that for the benefit of those who are mistaken themselves, one must act through fear and violence. Those who do not enter the church door voluntarily should be forced to enter. In this spirit, the Council of Carthage in 404 petitioned Emperor Honorius to extend punitive laws against heretics to the Donatists. The council's request, of course, was respected. He sets out his views on the issue of coercion in matters of faith in his letter to the Donatist Vincent (epist. 93, al. 48). The latter, as is known, found that it was immoral for the church to address the emperor, that this blasphemed the name of Christ. Augustine argued that if anyone should be blamed, it was the Donatists themselves, who were the first to interfere with the emperor in this matter. “Who of us or yours,” continued Augustine, “does not praise the fear of punishment that weighs on the pagans, and yet the punishments of the pagans are more terrible than the punishments of the Donatists. The first were threatened with death for making sacrifices, and the second for their split were threatened with deprivation of property. You, like us, praise the first law because it adds the Gentiles to Christ.” This means that Vincent agreed with Augustine in his opinion about the punishment of the pagans. Augustine was retreating from his previous views, and his previous views were as follows: no one should be forced to unite with Christ, but one should act with the word; you need to win with logic, not punishment. Augustine abandoned this view not as a result of any reasonable objections that he could hear. “I succumbed to the facts,” he says, “The bishops bombarded me with examples, they began to point not only to individual individuals, but also to entire cities in which Donatism had previously dominated, and now Orthodoxy reigns. My city is especially remarkable in this regard, the inhabitants of which were formerly Donatists, but now, under the influence of the emperor, they converted to Orthodoxy and treat the Donatists with such hatred that it is impossible to think that it would ever be a city of Donatists.” This means that Augustine yields to statistical data. An analysis of the very condition of the converting Donatists is important. Augustine finds that the Donatists do not have firm convictions. Therefore, the order of the emperor is a good reason for their conversion. The fact is that some were on the side of the Donatists insincerely, but without external encouragement they did not want to convert to Orthodoxy, so as not to offend good friends with their transition, and these Donatists rejoiced at the publication of the law. Others, on the contrary, said that they acted without knowing the truth and not wanting to know it; but under the influence of the published law, they began to think: what if, having lost the benefits in Donatism, they would not receive them in Catholicism, as a result of which they began to explore both and came to the conclusion that Catholicism was better than Donatism. Still others believed that no matter what form you profess Christianity, it makes no difference, as a result of which, after the publication of the law, they accepted the Catholic faith without much resistance. The fourth were held back out of ignorance and, thanks to the false rumors that were spreading, were afraid to enter Catholic Christianity, as a house of abomination; but when they were forced to do so by law, they saw that there was nothing vile in it. Thus, the Donatists had to be dealt with through punishments. In rebuffing Augustine, Vincent referred to the teachers of the church; but Augustine does not find it necessary to stand on the basis of this evidence, because the question remains whether these church teachers subsequently changed their opinions. He considers the grounds from Holy Scripture sufficient; he points to the words: “compel you to enter” (Luke 14:23), and to St. Paul, who was converted not by gentle suggestion, but by blindness - and who will say that it is harder to lose property than sight? Thus, in his letter, Augustine developed the idea that emperors should work for God with fear. Their power is from God. In this case, the publication of the law is the work of God if it, acting in favor of the truth, turns to the truth; and if it is contrary to the truth, then it is a test for the faithful and a danger for the weak. In general, here Augustine’s personal views are carried out correctly, for the victory of truth must lie in love. But still, his views are such that they contain precedents suitable for the Inquisition. Here the criterion is set externally and therefore the question of freedom of conscience is relegated to the background. This means that we are faced with a church-political view, which does not allow anything that can be considered as a triumph of enemies over the Orthodox. Thus, the persecution of heretics with the assistance of secular power became a common occurrence, not only firmly rooted in practice, but also raised into theory with a clear consciousness. Consequently, one of the most compelling arguments against government intervention in church affairs was about to lose its force. The reign of Theodosius the Younger (408–450) was rich in major church-historical events, which gave rise to a number of written monuments that clarify the theoretical principles of the relationship between church and state, the forms of their interaction. Everyone knows the energetic phrase of Nestorius: “Help me, sir, defeat the heretics, and I will help you in the fight against the Persians.” And Pope Celestine even finds that the matter of faith for the emperor should be more important than the matter of the state: “Your Grace should be more concerned about the peace of the churches than the security of the empire.” This is how representatives of the church looked at the matter. It is very remarkable that Emperor Theodosius himself very firmly adhered to the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of the church and wanted to contribute to the restoration of peace through purely church means. His letters relating to the Council of Ephesus represent a fine monument of this high view of the church and its freedom. “Everyone knows whether piety gains more firmness from commands, or from consultations.” The imperial commissioner was given the duty of eliminating everything that could embarrass the fathers of the council, so that the raised dogmatic question could be clarified in all possible depth, but the commissioner himself was ordered not to interfere in the least with the ongoing research on dogmas, “for it is unfair for someone who is not one of the holiest bishops to interfere in church affairs.” But everything happened against his intentions. Unfortunately, the last descendant of the great Theodosius was too weak in character to persistently pursue his noble views. He was always a helpless toy in the hands of the courtiers, and they held completely different views on this issue. Never, perhaps, since the time of Constantius, has court intrigue, bribery, and bribes played such a role in the course of church affairs as at this time, when a man who deeply understood both church interests and church dignity wrote to the emperor: “You will do the church a service if you force your courtiers to stop theologizing” (Isidore Polusiot). And besides, not all of the church representatives themselves stood guard over church independence. Representatives of the Orthodox Christians used the strongest moral pressure on the emperor to force him to leave this neutrality. His personal efforts to restore church peace were unsuccessful; but his laws, directed against the deposed Nestorius, were welcomed as manifestations of zeal for God in the spirit of the prophet Elijah, who was not content with denouncing the false prophets, but wanted to punish and destroy them. Finally, when the emperor’s distrust of the class of bishops grew to the point that he sent a lay patrician to the local Council of Constantinople in 448 to observe Orthodox reasoning, the council greeted this order with exclamations: “Many years to our king and bishop!” – As you know, here for the first time the character that Constantine the Great ascribed to himself was conciliarly recognized for the emperor. This type of expression even became very common in this era. Leo the Great joyfully welcomed the discovery of not only the royal, but also the priestly, even apostolic spirit in the emperors Theodosius II and Leo I. Theodosius's successors, Marcian and Leo, adhered even more strictly than he to his principle of church policy - non-interference in the internal affairs of the church, and, gifted with a strong character, successfully implemented it. Despite the fact that Marcian (450–457) had such a prominent role in church history that, rereading his correspondence with Leo I, one might think that it was not Anatolius, but Marcian, who was the bishop of Constantinople, this emperor acted almost exclusively through ecclesiastical means. Likewise, Leo I (457-474), when the question of the authority of the Council of Chalcedon was raised, knew how to resolve it in a strictly legal way and refrain from any violence, despite the fact that Pope Leo I, who did not at all find it difficult to resort to the assistance of the imperial power to achieve his dogmatic or administrative goals, simply recommended that he curb the insolence of the wrong-minded and in no case allow any reasoning regarding the matter. what was decided at the IV Ecumenical Council. Things went differently under the successors of Leo I. The usurper Basilisk (475–476) in 475 issued the famous ἐγκύκλιον, with which he abolished the binding nature of the Council of Chalcedon. This is the first experience of resolving dogmatic issues directly by the imperial authority. Changed political circumstances prompted Basilisk to very soon withdraw his district message. Emperor Zeno (474–491) published his enoticon in 482, which served as a reason for the break between the Western and Eastern churches. During this period, the popes in their messages were not slow to point out to the emperor the difference between state and church power, the superiority of the latter over the former; the entire illegality of their interference in the affairs of the church was brought to their attention; The theory of two swords came to light. In 493, Pope Gelasius wrote to Emperor Anastasius: “Two forces, the august emperor, primarily rule this world, this is the sacred authority of the bishops and the royal power, and between them the more important is the importance of the priests, because they must give an answer to the Lord at His trial for the kings themselves. You know that although by your rank you stand at the head (praesideas) of the human race, you also bow your will before the leaders of divine affairs, to them you turn in the matter of your salvation, from them you receive heavenly sacraments. You know, therefore, that in matters of faith you must obey their legal orders, and not rule over them - not to subjugate them to your will, but to be guided by their judgment.” Eastern bishops, on the contrary, for the most part formally submitted to all the orders of the court after rather weak resistance. It must be added, however, that it was not Byzantine despotism or the desire to expand the limits of their autocratic power to the point of absolutism that forced the emperors to interfere so rudely in the internal affairs of the church, but, one might say, a sad necessity. The disputes between the Monophysites and the Orthodox took such dimensions and forms that they seriously threatened public peace. The emperors themselves risked their throne. Meanwhile, there was no shortage of external enemies of the empire, and the emperors inevitably had to embark on all sorts of unique experiments in order to create at least some kind of solidary unity out of their subjects. How little despotic there was in this violation of the rights of the church is best shown by the reign of Anastasius (491–518). The power of the emperor was so weak that, in order to establish himself on the throne, he had to give Patriarch Euthymius a humiliating oath promise not to introduce anything new in the faith and to firmly adhere to the Council of Chalcedon. The struggle of religious parties in Constantinople reached the point that the emperor barely retained his crown. During his reign, he tried almost all the unique means, supported the enoticon of Zeno, tried to pacify the state and the church on the statu quo, so that in those churches where they rejected the Council of Chalcedon, they would not dare to recognize it, and vice versa, finally, in the last years of his reign, he had to give an obligation to enter into negotiations with the Roman church, and died hated by his subjects, to whom he seemed to be a Manichaean. Under Justinian the Great (527–565), the state of affairs remained generally the same. The emperor, however, did not issue dogmatic formulas on his own behalf that were binding on believers, but there were many reasons for interference in the affairs of the church during his reign. Union attempts continue today. The emperor convenes councils, but his letters of invitation take the form of entire theological treatises with formulas of anathematism, so that the goals of the council meetings are clearly defined. The emperor knew how to put pressure on the bishops like few others, and never before had the popes been in such a dependent position on the court of Constantinople as during this reign. In the first years, Justinian fought against the Monophysites, then tried to reconcile with them by sacrificing three chapters, and in recent years he tried to introduce Afartodocetism into the church. The death of Justinian freed the church from this new storm. In his novels and edicts, the emperor gave classical expression to the theory of two powers, priesthood and empire. There are two greatest blessings, says the 6th story, gifts of the mercy of the Almighty to people - sacerdotium et imperium. Each of these benefits given to people, established by God, has its own purpose. But starting from the same beginning, they manifest themselves in unity, in joint activity. Whenever the judgment of the priests deposed some heretics, the empire always found itself in agreement with the authority of the priesthood. The empire, according to Justinian, must have supervision over the priesthood and the greatest care for the true dogmas of God and the honor of the priests. "Nos igitur maximam habemus sollicitudinem circa vera Dei dogmata et circa sacerdotum honestatem." This theory correctly reproduces the constantly practiced relationship between these two elements, as well as the reign of Justinian itself - a completely legitimate conclusion from the data that previous history has prepared. The principle expressed by Justinian remained true in subsequent history: the only thing missing was for the emperor himself to pose the question: “Isn’t every Christian emperor also a priest?” The possibilities of this conclusion became clearly understood only in subsequent times (in the 7th–8th centuries, Konstas, Leo the Isaurian). Let us try to summarize these particular data on the history of relations between church and state. From the very first years after the Christian religion was declared the state religion, relations between church and state were built not on the basis of difference, but on the basis of solidarity between church and state. At least, the consciousness of this latter turns out to be the most energetic and constantly asserts itself in practice. The Church does not reject the independence of the state; the latter recognized the same character for the Church. But while this recognition on the part of the church has the fullest meaning, and during this period the hierarchy never encroached on the political rights of the state, when the latter recognized the church as independent, it had a very modest meaning. It went without saying that with his own power the emperor could not, for example, ordain a bishop, perform public worship, in a word, he did not have the right to actions of a purely sacramental nature. But the emperors, at least many, also wanted to be bishops of the external affairs of the church, and the flattery of the bishops recognized this quality in them. This position of imperial power opened up many opportunities for interference in the affairs of the church. Not considering themselves the right to ordain a famous bishop, the emperors considered themselves to have the right to depose someone they disliked and promote the election of a candidate they liked. Sometimes these actions were clothed in church forms, the deposition of a bishop was sanctified by a resolution of some council, and sometimes they did without it. In the same way, thanks to their position in relation to the councils, the emperors influenced, of course temporarily, even the most dogmatic definitions of faith: in addition to moral pressure on the bishops, the emperors could influence the composition of the council, and, by refusing to convene a new council, give temporary dominance to some hasty church definition. These actual restrictions on church independence had to be repeated all the more often because the representatives of the church themselves did not fully agree with each other either regarding the scope or the value of the independence to which the church has the right. At certain moments this consciousness flared up with a bright flame, declared itself alive and strong, but for the most part it was very weak. The contradiction between the word and deed of Christian bishops was, one might say, constant. On the one hand, they motivated the church’s right to independence by the fact that violence contradicts the very essence of religious belief; on the other hand, they not only allowed, but also demanded that heretics be subjected to punitive laws, so that persecution against heretics is a constant fact in this period of church history. On the one hand, the bishops exposed the difference between God and Caesar, on the other hand, they allowed themselves to resort to the court of the emperor in church matters, subjected even questions of doctrine to his discretion, and asked him not to allow the revision of well-known dogmatic formulas. In a word, representatives of the church for the most part valued the patronage of the emperor more highly than their independence: wanting to see secular power as a servant of the church, they were not particularly concerned that the border between church and state was becoming invisible; accepted a result favorable to them and turned a blind eye to the means by which it was achieved. The correct development of relations between church and state was obscured by a narrow adaptation to circumstances, to the needs of a given moment. They wanted the emperor not to interfere in church affairs, but they even more wanted (directly demanded) that he patronize the Orthodox. Far from encouraging the tsar to directly persecute heretics or people of other faiths, the bishops, however, left without protest those cases when the secular authorities did not deal with heretics according to the principles of strict equality, and even opposed their strict application. They had two standards: one for the Orthodox, the other for the erring. There was also a difference in the views of the church and the state on the purpose of the union between them. From the first to the last moment of this period, the state saw the alliance with the church as a guarantee of its own strength and solidary unity between its members. The Church, for its part, recognized the justice of this view of it. But for its practical purposes, the state would like to see this unity actually exist and therefore was hostile to any manifestations of discord in the church itself. Therefore, whenever dogmatic disputes arose, the state was first and foremost concerned with the restoration of formal unity and peace, while in the interests of the church truth was most important. This difference of aspirations quietly led to confusion in the relationship between church and state. Even Socrates wrote in his church history: “Since the emperors became Christians, the affairs of the church began to depend on them” (V, prooem). This remark correctly formulates the relationship between church and state established during this period. It only needs to be added that it was not exclusively the emperors, with their claims to the role of pontifex maximus in religious affairs, who were the creators of this state of affairs. It was a natural consequence of the imperfections of the members of the church itself. As a rule, bishops constantly walked ahead of the emperors, directed their activities in this direction, and this was when the emperors, apparently, were disposed to act on their instructions. Both the eastern bishops and the western bishops contributed a lot to the fact that relations developed this way. But the demand for church independence was more often stated by the Latin Church than by the Greek. Not free from mistakes, inconsistent in their views, the Latin bishops were able, however, more energetically than their Eastern brethren to reject attempts by secular authorities on freedom of church relations. IV. The struggle of Christianity with paganism in life and thought [Above we have already discussed the attitude towards paganism of Constantine the Great (306–337) and Constantine (337–361). Under the pagan Julian (361–363), an attempt was made to restore paganism]. During the reign of Julian, the Church of Christ suffered terrible oppression, but with the death of Julian, the work he began dissipated like smoke. His successor Jovian (363) was a Christian and did not even want to accept command of the pagan troops. Jovian's successor Valentinian I (364–375) was also a Christian and adhered to freedom of religious beliefs. With his eastern co-ruler Valens (364–378), who wanted to give triumph to the Arian party, the pagans also had no reason to be dissatisfied. Cases of oppression of pagans were quite rare under him and were of a local nature. Under Emperor Gratian (375–383), a gradual restriction and suppression of paganism began. Thus, Gratian did not accept the title “pontifex maximus”, which was worn by all previous emperors, removed the statue of Victoria from the Senate, deprived the privileges of the Vestals and banned pagan sacrifices combined with fortune telling. Valentinian II (383–392), under the influence of Ambrose of Milan, continued the policies of his brother; he did not want to be called pontifex maximus, which is why there was a murmur among the people. “If Valentinian does not want to be pontifex maximus,” said the pagans, “then Maximus will be pontifex.” There was an uprising and unrest. When Theodosius the Elder (379–395) established himself on the throne, there was no change in relation to the pagans. In his politics he kept a balance. In 381, on December 21, he issued an edict prohibiting sacrifices combined with fortune telling and spells. In 382, ​​he allowed the opening of a pagan temple in Edessa as an artistic monument. In 386, Christians were exempted from contributions to the maintenance of pagan temples and from municipal positions associated with paganism. In principle, it turned out that paganism still had a future. From 387 to 391 the emperor had to be in the west. Here he, having become acquainted with paganism, decided to give triumph to Christianity. Under the influence of Ambrose, he issued two decrees that prohibited sacrifices and the entry into pagan temples for sacrifice and worship made by him. But political considerations forced the emperor to go further in this direction. It was at that time that the indignation of Maxim and Evgeniy occurred. The latter, [patronizing the pagans], had an image of Hercules on his banner. From here Theodosius noticed that the disturbance took place in the name of paganism. Therefore, in 392, he issues a rescript prohibiting the pagan cult, as an insult to the royal majesty. Various officials, under pain of punishment, had to ensure that sacrifices were not made. Thus, the general characteristic feature of the reign of Theodosius is that he wanted to give a warning to the pagans, but did not want to execute them. Under Arcadia (395–408), practical measures were taken against paganism - missions were organized to convert pagans, and sometimes pagan temples were forcibly destroyed. All such phenomena turned out to be necessary to protect the Christian population. From the life of Porfiry of Gaza one can see what life was like for Christians in those cities where there were many pagans. Each destruction of pagan temples showed that Christians had strength on their side and called on the pagans to be calm and modest. In the east, paganism was more shaken than in the west. In the western half of the empire, Honorius (395–423) had to reckon with paganism in the form of his courtiers. Thus, Stilicho dreamed of restoring paganism as a state religion. In 399, Honorius, under his influence, issued two decrees that protected the inviolability of pagan temples as architectural monuments and buildings for feasts. In 408, he already prohibited pagans from being in the guard corps, although, however, this prohibition remained a dead letter. Paganism was alive. In the same 408, during the siege of Rome by Alaric, pagan sacrifices were performed. Under Emperor Leo (457–474), the quaestor of Antioch, Isocasius, accused of belonging to the pagan faith, was subject to criminal prosecution; the matter ended with baptism (Zonar. XIV, I). The Athenian pagan-philosophical school continued to exist until 529, when it was destroyed by Justinian. The Syrian historian John, Bishop of Ephesus, tells about himself that on a missionary trip in 542 he converted up to seventy thousand pagans to Christianity. Thus, paganism existed and counted many thousands in its midst. Only the pagans did not openly declare their religious beliefs. Bishops and civil officials were charged with the duty of bringing pagans to trial. Thus, a person had not previously been persecuted by the government for maintaining paganism until there was a denunciation. So, we see that the pagans and Christians have switched roles. Paganism had become an illicit religion, but it still existed. A pagan could rise high on the social hierarchical ladder; but as soon as you denounced him, he fell into disgrace. Paganism existed even after Justinian, and in the west it persisted more stubbornly than in the east, and therefore hostile clashes often occurred there between pagans and Christians. There has also been a change in the area of ​​guiding ideas. Previously, paganism was the attacking side; now, on the contrary, Christianity has become such a side. Previously, for example, Porfiry wrote works against Christians, and Christians wrote treatises in defense of their teachings and in refutation of pagan slander. Now the pagans themselves are turning to defending their faith from the attacks of Christians. They were led by Themistius, who was held in high esteem by Julian and Theodosius the Great. The latter even entrusted him with raising his son, Arkady. He held the opinion that everyone should believe as his conscience requires. Another apologist for paganism, Livanius, defended the latter on practical grounds. He cried out against the destruction of pagan temples and tried to protect the pagans from the encroachment of Christians on their freedom. This kind of work, which represents a close analogy with the judicial apologies of ancient Christian writers, did not evoke any literary response from Christians (except for the short letter of Ambrose against Aurelius Symmachus). From the scientific side, Emperor Julian (κατὰ χριστιανῶν, 363) and Proclus († 485) polemicize against Christians. The work of the first represents the most profound attack on it, based on a multifaceted study of Christian doctrine 23 . Proclus objected to the doctrine of the creation and end of the world from a philosophical point of view. Finally, pagan historians like Eunapius and Zosimus serve their cause by presenting the activities of Christian emperors in the most unfavorable light. As for the dialogue “Philopatris”, scientists fluctuate between 261 and 969 [976] in determining its origin. Christian writers of the present era have compiled several apologetic works of a scientific nature. [Back in the first half of the 4th century. spoke with apologetic works] Lactantius: Institutionum divinarum libri VII, Eusebius of Caesarea: Προπαρασκευὴ εὐαγγελική and Ἀπόδειξις εὐαγγελική, Athanasius the Great: Κατὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων and Περὶ τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως τοῦ Λόγου. The work of Theodoret of Cyrus: Ἑλληνικῶν θεραπευτικὴ παθημάτων serves as the completion of these works of a general apologetic nature. In particular, Julian was refuted by Cyril of Alexandria and Proclus John Philoponus (VI century). Finally, the work of Julius Firmicus Maternus (343–350): De errore profanarum religionum, where it is recommended to exterminate paganism with fire and sword, according to this practical tendency is the antipode to the speeches of pagan orators. A unique kind of apologetics consists of historical works written by Western writers. The masses of the people believed that the system of state life was closely connected with the ancient Russian religion, and therefore they saw the cause of all the people's disasters in Christians, as violators and apostates from the true ancient religion. This circumstance prompted Orosius to compile a “world history”: Historiarum adversus paganos libri VII [417–418]. It begins with the idea that disasters have always occurred, and then real disasters are considered. In them, the author, in addition to all the bad, also sees some good sides. One of these good sides was the conversion of barbarians to Christianity, which would not have happened with happy turns of affairs. The same events, but only from a philosophical point of view, are also considered by Bl. Augustine in his work “De civitate Dei” [413–426]. He considers the fact of the fall of humanity to be the basis of world history, adding to this the fact that pagan writers themselves attribute the fall of pagan morality to the time of the first success of Roman weapons, the conquest of Carthage. Finally, the motivation for the founding of the Roman Empire was the love of glory, a patriotic virtue, not a religious one. But for temporary virtue the reward can only be temporary. This reward is the long-term existence of the Roman Empire. Augustine contrasts this temporary “city” with the heavenly city, founded on an unshakable rock and experiencing everything, that is, the Church of Christ. The City of God will exist until the time of perfect peace and contemplation of God. The Gallic presbyter Salvian also speaks with the same theme. The reason for writing his work “De gubernatione Dei” or “De praesenti judicio” [439–451] was the fall of Rome. This event made a terrible impression on the best Romans, especially since the attacks of the barbarians intensified after this. They complained about Christians as the perpetrators of disasters, and asked: is there Providence when Rome, the eternal city, is destroyed? The tone of his work, unlike that of Augustine, is sad. The author depicts here the rudeness of the barbarians and the depravity of Roman Christians. The depravity of the latter especially struck him, since it is the result of refinement, and not rudeness. What can we say about Christians, about the church, which should appease God? How many of them are not drunkards, not murderers, but those who would be generally blameless? Many of its members are mired in terrible vices. It is against such Christians that barbarians and heretics speak out. They are also spoiled; but this does not depend on luxury, but on their moral rudeness. However, despite all this, they are more capable of creating a good state than vicious Christians. In conclusion, Salvian poses the question of how a Christian should stand in the newly established state relations, and resolves it in the sense that pagans should be treated in the same way as they treat Christians. God will judge who is right. How did the church emerge from the struggle with the newly developed circumstances, and how did these circumstances historically affect its life? Until the time of Constantine the Great, the essence of the struggle of Christianity against paganism was to protect the rights of freedom of conscience. Tertullian, in a letter to the proconsul Scapula, says that every person has the right to worship whomever he wishes, and this does not harm anyone; it is impossible to force, since this is displeasing to God; Even a person does not want to be worshiped involuntarily, much less does God want this. Lactantius says that religion must be defended with words and not with blows. If anyone decides to defend her with violence and atrocity, he will only disgrace her. Let the pagans exert all their mental talents to defend their religion. We will listen to them, but they won’t do anything with their ferocity. We do not lure into our society, but exhort. If no one leaves us, it is not because we are holding them back, but the truth itself is holding them back. Since the time of Constantine the Great, these views on freedom of religious belief have changed. True, in the Edict of Milan, the emperor granted all his subjects the freedom to choose between pagan and Christian religions. But in subsequent times he held the view that the state religion should be the Christian-Catholic religion. Therefore, he constrained all other religions. Constantius declared himself even more clearly from this side [and since, while patronizing the Arians, he persecuted the Orthodox, he provoked denunciations against himself from Athanasius the Great, Hilary of Pictavia, Hosius of Corduba]. In the 4th century. The church fathers generally agree with the point of view of freedom of conscience and argue that it is impossible to force one to religion by violent means. But this point of view was applied primarily pro domo sua, that is, to its Christian church. Therefore, the question arises: did the pagans enjoy freedom of conscience? The answer is the fact of the existence of Christian κατηχούμενοι, catechumens. In the 4th century. The Christian church consisted of persons who were baptized in adulthood, and therefore well understood their desires and their motives in converting to Christianity. From 348, a number of catechetical teachings of the Jerusalem presbyter (then bishop) Cyril remained, from which it is clear that if the doors of the church were open to persons who wished to be baptized, then, therefore, they were not closed to those who wished to leave it. In these teachings, Cyril of Jerusalem speaks in the following tone: “Although God is generous in doing good, he expects from everyone sincere will. Therefore, if you are here only with your body and not with your soul, then there is no benefit. And we, the ministers of the church, accept everyone, and there is no prohibition from entering here with unclean intentions. But be careful that when you call it true, you do not have the disposition of the unfaithful. If you accept baptism only with your lips and not with your heart, then beware of the judgment of the Knower of the Heart; and if you have departed from the faith, then the announcers are not guilty; It was only the water that accepted you, not the Spirit.” Thus, the church, standing at the height of its position, accepted pagans, but cautiously, arguing that without an internal disposition, accepting Christianity would not bring any benefit. From this point of view - from the side of the inviolability of inner conviction - both Christianity and paganism were equal. But next to this lofty principle there were also variations [in views on the issue of freedom of conscience], which left their mark on the subsequent history of relations between Christianity and paganism. The issue of freedom of conscience was discussed, among other things, by St. Athanasius and Hilary of Pictavia, who taught freedom of confession in defense of the rights of the church. But it was also possible to defend this position from another point of view, arguing that the church is free because this institution is undoubtedly high, and the one who exerts pressure must obtain permission from its leaders. If this permission is not available, then there should be no place for violence. Thus, recognizing the high position of the episcopal rank, the same results can be achieved. Everyone must obey the leaders of the church, and not give them instructions. A typical exponent of this view is Ambrose of Milan, who brilliantly defended the interests of the church, based on the authority of the episcopal rank [in the cases of his clash with the imperial power mentioned above]. The suppression of paganism, which resulted in conversion to Christianity, was considered a triumph of the church. That is why various measures for things that should not be used were considered good. That is why they looked with favor at the terror legum, at the imperial laws prohibiting paganism. Augustine was also an exponent of this view on the subject of coercion in matters of faith [in the above-mentioned letter to the Donatist Vincent]. It must be admitted that Christians generally stood on the side of a slightly different view. This can be seen from how, according to the story in the life of Porfiry of Gaza, the Gaza Christians reacted when, after the destruction of the temple, the pagans began to convert under the influence of fear and when idols and books began to be found among them. Many learned the truth voluntarily, while others entered under fear, but the church opened its doors to everyone. Some said that one should not accept those who come out of fear, but only out of choice. But Porfiry points out that a person has to acquire good things by chance. For example, whoever buys an ungrateful slave who does not want to do his will, he admonishes him with words, but then, when he does not listen, he strikes fear into him with blows and puts him in prison, not at all wanting to destroy him. And God acts through punishments so that people, at least out of necessity, know what is good. Moreover, if the convert comes with doubt, then time can soften a hard heart, and if he does not appear as a worthy believer, then those born by him can be honored with bliss. Thus, the leaders of the church found it possible to make concessions so that, at least, the descendants of parents converted in this way would become good Christians. In the West, Gregory the Great spoke out quite consistently in this sense. As you know, he is, by the way, a good owner; along with church orders, he has many economic orders regarding church property, charitable affairs, etc. He had to acknowledge the fact that even the bishops of other churches did not care that slaves living on church lands accepted Christianity. He sent, among other things, a message to the Sardinian bishop, where he threatened the latter with punishment for negligence. He drew attention to legislation on this issue. He recommended that converting Jews reduce their rent as much as possible without harming church revenues, hoping that the Jews would turn to Christian mercy and accept Christianity. In relation to the peasants who remained pagans, Gregory recommended a heavier quitrent so that they would feel more burdened; if pagan slaves lived on church lands, then they should have been brought to their senses through beatings and torture, and if they were free pagans, then they should have been subjected to strict solitary confinement. This is what practical measures have come to resolve the issue of freedom of conscience. In Spain, whose population consisted of Iberian, Celtic and Roman tribes, they zealously began to forcibly convert [the Jews] to Christianity. The same thing happened in other places. It goes without saying that with such a course of affairs, many received baptism insincerely. The Council of Toledo [633] had to reckon with how to deal with them. All the bishops agreed that they were not Christians, but they were worthy of baptism and reception of St. Tain, and therefore they could not be allowed to leave Christianity [can. 57]. In essence, we have to use examples from Western life. This hardly gives us the right to assume that this order of affairs does not take place in the east. The fact is that in Western literature there are documents (for example, the correspondence of Gregory the Great) of a kind that none of the eastern writers left us. The writing of the East and West was very different. The Latins wrote in a businesslike manner; their authors had no time for eloquence; they provide much more material for illuminating the state of material affairs. In Greece, however, rhetoric took precedence over businesslikeness, cultivating eloquence, because of which it is difficult to discern the actual attitude of the Eastern fathers to the issue of freedom of conscience. We find the only serious clarification on this issue in the decrees of the VII Ecumenical Council. This latter ordered [right. 8], so that Jews who came to church insincerely would not be considered Christians; the civil government had to leave them under the weight of civil laws; they could not freely use the property 24. In general - this cannot be rejected - the Christian government, in its measures against paganism, practiced a system of moderate and consistent violence, at one time consciously expressed by Emperor Arcadius. Many representatives of Christian society in this regard acted in concert with the government, and the more zealous (especially the monks) even went ahead of it. There were even martyrs who laid down their lives during the destructive campaign against the churches (such as Marcellus of Apamea under Theodosius). But all this does not change the fact that paganism died its natural death: if in any court, including the court of history, it is required, ut audiatur et altera pars (that the other side be heard), - in relation to paganism this demand was brilliantly satisfied during the reign of Julian. The strongest measures were taken to resurrect paganism, but even here it did not show any vitality. Reforms in the Christian spirit did not take root in him; Having delved into Neoplatonic interpretations of the content of the old religious doctrine, Julian broke away from both the masses and the majority of the intelligentsia; with his ardent, affected piety, he seemed almost ridiculous in the eyes of the religiously indifferent pagan society of that time. The blows of subsequent Christian sovereigns were directed, generally speaking, not against paganism in itself, not against adherents of the old faith, but against those external supports on which the ancient Roman religion could rest: the laws deprived it of only these external resources. The situation of both fighting religions is characterized by the fact that paganism did not produce a single martyr. The death of Hypatia (415), torn to pieces by the fanatical Alexandrian mob led by the “reader Peter,” says nothing against this generalization. Hypatia was killed not because she was a pagan, but for reasons of such a private nature that she probably would not have escaped death even if she had been a Christian. This gradual weakening of paganism was accompanied, of course, by the external strengthening of the church and numerous conversions. This point constitutes one of the weakest aspects of the established new orders of church life. Constantine the Great looked at the matter very practically; directly recognizing that very few are capable of listening to and accepting Christian preaching for the sake of its very content, the emperor recommended to the fathers of the Council of Nicaea the path of external influence, attracting pagans to Christianity by outside means - material assistance in needs, intercession with civil authorities. The emperor himself practiced these means on a large scale, and his generous rewards to those who converted to Christianity attracted into the bosom of the church precisely the worst part of court society, those people for whom the question of conviction was of least importance and who were able to migrate from Christian churches to pagan altars and back, depending on the demands of court circumstances. This side of Constantine’s activities did not escape even Eusebius and caused censure from this panegyrist. Of course, the emperor's direct influence was limited to the narrow sphere of court life; but his example did not remain without imitation in lower spheres: and there a passion for propaganda developed. And the laws prohibiting the pagan cult, of course, also did their job: given the weakness of religious animation among the masses, naturally the majority preferred to fulfill the will of the divine emperors than to endure this or that trouble. In a word, one of the worst consequences of the proclamation of Christianity as the state religion was the conversion of entire masses without firm conviction, without internal preparation, without anything that would even resemble the deposition of the old man. There were persons prepared for the transition to Christianity by the study of idealistic philosophy, like Synesius; but these could only be counted as a few; usually they accepted Christianity for reasons that were far from the realm of religious conviction, and even downright selfish. Another accepted Christianity out of sincere friendship with someone in order to please him; another - because he had a case and was thinking of bringing it to the bishop's court; the third - to secure some strong patronage through clergy; the fourth - because there was an opportunity to make a profitable game. Bl. Augustine, who lists all such cases of conversion, still looks at the matter with faith and hope, finding that the grace of God can carry a person further than he thought to go himself; that many who enter the door of the church and for these reasons are subsequently corrected; that through the influence of the Christian catechumen many actually become what at first they only intended to appear. And indeed, in principle, all this should not adversely affect the internal life of the church: bishops have always had the opportunity to keep such proselytes at the threshold of the church until they convert sincerely. But that was not the case: in order for the bishops to fulfill with dignity the difficult task of shepherding souls in this case, they themselves had to be incomparably higher than what they actually were. Chrysostom already complains that the spiritual often violate the Savior’s commandment: do not throw pearls before swine; out of unreasonable vanity and ambition, they allow morally corrupt people, without faith, without conscience, to communicate in the sacraments without any testing. The mass of appeals was met with a lack of funds for the educational influence of the church - a lack both qualitatively, since the average level of the clergy was below their calling, and quantitatively, because the churches themselves were not even enough. And the same St. Chrysostom complains in his sermons that many owners, having converted the colonies under their control to Christianity, then do not care about their Christian education and do not build churches. The consequence of this was, on the one hand, a falling away from Christianity into paganism, and on the other hand, a lowering of the level of moral life and religious consciousness in the church itself, which was faced with the need to accept into its fold so many people with a pagan system of concepts and everyday habits, only very weakly and superficially touched by the light of Christian truth. Previously, a period of 1 year - 40 days was legal for subjects; now it has become customary, in cases of conversion of Jews, to shorten the period, so that, as Gregory the Great recommended, the subjects would not become bored with their position. They consoled themselves with the hope that the children of the converted were being raised in the true faith. But this hope was not always justified in practice. On the contrary, it turned out that with rapid conversion no moral progress was noticed, that is, with extensive expansion the church lost the intensity of the religious and moral consciousness of its members. And according to Chrysostom’s reasoning, believers consist of three categories. Some turn on their sickbed; others vouch for them in faith, because they themselves could not do it; Having recovered, they do not always lead the life they promised to lead at baptism. Others are baptized in childhood, and still others in adulthood and responsibility, but even in those the religious fire soon cools. Thus, when conversion reaches large masses, the intensity of their religious and moral perfection is lost. And here, apparently, the well-known law that the same amount of energy, progressing in extension in the world, decreases in intensity, justifies itself. And Christianity, losing in intensity [faith| individual members, nevertheless produces a beneficial effect through extensive expansion, for many phenomena that were previously possible due to the unbelief of some people have now become impossible. It is not individual characters that are elevated, but the customs themselves gradually change, and much of what was previously considered ordinary has now become impossible. If it was not possible to change the masses into sons of light, then it was possible to raise the customs of the people to such a degree that they became largely consistent with Christian requirements. A larger number of people consider it worthy to imitate Christ and already consider it unworthy to be an opponent of Christ not only in deeds, but even in words. V. Rights and privileges of the church in a Christian state The joint action of church and state, actually expressed in some dependence of the former on the latter, is one consequence of the proclamation of the Christian religion as the state. The other side of this change is a certain amount of rights and privileges acquired by the church by the state and making it easier for it to achieve its goals. This section [in the history of the ancient church] is not difficult and is presented satisfactorily in all textbooks. The subject of academic readings should be a true understanding of the nature of these privileges. There are exclusive privileges, and there are privileges resulting from the position that the Christian religion occupied in a pagan state. In essence, the privileges given to the Christian church were of a second nature and consisted in the assimilation by Christians of the rights that they were supposed to enjoy. At one time, Prof. Seeck argued that there was no Edict of Milan 25. But the noise of this discovery is of a very cheap nature: the edict was preserved only in the form of litterae a Licinio ad praesidem (Bithyniae) datae (message given by Licinius to the governor of Bithynia); the matter concerns only the form of the edict, and not its content. And of course, the litterae and all the praesides received the same form, and not just the Bithynian one. In the Edict of Milan, Constantine defines Christian society as corpus christianorum. According to general civil law, such corporations enjoyed the right to acquire property 1) through purchase, 2) through donation (donatio) and 3) by will. The right of the church to acquire property through purchase is not in doubt. The church has enjoyed the right of donatio (= gift) since 321, although the position occupied by the church from the end of 312 and the beginning of 313 gave it the opportunity to use this right even then. Specific legislation on this issue concerns only the details. Roman law did not consider it sufficient to simply declare that I was donating some of my property to a well-known person. This fact had to be put into legal form - with witnesses from the relevant head of the province. If these formalities were not fulfilled, then according to the law of 316 the donatio had no force (nullam firmitatem habere). But the recording itself is one act, the performance is another act. In addition to the papers received from the governor of the province, it was also necessary to enter this act of donatio into the proper documents of the city (in actis inserta). This order was made by Constantius Chlorus, and Constantine the Great left it in full force. A relaxation of this law was made under Theodosius the Younger (428), who ordered that donations not exceeding the amount of 200 solidi should be made without the drawing up of acts. Receiving property under a will in Roman law was more complicated than donationes. According to ancient Roman views, an essential point for the firmness of a will was the question of a specific heir, and the lawyer Ulpian declared that neither entire cities, nor all citizens of the city, and even gods could be appointed heirs. However, some exceptions were made for the gods (through the senatus consulta and constitutiones principum); for example, Jupiter tarpeianus and Mars gallicus had the right to receive under wills. We see that it was very difficult for a corporation to obtain property under a will. And Diocletian gave a categorical answer; if the college does not rely on a special privilege, it cannot receive an inheritance. Consequently, under him the church, as a corporate whole, could not receive an inheritance. In order for the will not to be cashed out, it was necessary to resort to fideicommissum: the property was entrusted to one of the church members, in good faith, for transfer to the entire Christian community. In 321 Constantine the Great issued a law favorable to Christians: he recognized the church’s right to receive inheritance; this law was not subject to any further restrictions. We only had to reckon with the clergy, who, when visiting the sick, encouraged them to make wills in their favor. Against such abuse, a law was passed by Valentinian I in 370, prohibiting clerics from receiving by will. Thus, the clerics were humiliated and were not even compared to actors. Regarding the publication of such a law, Jerome remarks: “I am not complaining about the law, but about why we (the clergy) deserved such a law. Sit heres, sed mater filiorum (of the dying), id est ecclesia gregis sui" 26. Thus, this order of Valentinian I was essentially only beneficial for Christian society as a whole. Another detail concerns the receipt of inheritance after the death of persons who did not leave a will (ab intestato). Roman law considers various cases: 1) if the deceased person does not have direct heirs, and 2) if he has such, but did not leave a will for them, such persons were treated by the law in a very unique way. If a freedman died without heirs, then his patron could act as heir by law. Corporate societies do the same thing: if, for example, several artisans form a college, then when one of them dies, his property goes to the benefit of the college. On the same basis, the Curia (Duma) inherited the property of the decurions who did not leave a will. Therefore, the legion received the soldiers’ property. From this point of view, therefore, the Christian Church received no special privileges. In 434, a law was passed stating that if a cleric or monk died without leaving direct heirs, then their property went to the benefit of the church. To prevent some puzzling cases, a restriction was made: if the monk was one of the freedmen, then his patron - dominus - acted as an heir, because, as Emperor Theodosius said, it is indecent for the church to retain the property to which, by law, other persons have a priority right. An important source of enrichment for Christian churches were rich gifts from the state treasury. The emperors themselves set an example of giving to the church as generously as possible. So, for example, in 314, Constantine provided the Carthaginian bishop Caecilian with the sum of [more than 174,000] 27 rubles from public funds for the construction of churches in Africa, Numidia and Mauritania and promised again if necessary. After the Council of Nicea, Constantine ordered that the rectors of the provinces deliver a certain amount of bread each year for the maintenance of the clergy, widows, orphans and virgins. According to Theophanes, the Antiochian church received up to 1500 quarters of grain 28. Theodoret, during whose life the churches received only a third of this amount, finds that Constantine’s gift was very significant, and that the emperor determined the rate of contribution based more on his own generosity than on the normal needs of the church (I, 11; IV, 4). Thanks to these laws, the financial situation of the Christian churches in general was very well secured. In total, the church's land holdings grew to the point that they occupied 1/10 of the entire state territory. The possessions of the Roman Church were not only in Italy and Sicily, but in Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt. At the beginning of our period, three Roman cathedral churches - St. Peter, St. Paul and John Lateran, as can be seen from the incomplete list of their land property, received, in addition to the known income in kind, another 22,000 solidi [i.e. i.e. about 128 thousand rubles. gold] net income. Property of the Alexandrian Church at the beginning of the 5th century. were so significant that she could get a loan from one person in [627,750] rubles in gold (1 1/2 thousand liters of gold). And at the beginning of the 7th century, the famous John the Merciful (606) found 8,000 f. in the treasury of the Alexandrian church. gold [3,348,000 rubles] and himself received 10,000 [4,185,000] 29. Even Theodoret, the bishop of such an insignificant diocese as Cyrus on the Euphrates, could, from the remains of church revenues, build a portico, two huge bridges for the benefit of the city, improve the baths, and draw a canal from the Euphrates to this hitherto waterless city. A favorable consequence of this position of the church was the widespread development of charity. Many churches had a mass of charitable institutions, hospitals, almshouses, orphanages, and hospices. "Basiliada", built by Basil the Great (c. 370) in Caesarea, represented the whole city in a small form. In addition to this central institution, hospitals were built in all the towns where there were subordinate chorebishops in the bishoprics. The Antiochian Church of the time of Chrysostom, in addition to various sick, beggars, and strange people, also contained up to 3,000 widows or virgins. Under John the Merciful, the matricula of the Alexandrian church contained 7,500 of those who received benefits from the church, and under Gregory the Great (590–604), the matricula of the Roman church was already a whole weighty book. But, of course, the development of church rights on this basis was not without negative consequences. The possibility of easy acquisition was too strong a temptation for selfishness for the members of the clergy to succumb to it, leading to luxury. In Rome there were many such annoying clerics who were ready to beg and extort from matrons and nobles the luxury items that they saw in their houses. There were also cases of abuse of spiritual wills. The fact is that wills were written either in the name of the entire church or in the name of its private representatives; This circumstance gave rise to the possibility of abuse. Not all bishops were as noble as, for example, Aurelius of Carthage, who returned the property bequeathed to the church to one person after his children were born. Augustine imitated him: “Whoever wants,” he said, “to leave his property to the church, taking away the rights of inheritance from his son, let him look for another bishop, not Augustine, and God grant that he does not find anyone who would want to accept such an inheritance.” He accepted gifts very carefully, paying attention to the nature of the property. The state, having freed church property from munera sordida, adhered to the view that the church, when accepting property, must also accept the obligations that the owner of the property bore. It happened that the person who transported the grain to the capital bequeathed the property to the church. Augustine, knowing that it would be necessary to recruit a whole phalanx of sailors to deliver bread, abandoned his property. The pursuit of inheritances by the clergy and monastics assumed such proportions that already in 370 [as noted above], the stern and impartial Valentinian I tried to curb the greed of the clergy. By an edict addressed to Pope Damasus, the emperor forbade clergy and monks from entering the houses of widows and orphans. Any will in favor of clergy or monks was considered invalid. And Jerome admitted that this limitation of their rights was deserved. There is reason to think that this law was directed against wills made only in favor of the clergy personally; it was allowed to make a bequest in favor of the church. The Edict of Valentinian was revoked only by Marcian. Another unfavorable consequence of this rise in the material well-being of the church was the luxury of clergy. At best, it manifested itself in the form of a passion for magnificent buildings (Theophilus of Alexandria, Soz. VⅢ, 12, clash with Isidore), but often took less sublime forms. While, according to the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus, the rural clergy in Italy still set an example of a simple and abstinent life, in Rome one could already meet clerics who looked more like sybarites than ascetics. Having told about the fierce massacre that took place during the election of Pope Damasus and after which 137 people were killed in the Basilica of Siricia, the same writer notes that he is not at all surprised that people strive with such effort to acquire this rank: the amenities with which the life of Roman bishops are furnished, rich gifts from matrons, beautiful clothes, magnificent carriages, dinners surpassing in luxury even royal feasts - all this, naturally, tempts many to become candidates for the Roman see. The pagan prefect of Rome, Praetextatus, often said as a joke to Pope Damasus: “Make me a bishop of Rome, and I will become a Christian.” This was said by a man who, in addition to various lucrative positions, received up to 900,000 rubles annually from his private property. With. The same can be said about the new Rome. Already Gregory the Theologian in his farewell speech says: “Perhaps they will blame me for this, as they have already blamed me, that I have neither a rich table, nor clothes appropriate to the rank, nor ceremonial appearances, nor majesty in deportment. I did not know that I should enter into competition with consuls, governors of regions, the most famous of military leaders, who do not know where to squander their wealth, that I, luxuriously from the wealth of the poor, must burden my belly, use what is necessary for excess, vomit on altars. I didn’t know that I, too, needed to ride on excellent horses, stand brilliantly in a chariot, that I, too, should have meetings and receptions with servility, that everyone should give way to me and make way for me, like a wild animal, as soon as they see my procession from afar!” The successor of Gregory the Theologian, the noble Nektary, as a former senator, was quite capable of maintaining the prestige of the capital's bishop, and, of course, satisfied these claims of the capital's Christians. But when John Chrysostom took his place, his ascetic, monastic lifestyle produced the impression of a scandal on his flock. No receptions, no magnificent dinners, either at home or visiting! This was already so unusual that it even seemed criminal. The confusion of concepts reached such a significant degree that the clergy did not find it difficult to put the lack of splendor in a number of indictments against Chrysostom at the Council of Oak. This extraordinary abstinence could not even be explained other than from dirty motives: hence the plot about the “feasts of the Cyclops.” It was believed that he was not content with the usual sumptuous dinners, but enjoyed feasts with his friends. They also did not pay attention to the fact that he established two hospitals in Constantinople, and that he regularly maintained 7,700 poor people in them at his own expense! It would, however, be completely petty to consider the growing wealth and power of the church only as a sign of the gradual decline of the church. In order to support the masses of the poor at this time, in order to at least somewhat alleviate the indescribable disasters of this time, the church needed rich funds. It would be impossible to combat such massive poverty with only the means of the past. It was necessary to have completely reliable material support, because under unfavorable economic circumstances, private charity became scarce precisely when the need for it was most urgent. Meanwhile, having land ownership, the church had funds at its disposal when all other sources were closed. 2. Freedom from taxes and duties (immunity) Privileges of this kind, which the church has enjoyed since the time of Constantine the Great, can be understood and enumerated only when we are already familiar with the general structure of the civil life of the pagan world that met Christianity. This system represents a changing phenomenon, and by the time of the last emperors it had already changed. Some information on this subject can be obtained from Kuhn's study of the urban structure of the Greco-Roman Empire before Justinian 30 . Particular attention in this work is devoted to the unity that the Roman state brought to the world of that time. This unity smoothed out the boundaries that could have prevented Christian preaching from spreading. However, if we touch upon the internal structure of the Roman Empire, we can see that the idea of ​​its unity is somewhat exaggerated. The Roman rulers were very smart politicians and, while conquering peoples, they understood the scope of their power and acted with them in accordance with this scope. Thus, the phenomenon that occurred on Greek soil turned out to be impossible in the Roman Empire. It is known that Athens, having received hegemony in the union of Greek cities, turned it into despotism. The Romans set a certain limit to their power, precisely so that their power would be least unpleasant for the conquered peoples; crushing all the forces that could resist, the Romans got along with those forms of civil life of the conquered peoples that were not dangerous to them. Internally, the Roman Empire was divided into small units - civitates, πόλεις, which enveloped a person so tightly that they attached him to a given place better than our passport system. Just as every place on the earth's surface is determined by geographical latitude and longitude, so exactly the position of the free man of the Roman Empire was determined by his "origo" and his "domicilium". The Roman citizen was, first of all, a municeps - a person who undertakes a certain duty (munus capit), fulfills it (munus facit) and manifests himself in munificentia (generosity). There were no officials then, but the culture demanded the protection of civil security, which required money and taxes. Citizens had to collect these taxes themselves and fulfilled this duty through special elected officials. Thus, civil society had to take on the burden of internal self-government; the persons composing this society, in accordance with political views, had to work not for money, but for glory and honor, and in order for the internal order of the civil community to remain unchanged, it was necessary to assign electors to their duties and attract to these positions every free member of the community. This goal was achieved by regulating the civil duties assigned to each citizen by his origo and domicilium. Through origo, duties related to citizenship by birth or otherwise, such as manumission from slavery, were established. In the first case, origo was called naturalis, in the second - allectio in civitatem, and for the latter there was a twofold way of giving: adoption (liberi - children) and liberation from slavery (liberi - free). When a slave received manumission according to the spiritual will of the master, the origo was acquired to him not from the deceased testator, but from the one who carried out his will, and this consolidation was indelebilis. The son of a citizen bore the origo of his father, that is, he was considered to be in the same city where his father was a citizen, and, moreover, in such a way that this origo remained with him, even if he was not in that city at all. Therefore, it happened that in Puteoli, for example, there were Athenians and Phoenicians, but they were recognized as citizens of Athens and Phenicia, and not Puteoli. Thus, origo was obtained not according to the place of actual birth of a person, but according to the place of residence and citizenship of his ancestors. It was also possible to have an origo in several different cities and, moreover, in such a way that the person adopted by such a citizen himself received the origo of all those cities. Some cities recognized the right to give origo not according to the citizen's father, but according to his mother - the so-called matriarchatus, which existed, for example, in several places in Pontus and Bithynia. Although such a right was a contradiction of Roman laws itself, nevertheless, the Roman rulers recognized it and gave it to some cities as a privilege. From this it happened that if, for example, a Puteolian married a Tuscan woman, then the children were citizens of Puteoli, but if his wife was a Pontic Heraklian, then the children of such a marriage simultaneously received the origo of two cities - Puteol and Irakli. Thus, by virtue of origo, every city of the Roman Empire had a certain number of citizens - more in cities with the right of matriarchy, less in cities without it. Wherever the originarii were located, they were connected with their city and owed it not only respect in the person of the city authorities, but also a constant obligation to serve in it - the fulfillment of munera and munificentia. Citizens who had origo in several cities were obliged to serve several different cities. In addition to origo, the position of a citizen was also determined by domicilium - his place of residence. If, for example, origo made a person civis of Athens, and he spent most of his time in Puteoli, where most of his wealth was located, then this person became a citizen of Puteoli - his incola. The concepts of civis and incola determined, according to Greco-Roman law, the position in society of every member of it, and established the concept of it as a municeps; origo, as can be seen from here, was transmitted to posterity, determined by the position of the ancestors, domicilium was established by the free choice of persons, and the incola of a known city could change its place of residence, and then its relationship to the old city, like the relationship of incolae, ceased, without binding its descendants with any responsibilities in this city. It was also possible that a person had to perform the duties of domicilii in several cities, if he was equally connected with them either by his residence or by his name. It is clear from this that municipal duties covered the free people of the Roman Empire in a very complex and tight ring. However, a clash of responsibilities only occurred when cities assigned multiple responsibilities to their citizen; in this case, preference was given to those relations that were determined by the origo of the citizen. In addition to the cives, the metecs and periecs were also subordinate to the specified civil system. Both were opposed to strangers - hospites, advenae; this was the name given in relation to a city to those free people who accidentally stopped in it, or even lived for several years, without connecting their interests with the interests of the city; They were not tied to this city by any municipal duties and remained strangers to it. The state took advantage of the indicated relations of free people to famous cities and transmitted its orders and instructions to the latter for execution at their own discretion and means. As a result, the citizens of each city had two kinds of responsibilities, expressed by the concepts of munera and honores. Honor - there was an honorable position and honorable duties, something that was opposed to munera - official duties in the proper sense. At the same time, the very concept of “honor” was different in different places, just as the responsibilities associated with it were therefore different. Everywhere, however, the main person who enjoyed the greatest honor in the city was his head - πατὴρ τῆς πόλεως, curator reipublicae; he was followed by defensor civitatis - civil defender of rights and public safety. Responsibilities in the proper sense of the word, defined by the Roman munera, were divided by Roman state law into munera personalia and munera patrimonialia. The first, munera personalia, lay only on the personality of the citizen, placed at the disposal of the city only his mental and physical strength, without affecting his property status, and in different cities they were appointed in different quantities. Thus, there were not quaestors everywhere, but everywhere there were persons in charge of the city treasury, city revenues collected under the supervision of a high dignitary. Each city also had a so-called Irinarch, a police chief, who was in charge of overseeing civil security in the city. At his disposal were persons who carried out less honorable duties—lower police officers. The collection of state taxes and taxes caused a lot of trouble to the city. This responsibility fell on either 20 or 10 top persons in the city, who constituted the senatus or curia and were called decemprimatus and vigintiprimatus (δεκαπρωτεύων and εἰκοσιπρωτεύων). These dignitaries carried their positions under the responsibility of their property, so that in case of a lack of collections, they replenished them from their own funds. The city treasury covered expenses for the city - for bread, water and other necessary products, and elected citizens also took care of the fulfillment of these instructions and also covered the shortcomings with their property. Municipal duties of another kind, munera patrimoniorum, fell according to the law to all full citizens, but in fact fell their burden only on a certain minority, which is why they were called intributio. Their distribution depended on the property qualifications of citizens, since the more or less correct performance of these duties resulted from one or another of their property status. This included the supply, in required cases, of provisions to the city at the expense of the property of those executing the munera patrimoniorum, the hiring of horses and oxen for the state postal service for transporting heavy loads (not more than 4), etc. All these personal and patrimonial duties thus determined the position of a citizen of the Roman Empire in relation to society and the state itself. Since the fulfillment of these duties placed a rather heavy burden on the members of society, the question naturally arises: was it possible for a free person, surrounded by this network of civil relations, to free himself at least from honores - honorable duties, to which citizens were nevertheless forced (compelli ad munera et honores)? In theory, this liberation should not exist, but, however, in the Greco-Roman world it existed and is found in various forms under the name of immunity. Sometimes fathers of large families and persons burdened with other positions in other places of the Roman Empire were released from excellent duties. Strictly speaking, no one from the cives could free themselves from munera personalia. But since ultra posse nemo obligatur 31, exemptions from these duties were also allowed. Those exempted from munera personalia were, first of all, minors, women and the elderly. Of the old people, however, only those who reached 70 years of age enjoyed this privilege; but if they had property, they had to bear munera patrimonialia in return for munera personalia. The right to exemption from munera personalia was also given by physical impossibility, when a person, due to state duties, had to be in another place. On the same basis, if you like, soldiers were also exempted from munera personalia, from the private to the magister of one or another militia. This circumstance gave rise to the further development of the system of exemption from munera personalia. The Romans initially made no distinction between civil and military positions. The praetor, for example, was also the commander of the troops. Only under Diocletian and Constantine the Great did a division occur between them. But the trace of this merger of positions remained in the usage of words, according to which civil was also considered as militia or στρατηγία. The civil official wore a belt, and this belt was so characteristic of the service that to untie it meant to resign. Therefore, immunity rights were extended to civil ranks. When the growth of bureaucracy begins, the number of persons freed from munera personalia increases more and more. Primarily persons of a privileged position are exempted from munera personalia, even to the senatorial degree (under Constantine the Great and Constantine it was more difficult to rise to the senatorial position, but later it became easier). But, freed from munera personalia and ceasing to be cives or even incolae of their city, senators (clarissimi), although they had Rome for themselves as domicilium dignitatis, were not obliged to acquire property near Rome or Constantinople, since here, in fact, their career was supposed to begin. Thus, senators in the proper sense appeared, who sat in the Senate, but were relieved of their duties in their city. However, being freed from duties to the patria and the city, senators ipso facto fell under other duties, no less serious. These duties consisted of three types of duties. There were persons called censuales, who replaced the ancient censors, who were supposed to know the property of senators, their qualifications, and four times a year present to the emperor lists of their property status. 1. Their first duty was as praetor. At first there were 3 praetors, then their number increased to 5, and finally to 8. Their duty was to organize spectacles for the city at their own expense. Since not everyone could have the means to perform this service, appointments to the praetorship were made 10 years before the period in which they were supposed to fulfill their duties. The Censuales had to find them even at the ends of the earth, but the appointment to the praetorship did not oblige the appointee to come to Rome, since he could submit the expenses for the spectacle to Rome through a proxy. In view of the burdensomeness of the praetor's service, the emperors established a minimum praetor's costs. Subsequently, another feature was added to this order: they began to take money from the praetors for truly useful institutions, and not just for spectacles. So, when there were 5 praetors, from the 4th and 5th they began to take 500–1000 pounds for the construction of Constantinople. When there were 8 of them, they began to collect from 250–1000 pounds of silver for public buildings. It was impossible to free oneself from the praetorship in the ordinary way; release was possible in the case of allectio to the senatorial position by the grace of the emperor for particularly honorable service with a significant lack of property. The release was often accomplished by means of a codicilli, for example, to a consular dignity in addition to the praetor's. But in the usual order of Greco-Roman life, each of the senators was first a praetor, and then a consul. How high the costs of the praetorship were, one can find random indications of this. Proclus, a Roman senator, spent 12 centinarii; the son of Symmachus, a poor senator, 20 centinarii, and the son of the rich Maximus - 40 centinarii (centinarium - 100 pounds of silver). 2. The second duty imposed on land-owning senators was called follis senatorius or gleba. Follis actually means a bag, then it came to mean a small copper coin, and follis senatorius meant Roman pounds of gold. Since this follis fell to the ground, that is why it was called gleba. Follis senatorius was divided into 3 gradations: 8, 4 and 2 pounds of gold - in accordance with the property qualification of senators. But over time, it turned out that it was very difficult to pay 144 chervonets (2 pounds) per year, so the follis was established mainly for poor senators at 7 solids. Finally, those who had no property were completely freed from gleba. The follis of the senators corresponded to the aurum coronarium, which was paid by the municipes. 3. The third duty is aurum ablativum (gold-bearing). On the occasion of "lustra", i.e. five-year anniversaries, senators made ceremonial gifts to the emperor. For example, on the occasion of his 10th anniversary, Valentinian II received a gift from the senators that cost 16 centinarii of gold. But if we imagine that not all senators were monstrously rich, we understand that these gifts were not easy for them. The richest Roman senators received in their patrimonia an income of 40 centinarii and in kind, in the form of grain, so much that if it were sold, the amount could be from 15 to 10 centinarii. Freed from municipal duties, senators were thus subject to other duties. Since the number of persons exempted from munera personalia increased greatly, if those exempted fictitiously were added to this, and precisely so much so that there were no citizens who could take upon themselves the execution of munera, it was difficult for cities to fulfill these duties. Therefore, the cities themselves began to select citizens from themselves for βουλή or curia. Property relations were so upset that any other election, except passive, became a fiction. Everyone within their horizon looked out for which of them was wealthier in order to attract him to the curia. Under the emperors after Constantine, the delicate distinctions between cives and incola, munera and honores, were de facto destroyed, and all persons of wealth came to be regarded as curiales. All curial responsibilities fell on them. Since it was essential to keep the lists of curiales in full order, in order to attract them to the curiae, they began to lower the civil age of majority from 25 to 18 years. They began to ensure that no one, by right of birth, could refuse curial duties. And only praefecti praetorio were freed in the person of their descendants from curial duties, and namely, in the person of those children who were born from fathers already illustres. But since it was not easy to rise to the rank of illustres and since the marriages were early, the praetor’s children in most cases had to perform curial duties in the city to which they belonged either by origo or by domicilium. To obtain the privilege, one had to either petition the emperor or enlist in the militia. All citizens were divided into: a) curiales, b) possessores and c) negotiatores. The latter had to pay a production duty - χρυσάργυρον. This “gold and silver” tax, collected from all kinds of property, was introduced by Constantine the Great and abolished by Anastasius. As some historians later joked, neither donkeys nor dogs were exempt from it. Some shoemaker, shaking an awl, called all the gods to witness that he had nothing but an awl; however, even for his insignificant awl he had to pay χρυσάργυρον. Traders and artisans during the brilliant state of the cities were not attracted to munera personalia. The classical view was that whoever was born free should not place himself on an equal footing with the unfree. Therefore, a cives romanus could cultivate the land for himself, but if he developed trade on an enormous scale, he was considered deprived of his honor and had no right to civil honors, since in this case he worked on the orders of others. Naturally, the emperors of this era demanded χρυσάργυρον from artisans. The following were exempted from χρυσάργυρον: asiarchs (chiefs of provinces), gymnasiarchs, doctors and teachers of rhetoric and philosophy, the so-called professores. They were not subject to munera personalia, for they were considered to bear them in their service. The munus of the high priest was accompanied even by a modest financial position, which is why this person was not considered obliged to bear other munera. Roman law in its provisions defines the conditions, obligations and the possibility of exemption from municipal duties for Roman freeborn citizens. Since these privileges extended not only to persons such as senators, but also to those who bore certain public duties (munera), the Christian clergy were also included here, especially since Christian worship itself, performed by the clergy, is called public service (θεία λειτουργία); and since the Latin or Roman munera in Greek was used in the sense of public service, then λειτουργία is nothing more than munera. It was all the easier to give privileges to the Christian clergy because the pagan priests were exempt from municipal duties. Thus, in 313 and even as early as 312, these privileges were acquired by the Christian clergy. And since Constantine the Great considered the clergy to be the unifying principle in Christianity, these privileges were not extended to sectarians. Therefore, people appeared dissatisfied and envious of the Christian clergy. First of all, the pagans were dissatisfied, then the sectarians (for example, the Donatists, who made up almost half the population in Africa), who, through their influence on the city curiae, sought to ensure that the privileges given to the Christian clergy were not recognized. Therefore, the immunity of 313 was actually poorly implemented. – In the same year 313, the Christian clergy was freed from munera nominationis and from munera patrimonialia. A Christian cleric, for example, could no longer be a tax collector. Further confirmations were made [319, 343, 353, 402] and clarifications. The immunity of 313 was declared complete, that is, clergy were freed from all civil munera, meaning by clerics everyone without exception, down to the readers and subdeacons [330], and their rights extended to their descendants and wives [354]. The second type of duties included munera patrimonialia, that is, duties imposed on property. The clergy was released in the same year 313 from these duties, but not entirely. These munera were divided into two groups; The first included the so-called munera sordida - property duties for a certain class of people. In 318, there were up to 14 categories of such duties, such as: provision of provisions for passing troops, grinding grain, baking bread, building and repairing roads and bridges, delivery of forest materials, delivery of carts, delivery of post horses and horses for transporting goods, contentment of imperial passing ambassadors, participation in public buildings, conscription duties (or setting up recruits or ransom), etc. All these duties were removed from Christian clergy. But usually the number of these duties either expanded or decreased. The second group included munera extraordinaria, which in known cases also included munera sordida. If the state considered it necessary for itself (for example, in wartime) to attract everyone to one or another munera, then it turned munera sordida into extraordinaria. So, for example, for the Danube coast, an emergency supply of material and provisions for troops, repair of roads, etc. was required when the state was being pushed out from the north by barbarians. Munera extraordinaria also extended to privileged persons. Subsequent emperors themselves established the categories each in their own way. The later order is characteristic: since the construction of buildings, amendment of roads, etc. were considered honorable for every citizen, church property was not free from these duties. The meaning of clergy immunity for the Christian church was important. The position of the persecuted church remains mysterious. How could Christians cope under the pressure of municipal responsibilities? Most likely because those least likely to be subject to municipal duties were elected to the clergy. By issuing immunity, the state apparently wanted the Christian clergy not to be distracted from their official duties by any other duties, and it apparently meant to raise the authority of the clergy. The Christian Church, thanks to immunity, could now spread more successfully and improve faster, since now it was possible to elect to the clergy any Christian who had previously been excluded from municipal duties. But life showed that the emperors did not want to give the clergy such broad privileges. All sovereigns strictly ensured that the curiae carried out their duties regularly, and thus, while giving privileges with one hand, the emperors took them away with the other. The state had the good will (intentio) to relieve the church of curial duties, but for purely financial reasons it could not wish to weaken the powers of the curiae. Already in 320, a decree became known: persons who have an insignificant fortune should be appointed to the clergy; on the contrary, persons with large fortunes should not have been appointed to the clergy, since they had to bear public duties. In 326, the previous decree was repeated and supplemented by Constantine in the sense that the rich should bear the burdens of the age, and the poor could find support in the riches of the church. Therefore, the church had to take poor people as clergy. The Curia apparently wanted to retain wealthy individuals (as decuriones); but in turn, the church also had the right to want not only the poor to enter the clergy, especially since not all the poor were worthy of becoming clergy. Therefore, the state had to take into account the interests of both sides: the curia and the church, in order to resolve these tense relations. It was even necessary to pass laws so that those persons who had previously been appointed to church positions would return to the curia. In 353, a law was issued by Constantius, according to which all persons belonging to the clergy were exempted from public (munera sordida) duties. In 361, Constantius decreed that only bishops, no matter what property they had, should be free from curial duties. Starting from the presbyters to the lower clergy, the clergy could freely dispose of their property, if only they were elected to clergy positions at the request of the people and with the consent of the curia. If it turns out that some of the clergy do not have the permission of the curia and join the clergy on their own machinations, then they are free from curial duties only if they transfer 2/3 of their property to relatives, who must enter the curia on their behalf. If they have no relatives, then 2/3 of their fortune becomes the property of the curia. But the law must take into account this kind of abuse: some could transfer their property into someone else's name. In this case, the law provided that if there were such abuses, then the relatives of these clerics had the right to take the property artificially hidden and enter the curia, and if there were no relatives, then the curia had the right to take it into its own property. In general, the essence of the law boils down to the fact that 2/3 of the property, in any case, must be transferred to the curia in order to be able to free itself from it. But this provision was not applied in practice for long. In 364, it was decreed that all property should be transferred to the curia if anyone wanted to be freed from it. Thus, we see a whole range of immunity limitations. In parallel with this restriction, the law developed other provisions. Back in the law of 320 it was said that in the future the church could only accept clergy in the places of the dead. Thus, states had already been established, and it was absolutely necessary to establish them. Thus, in one of the short stories of Justinian I (from 353), the number of clergy at the Great (Sophia) Church in Constantinople and the three closest churches “attached to it” is indicated: 60 presbyters, 100 deacons, 40 deaconesses, 90 subdeacons, 110 readers and 25 singers, a total of 425 persons, and plus 100 gatekeepers. If the need for church splendor could assume such wide dimensions, then the restriction issued by the state is quite understandable: to admit into the clergy only in the places of the dead. But here lies the source of misunderstandings between the state and the bishops, for the church, rising to the height of its calling, as the number of its members increased, had to increase the number of clergy, and therefore the states could not be approved once and for all, and the state had to leave the decision of this issue to the bishops themselves and only see that there were no abuses. That the fears of the state authorities in this direction were not unfounded is clear, for example, from the fact that Basil the Great moved towards this. He gave instructions to the chorebishops that he would not tolerate any abuse in expanding the staff of clergy, and this order, caused by the fact that the elders in the Cappadocian Church arrogated to themselves the right to enroll in lower clergy positions, he motivated by the fact that they were choosing unworthy persons, as well as those who, through appointment, wanted to free themselves from the curia. In 398, a decree was issued that read: “If there is a need to fill clergy positions, then bishops are pleased to take not from the curials, but from the monks.” And in the next year 399, a new decree appeared: “Lower clerics - readers, singers, etc., despite complete renunciation of property, should not consider themselves free from curial duties.” Ambrose of Mediola complained that he could not justify this order to his fellow bishops: how to allow that, after 30 years in the clergy, a person suddenly returned to the curia and was subjected to the burdens that then fell on the curials. The laws developed further: in 439 it was forbidden for curials to enter the clergy; in 452 this law was confirmed; and in 458 all persons from the clergy, up to the degree of deacon, who came from the curials, had to return to the curia. These privileges of the clergy created a new order of things, according to which persons not free from public duties sought to join the clergy in order to be freed from duties, and were often people completely unprepared for the clergy. Suffice it to remember that John Chrysostom had to depose 6 bishops, for they received episcopal installations from Antoninus, Metropolitan of Ephesus, for a large sum. During the investigation of this case, all its details became known. The bishops did not confess for a long time, but in the end they declared: “δεδώκαμεν” (“gave”), just to be freed from the curia, asking, if it is impossible to leave them in the episcopal rank, at least not to hand them over to the curia. St. John Chrysostom deprived them of their episcopal rank, allowing them to receive back their bribes from Antonin's property, and he himself promised to intercede for them with the emperor so that they would not be returned to the curia. Thus, the soil of privilege was not always comfortable, and thorns and thistles grew on it. But despite such cases, it is impossible to present the whole matter as black. It was just abuse. If the church considered immunitates painful, it could refuse them, but it recognized, not refused. If the morality of the clergy, who bribe their way into the clergy just to save themselves from the curia, is unsightly, then vice versa, because the curials were not always distinguished by high morality, as shown, for example, by the plan of the curials - to involve bishops, even those who did not have a property qualification, for duties, simply because they were honoratiores. Protecting their interests, the curials did a lot of evil for the church. During the elections they behaved in direct dishonesty: they directed the choice to persons who did not belong to the local curia, so that their own curia would not lose efficient and wealthy members. But the state then decided that the choice for the clergy should be from local residents - laymen, so as not to take away decurions from neighboring curiae. With regard to real estate belonging to the churches, since the system of Roman finance was based on property tax, it was difficult to grant anyone freedom from property tax, tributum. “Agri ecclesiae solvunt tributum” 32, said St. Ambrose. Thus, the church always paid taxes, and if in 313-315 a law was passed by which Catholic churches apparently were exempted from tributa, then in fact this law only exempted church buildings as places of worship from tax, and not church-owned immovable property from tax. Church lands always paid ordinary state taxes, and Emperor Constantius in 359 energetically rejected the request of the Ariminian Council to free churches from them. In fact, church lands were only exempted from duties of a different order, from munera, namely sordida. The question of exemption from munera extraordinaria was not easy to reckon with. If church lands were freed from munera extraordinaria, then the state was in a favorable state; a different state of the state required the weakening or abolition of these privileges. In 423, a law was passed which stated that the construction of public roads and bridges should not be considered munera sordida and no person could be free from this duty. The palaces and churches themselves must obey this order. The ancient church did not want to make aristocrats out of clergy. The expression of the Apostle: “we labor to work with our own hands...” (1 Cor. 4:12) she understood, according to the conditions of her historical existence, as a commandment for herself. The collection known as “Statuta ecclesiae antiqua”, in canon 51, says: “A cleric, no matter how learned he is in the Word of God, must acquire his livelihood by some kind of craft (artificium).” This rule had application in the life of clergy even before the 4th century. In the 4th century. They were already paying serious attention to him: Basil the Great appointed presbyters to the parishes who were not particularly gifted and capable, but those who acquired their livelihood through their labor. Taking this situation into account, the state should have provided benefits in this regard as well. Being engaged in crafts and agriculture, the latter could also engage in trade. In 343, Emperor Constantius exempted clerics from taxes in trade and confirmed this privilege in 353. But soon the state came to the idea of ​​making restrictions in this regard. In the east, Emperor Valens completely abolished this privilege in 364. In 399, due to continued abuses, Arkady issued a decree about the same. In the west, Emperor Gratian in 379 issued a law according to which in Italy and Illyricum clergy could trade without taxes in an amount of up to 10 solidi, and in Galia - up to 15 solidi 33. Thus, in Gaul, clergy could carry out trade in the amount of 87 rubles duty-free. with kopecks; In general, this benefit is of a very moderate nature. [Valentinian III in 452 forbade clerics from engaging in trade at all]. Along with these benefits, the state provided the church with benefits in judicial matters. First of all, it is necessary to establish the benefits of the spiritual as defendants or as defendants. In this regard, the novella of Emperor Valentinian III, 440, which was in force, however, did not last long, is extremely characteristic. It was written undoubtedly under the influence of a clergyman who defended his interests; it was not included in the Codex Theodosianus and was canceled in 448. This novella shows what kind of litigation could be directed against the church. Here benefits were provided to: priests (sacerdotibus), second priests (sacerdotibus secundis) and Levites. These names of the ranks of the hierarchy, as we see, retain the Old Testament terminology, according to the meaning of which the bishop is called the first priest, and the priest is called the second (secundus), while the deacons are called Levites. The novella of Valentinian decreed the following: if someone wants to sue either the church or the clergy, and if the accuser is an independent person, then he is allowed to sue only on the condition that he deliver 100 pounds of gold and 100 pounds of silver to the pledge. Taking into account that 1 pound of gold is equal to 72 solids, and a solid is equal to 5 rubles. 81 1/4 kopecks, we get 418 rubles for one pound of gold. 50 kopecks, and a pound of silver = 5 solidi or 29 rubles. 6 1/4 kop. Thus, the wealthy prosecutor had to pay a bail of 44,756 rubles. This deposit went to the fiscus if the accuser lost the case. And if the accuser was an insolvent person, then, if the case was lost, his property was taken away in favor of the curia and he himself was shackled. Further, Roman judicial practice knew such a situation in civil suits. If the plaintiff or defendant was a high-ranking person, then he had to conduct the case through a special attorney called a procurator. This was motivated by the fact that the presence of a senior government official put the judge in an awkward position. The judge occupied the lowest place in the table of ranks and therefore could not leave the dignitary standing as a plaintiff or defendant: at least he had to seat him next to him. But in criminal cases, the accuser and the accused, whoever he was, had to appear in court persona sua. An exception was made only in relation to bishops. The latter in well-known criminal trials were given the right to conduct the case per procuratores. Regarding clergy as witnesses in court, the law categorically stated: the bishop should not be allowed ad testimonium dicendum (to appear as a witness) in court. Since this was not a restriction, but a privilege for clergy, “should not” (non debet) should be understood in the sense of “not obliged.” “Elders, by the same rule, will give testimony without the insult of interrogation (sine injuria questionis),” that is, they should not be subject to torture; deacons were not exempt from torture. One of the beneficial laws was issued in 355, but it was very broad and did not last long. In any case, Roman legislation consistently enforced the requirement that criminal cases and their analysis belong to the state, however, there was an exception for bishops. Constantius, in the law he issued, prohibits accusing bishops at trials, since here the most vile speculation on the part of the accusers was possible. If the accuser lost the case, then he was declared a slanderer, and the law subjected him to punishment. But in such a case, the accuser did not risk anything: even if he lost the case, he could hope that the bishop, as a representative of the religion of mercy, would forgive his slander, not wanting to lose his reputation. Thus, it turned out that all sorts of disputes in the fight with the bishop were certain. To eliminate such speculation, Constantius decreed that the trial of the bishop should be carried out only at church councils. But this is only one side of the matter and it is necessary to pay attention to another, no less important. Another app. Paul, having learned with indignation that the Corinthian Christians were deciding to sue the pagan rulers, wrote to them: “Is there really not one reasonable person among you who could judge between his brothers?” (1 Cor. 6:5). The ancient church turned out to be faithful to the call of the apostle: Christians, trying to resolve cases on the basis of Roman law, instead of turning to state judges, turned to arbitration. The binding nature of the verdict of this court was only moral, and in general, according to the law, the arbitrator ruled only arbitrium, and not judicium. It was very difficult to enforce the arbitration court's decision. If the case was conducted in court, then an executio, i.e., a writ of execution, could be obtained very easily. In arbitration, the litigants had to enter into a stipulatio in advance, that is, an agreement on the consequences of the decision, and then, on the basis of this agreement, demand execution of the verdict from the authorities. From time immemorial, Roman society held the view that the decision of an arbitration court was unconditionally sacred. Consequently, once the decision of the arbitration court has taken place, then every judex must stand on the verdict (sententia arbitrii) of this latter, not allowing himself to reconsider the case, whether it is right or not. Thus, the final nature of the arbitration verdict is closely related - there was no need to appeal here: if the plaintiff became the victim of an incorrect decision, then, according to Roman law, he had to blame himself. On the basis of these arbitration verdicts, the Roman state could regulate the rights of bishops as judges. In 321, under Constantine the Great, bishops were given the right to act as arbitrators; their decisions were also considered final and peremptory. This was just a repetition of the general situation. The privilege was that Constantine allowed the case of the civil department to be transferred to the bishop's arbitration court: when both litigants were convinced that their case could be more easily resolved in arbitration, they turned to the bishop's court. One circumstance is extremely important in this case. The forms of the episcopal court were significantly simplified, the rite of settlement was simple, litis denuntiatio (declaration of litigation) was abolished. Formal legal proceedings were a real trap for litigants: as soon as they missed a deadline, the person lost the right to conduct the case. The episcopal court was relatively quick. In 331, Constantine the Great abandoned this ground and provided the bishops with a formal court that competed with the state court. Now a case begun before a civil court could be transferred to the bishop's court at any time, even when the judge was already deliberating about the verdict, and, moreover, if only one of the litigants wished this, and not both, as in 321. The judge was now obliged, upon application by at least one party, to immediately transfer all documents and judicial acts to the bishop for arbitration. The law, which imposed a unique role on the bishop, of course, could not be maintained for long. However, it must be said that if the bishop in the arbitration court was endowed with such competence, then the Roman state, without departing from the general basis of Roman law, was guided by the existing analogy. The Roman government recognized the broad competence of the Jewish patriarch, who had significance even in civil matters. And since the episcopal competence is equal to the competence of the Jewish patriarch, then these two homogeneous phenomena should have ended simultaneously. The imperial law of February 3, 398 abolished the jurisdiction of the Jewish patriarch, and no further than the abolition of the bishop's jurisdiction followed on July 27 of the same year. The bishop is allowed to act as a mediator in civil proceedings, on appeal from both parties, and this law was confirmed in 408, contrary to the law of 331, according to which the bishop was given a trial even in cases where only one party expressed a desire for this. Then, there is also the area of ​​the class court. Bishops dealt with not only church matters, but also civil ones. It was a matter of pure decency to require that clergy turn to the bishop's arbitration court when other persons also turned to it. In fact, the councils insisted on this requirement. Thus, at the Council of Hippon (concilium Hipponense) in 393 and in 397 at Carthage, it was decided that a cleric who turned to a civil court in civil disputes even loses his rank. A similar resolution was passed at the Council of Chalcedon, namely: the clergy must first contact the bishop, who appoints a mediator. If, after a certain period, a mediator was not appointed, the clergy could turn to the civil court. But the state itself did not legislate on the mandatory nature of the episcopal court for clergy until the time of Justinian. Thus, the cleric, by directly addressing the civil court, risked his position; the court always accepted his complaint. What consequences did such legalization have for bishops? It elevated the authority of the bishop in the eyes of society. But voices were soon heard against this kind of privilege. St. Chrysostom says that this privilege constitutes a heavy burden for bishops. They face a lot of work and no small danger. It is difficult to determine which side is right without offending the other person. Therefore, the best bishops were extremely reluctant to take on legal proceedings. Blazh. Augustine carried out these duties only out of selflessness. His tribunal was constantly besieged by many litigants, so that when two councils assigned him difficult theological work, Augustine entered into a formal agreement with the flock so that he would be given 5 days free per week. The agreement was even written down on paper. Despite this, he, according to him, was distracted from the case both before and after noon. The result was irritation of the injured party. The bishop was not forgiven for the peremptory nature of his sentence. But all these dark sides could not weaken the beneficial power of this law. The number of lawsuits only speaks of the imperfection of Christian society. This was a good way for the bishop to get to know his flock and have a varied influence on it. Despite all the burdensome processes, there was an outcome for the bishop. He was not always required to deal with complaints personally. He could appoint an authorized person for the preliminary investigation and, based on his report, decide his sentence. It was a palliative, and a palliative whose logic is not entirely indisputable. (I trust the bishop himself, but the impartiality of his commissioner is x for me). Bishop Silvanus of Troas entrusted the investigation to clergy. But when he found out that they were taking bribes, he began to entrust it to a pious and honest layman, and he was approved for this. But the desire to appeal to the bishop's court shows that this measure was appropriate. Roman legal proceedings were terribly confused by many formalities, which not only ordinary people, but also bad, ignorant and frivolous lawyers could not understand. This led to the fact that the right side often lost the process due to the fault of its attorneys. In contrast to the civil court, the episcopal court, in which formalities were reduced to a minimum, was a real blessing for the people, and the fact that the party against whom the verdict was made was always dissatisfied is an understandable psychological phenomenon. 4. Right of application and right of asylum One of the very important privileges created by the changed relationship of the church to the state was the custom of intercession (intercessio) of bishops for their flock before the secular authorities. This practice is deeply rooted in moral rather than legal principles. Bishops assumed the role of intercessor as any respected person could do. But in any case, already in ancient Roman practice the ground was prepared for this: the priests and especially the Vestal Virgins used the right to intercede. From practice, this right passed into legislation: in 398, the clergy and monks were forbidden to remove a criminal from the hands of justice, but were allowed to legally intervene in his favor. The applications of this right were frequent and varied: they interceded for the colones before their cruel landowner (like Augustine), before the sovereign for his subjects. The most famous case of this kind is the petition of the Antiochian bishop Flavian to Theodosius (in 387), when during the uprising the statues of the emperor and empress were broken. After the explosion of passions, the reaction was terrible: the people fell into despair, they feared the worst - even orders for general beatings. They rushed to Flavian. The elderly, sick bishop went as quickly as possible to Constantinople. “I come to you - as a messenger of our common Lord - to place these words on your hearts: if you forgive men their sins, your heavenly Father will also forgive you (Matthew 6:14).” And then he pointed out to the emperor the significance of the upcoming Easter holiday. The emperor was touched, forgave the perpetrators and ordered them to rush to the city and reassure their flock on the great holiday with the news that everything that had happened had been forgotten. There is news of petitions from bishops (Basily the Great), caused by injustices that were quite common at that time in the collection or distribution of taxes. 6 letters have survived in which Theodoret petitions various high officials, even Augustus Pulcheria herself, regarding similar injustice in the distribution of taxes. The custom of intercession endowed the bishops with the right of a certain kind of supervision over the civil officials of the provinces. Law 409 semi-officially assigned bishops the duty of reminding judges of the humane treatment of prisoners. Finally, Justinian in 529 instructed the bishops to go around the dungeons on Wednesdays and Fridays and question the prisoners and report to the higher authorities about the observed injustices. Thus, the initiative in the petition could come from the bishops themselves. More often it was caused by an appeal to them through the persecuted themselves. On this side, jus intercessionis stands in close connection with jus asyli. Some pagan temples and altars, as well as busts of the emperor, were considered an inviolable refuge for various criminals. This view also extended to Christian churches. Actually, antiquity did not know such a right; it is known that it did not exist in Greece. In Rome, during the imperial period, when protection was sought not from the gods, but from the emperors, one could run to the church of the deified Caesar and escape from his statue. This order was formally recognized under Antoninus; a slave who fled from the cruelty of his master to the statue of the emperor must be sold into other hands. This privilege was extended to Christian churches. Bishops could ask for those who resorted to the protection of the church; The holy “impression” of the church protected slaves and debtors from persecution. This right was formally transferred to the square in front of the church, and to the fence around it, and even to the dwellings of the clergy; in the Western church, the space of 50 steps around the church also enjoyed the right of refuge; under Justinian it was even recognized that a person walking near a cleric could not be taken by force without the permission of the cleric. Abuses developed on the basis of these privileges, and the state consciously began to act in favor of abolishing them; [at the Council of Serdica there is no talk of jus asyli], but the bishops were ordered not to refuse assistance to the fugitive and to try to alleviate his fate. In 392, an imperial decree was decided to limit the privileges of refuge for state debtors who fled under the protection of the church, to take them by force if the bishops did not pay the debt either from the church treasury or from their own funds. In 398, jus asyli was decisively destroyed for those who think that those who fled to the church could be released from their duties towards the state or towards private individuals. The history of previous and subsequent times presents us with cases of struggle between bishops and civil authorities over the right of asylum: Basil the Great’s staunch defense against the vicar of the province of Pontus of a widow who had resorted to the Caesarian church is known. Victory in this case remained with the bishop. On the other hand, Sinesius, Bishop of Ptolemais, pronounces an anathema against the cruel governor Andronicus, who did not want to know any such rights and directly stated that no one would leave his hands, even if he hugged the feet of Christ himself. What contributed to the special moral triumph of the church in this matter was the fact that the turbulent circumstances of the time forced even the most bitter opponents of this right to resort to the patronage of the church. Thus, in 399, the same eunuch Eutropius, who procured the law against asylums in 398, had to seek salvation in the church from the rage of the rebellious Gothic cohorts. Chrysostom then said his famous word: “It is always, and especially now, timely to say: vanity of vanities and all is vanity!” and, as far as it depended on him, he defended the overthrown dignitary. In the same way, Andronicus was forced to seek salvation in the church, and Sinesius gave him patronage. The right of asylum was legally recognized for the church only under Theodosius II (431) - with the restriction that those who fled to the church and its buildings should leave their weapons. The following year, a new law was issued regarding slaves who fled to the church: the bishop had to enter into negotiations on the same day, and the master had to forgive the slave's guilt. The right of petition and asylum could give rise to various types of abuse. Those bishops in whom the consciousness of the greatness of their social position prevailed over the understanding of their church calling found in these privileges a convenient means of making representatives of the state feel their political significance, were ready to interfere in civil proceedings with or without any right, and considered it necessary to provide protection to all persecuted people. at least not for the sake of truth. There was, for example, a case where one oathbreaker ran into the church. The state dignitary drew the bishop's attention to this and asked him to deny him asylum. The culprit himself voluntarily left the church, so the object for patronage no longer existed. However, the bishop considered it necessary to defend the allegedly violated rights of the church and pronounced excommunication against the dignitary and his entire family. Another unfavorable side of these privileges is that they directed the attention of the people, always inclined to look at the external, [to the external advantages of the bishop] and sometimes forced them during elections to forget about the true appointment of the bishop. They began to look not at who is distinguished by a moral life and a high understanding of Christianity, but at what connections the elected one has, what his social position is. Already Gregory the Theologian complains about this distortion of concepts. “They are looking not for priests, but for rhetoricians, not for pure priests, but for strong representatives.” It is known that these side motives most strongly contributed to the election of Synesius as bishop of Ptolemais. In 460, one church in Galia did not want to elect one monk as a bishop because, unaccustomed to dealing with the powerful of the world, he would be a good representative before the heavenly Judge of souls, but too poor a defense in worldly affairs. But if anywhere, then precisely in relation to the right of petition and asylum, usum non tollit abusus (abuse has not become customary). Cases of abuse were rare. And the timeliness of these laws is recognized by everyone. In the turbulent era of migration of peoples, the destruction of the political system, popular unrest and oppressive social relations, the church remained the only generally recognized shrine and the only unshaken authority: only the power of the bishop could stand between the persecuted dignitary and the brute force of the raging mob, between the slave and the ferocious master, sometimes angry without any significant reason. Even the German barbarians, who mercilessly destroyed Rome, stopped in front of the shrine of the churches, despite the fact that the winners were Arians and the vanquished Orthodox. And for the church itself, these previously unknown rights greatly facilitated the achievement of its beneficial and peaceful goals: that evil, which the shepherds of the unrecognized and persecuted church were unable to counteract, was now easily eliminated by the direct and immediate intervention in the worldly affairs of the bishops of the state church. 5. Other less important laws in favor of the church Other laws aimed at the interests of the church, but not so important in their significance, include, first of all, the edict of Constantine in 321 on the observance of the sanctity of Sunday, repeated and expanded by his successors. According to Constantine, on this day all kinds of crafts were suspended, except agriculture; legal proceedings were terminated; there were no military exercises; subsequently theaters were banned. It was only allowed to set slaves free. Constantine assimilated to the church the privilege that a slave manumitted in the church assembly enjoyed freedom, as if he had been manumitted before a praetor. The right of the church to free slaves cannot be understood in such a way that bishops could order masters to free their slaves: the church recognized slavery as a fact, as a legal institution, and therefore did not fight against it; the only thing is that the absolution itself was surrounded by such formalities that made the act itself valid only with the participation and mediation of the church. Namely: since the time of Constantine, liberation could only be accomplished either by a spiritual will, or by an act drawn up before the bishop. Until that time, it was performed before the praetor, which was the order that existed before the imperial period. Since now the liberation before the praetor did not take place, the liberation took place per epistolam, per mensam, per amicos, i.e. the man who freed the slave gave a private letter, called the man freed to the table where he sat with his friends, and gave him freedom. But such a slave, although he became free, did not enjoy civil freedom, that is, he was not recognized by the government and could not leave spiritual wills. Meanwhile, a slave freed before the bishop became a full citizen. This right was approved by three edicts - the first was not preserved, the second was issued in 316, the third in 321. The two surviving edicts say that freeing a slave is a godly deed and should be done on the so-called feriae - holidays, days free from work. Next, we can note the law on marriage law. Now the law issued in imperial times against celibacy is losing its meaning. It was abolished in the interests of Christian ascetics (320). But in this regard, the influence of the church on legislation was weak. The Roman government kept marriage laws intact. Basil the Great states the fact of disagreement between state and church regulations on marriage (21 rules). Rome punished only the adulterer, but left unpunished the adulterer, who was no less guilty according to Christian ethics. The Church recognized marriage between slaves as valid; but the state provided slaves only with contubernium. And the church had to put up with this and deny the slaves weddings. For a very long time, church weddings were not recognized as mandatory by the state. It was only in 893 that Leo the Philosopher issued a law making church weddings mandatory for everyone; however, slaves were still excluded, and only at the end of the 11th century. They were allowed to marry, so from that time on the sacrament of marriage became mandatory. In many respects, the Roman state, under the influence of the church, abandoned the previous pagan way of activity and was imbued with other vital Christian principles. Thus, thanks to the efforts of the church pastors, the state abolished gladiatorial fights in 325. In 315, the branding of criminals was prohibited and the execution on the cross was abolished (which, however, it should be noted, continued even after 404). In 315, it was forbidden to throw children away, as had been the practice until that time, and funds were given to raise their parents, who were obviously poor. In general, the privileges acquired by the church could in themselves only have a beneficial effect on the development of church life; they could not disturb its currents simply because most of them only sanctioned the existing relations of the church. The abuses of new rights, no matter how significant their influence, did not depend on their very spirit; their root and cause lay in the very composition of Christian society, in the shortcomings of its members. Thus, the actual consequences of the union of church and state were, on the one hand, a certain dependence of church representatives on state representatives, and on the other, the generally recognized high position of the church in civil society. The first of these consequences had a heavy impact on the development of church life. This area presents more abuse than the last one. But both there and here, what was unfavorable in the new relations came not so much from the state as from the church. The latter, both in its representatives and in its members, turned out to be less prepared for this new union, reacting to the state with less energy and correctness than could have been expected, bearing in mind its three-century heroic existence under the most unfavorable external circumstances. Feona's letter to Lucian, first published by d'Achery in 1675, is now considered a forgery. Wed. A. Harnack, Der gefälschte Brief des Bischofs Theonas an Lucian, in Texte u. Untersuchungen, XXXV, 3 (1903). (A.B.). Cp. Th. Brieger, Constantin der Grosse als Religionspolitiker. Gotha 1880. J. Burckhardt, Die Zeit Constantin's des Grossen. Leipzig 1880 (abstracts about these books by V.V. Bolotov in Christian Readings 1881, II, 523–527, 527–533). Other literature about Constantine the Great is listed, for example, in Hauck’s Realencyklopädie für protest. Theologie und Kirche V. X. [1901], 757–758 (V. Schultze, Artik. “Konstantin der Grosse”), In Russian cf. A. Spassky, Conversion of Emperor Constantine the Great to Christianity, in Theological Bulletin 1904, December, and 1905, January (and separately). (A.B.). Wed. V.V. Bolotov. Review of the essay by Prof. A. I. Sadova “Ancient Christian church writer Lactantius (1895)”, in the Journals of the Council of St. Petersburg. spirit. Academy for 1895/6, pp. 142–143 (department reprint 46–47). (A.B.) One detail is interesting. Previously, Maxentius managed to defeat Augustus Severus. At that time, the governor general of Rome (praefectus urbis Romae) was a certain Annius Anulinus. The superstitious Maxentius, before setting out on a campaign against Constantine, appointed a certain Annius as prefect of the city of Rome, believing that this would benefit his success. This word belongs to the Basques, inhabitants of the Pyrenees, but is not Greek or Latin. It could also be used in Gaul, due to its proximity and proximity. Its literal meaning is probably “banner.” Wed. A. Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten. 2 Aufl. V. II. Leipzig 1906, S. 276–287 (A. B.). It is known that the Roman modium is equal to 8 3/4 French. liter, so our tetrad is equal to 3 modiums, and a modium contains 40 quinics: a quinic is 1/40 of a modium. If we move from the time of Constantine the Great to the beginning of our era, we will get the most successful comparisons. The role of the chinik in the life of a slave was so characteristic that the Corinthians were called χοινικομέτραι. They had many slaves (15 slaves per free man), and they measured out khiniki to them all day long. The following passages from the New Testament should be compared here: Rev.6:6; Matthew 20:2, 13, 14; Luke 10:35. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, it is clear that in Palestine 2 denarii amounted to a decent amount: a Samaritan, leaving a sick man in the care of an innkeeper, considers it quite sufficient to pay 2 denarii for all this. From the parable of the workers in the vineyard, it follows that one denarius was considered a generous wage for a day laborer. The Apocalypse, describing the coming disaster, says that one hinik of wheat and 3 hinik of barley will be sold for a denarius. Thus, receiving one denarius a day, the day laborer spent it all, and if he did not work for a day, he was forced to starve. In Rome, a modium cost one denarius, so that a worker, going to a good employer, could, in the time of Christ the Savior, earn 8 days worth of wheat in one day. This suggests that in Rome the lower class also enjoyed economic prosperity. Wed. in a note by V.V. Bolotov, published in “Additions to the Church. Vedomosti” for 1906, section entitled “Dioceses in the Ancient Church”. No. 3, p. 99–105. (A.B.) Wed. V.V. Bolotov, Stories of Dioscorus about the Council of Chalcedon. Christ. Thurs. 1885.1, 32–33 (div. ot. 69–70). Michaelmas. Christ. Thurs. 1892, II, 626–627 (div. ot. 38–39). (A.B.). In our literature, strange views are expressed that Athanasius was accused of performing divine services in an unconsecrated church, but he himself allegedly does not dispute the fact that he acted wrongly and seems to apologize. This presentation of the case is naive. Afanasy does not make excuses for this. The concept of the church was completely real. Since the people were together with their bishop, no one could accuse him of parasynagogue. And if the people did not doubt the identity of their bishop, then the bishop had the right to perform divine services in an unconsecrated church. After all, our antimensions only certify that the bishop allowed worship to be performed in a given church. Let us remember that the martyr Lucian of Antioch, before his martyrdom, did not hesitate to celebrate the Eucharist on his chest. He lay exhausted from torture in prison and celebrated the Eucharist on his chest. When Theodoret of Cyrus visited one ascetic in retreat, he asked him what pleasure he could give him. The ascetic told the bishop his sorrow that he, a wonderful singer, had not seen divine services performed for many years. Theodoret demanded sacred vessels from a neighboring church, forced the deacons to hold them in their hands here too, and performed the service. Therefore, no one could blame Athanasius for performing divine services in an unconsecrated church. It should be noted that the question: when and how the great emperor turned to Christianity is debatable in church historical science. For example, F.A. Kurganov believes that this conversion occurred quickly and decisively; the main point was the aforementioned miracle that appeared to Constantine, for “from that time on he irrevocably took the side of the Christians, became a convinced Christian.” See F.A. Kurganov, Emperor Constantine the Great, saint, equal to the apostles. Kazan, 1918, p. 164–165. On the contrary, A. Spassky expresses the opinion that Constantine’s conversion was a very long process and his attitude towards Christianity until 323 “did not go beyond utilitarian-practical interests.” See A. Spassky, Conversion of Emperor Constantine the Great to Christianity. Dept. reprint from the Theological Messenger. Sergiev Posad, 1904, p. 61. In Western historiography there is also no consensus of opinion on this matter. Thus, G. Kraft adheres to the point of view of A. Spassky, believing that the process of spiritual revolution in the soul of Constantine proceeded throughout his entire reign. See N. Kraft, Raiser Konstantins religiöse Entwicklung. Tübingen, 1955, S. 24. A. Alföldi, while agreeing that Constantine’s conversion was preceded by a long preparatory stage, at the same time argues that the said miracle was a decisive turning point in his spiritual evolution. However, as this scientist notes, the emperor’s Christianity was covered for a long time by the “darkness of superstition” that dominated his era. See A. Alföldi, The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome. Oxford, 1948, p. 14–15, 23. (A.C.). Cp. V.V. Bolotov, Review of the prize awarded by the Educational Committee at the Holy Synod to Rev. Metropolitan Macarius in 1886 in the essay by V. Kiparisov: “On freedom of conscience. Experience in researching the issue in the field of history of church and state from the 1st to the 9th centuries. Vol. I. M. 1883". Christ. Reading, 1886, II, 265–301. (A.B.). It is not without interest that in 347 Donatus refused to accept a gift from the emperor’s commissioners, remarking: “What does the emperor have to do with the church?” And in the 5th century. Petilian, the Donatist bishop, very strongly defended freedom of conscience against Augustine. Wed. interpretation of this phrase by F.A. Kurganov: with these words, the emperor “showed that bishops have the right and are obliged to resolve issues relating to doctrine, sacraments, rituals, hierarchy and principles of church governance, in general, everything that follows from the principles of the Christian religion, is determined by the Word of God, understood according to the mind of the Church, and has an internal, logically determined relationship to faith; and the emperor, in contrast to this, accepts the definitions of the Church as given, and takes care of their external application to life among his subjects.” Thus, Constantine recognized himself as the organizer of an external, state order within the meaning of church definitions, in which the Christian Church, the custodian of divine truth, could calmly and freely organize itself and more effectively influence its members.” F. A. Kurganov, Emperor Constantine the Great. (Speech delivered on the occasion of the celebration of the 1600th anniversary of Constantine on September 14, 1913). Kazan, 1913, p. 39. (A.S.) . Pointing to the significance of the case of Constantine the Great, A.I. Brilliantov says: “A proper assessment of the historical significance of the union of Church and state can only be given when its consequences are taken in full, and only some sides are not put forward. And if in this case there are far from bright memories from the history of the past, the sum of the positive consequences that this union had as their source is, on the whole, so great that even those who are most inclined to point out the dark sides here cannot deny its greater or lesser positive significance in the past.” At the same time, A.I. Brilliantov also notes: “The fact that the state power took the side of the Christian religion should have accelerated the transition of the pagan population of the empire to Christianity, regardless of any repressions against paganism. Naturally, at the same time, the internal Christianization of a previously pagan society, both in its higher and lower strata, turned out to be far from corresponding to the external visible successes of Christianity. The inevitable, under such conditions, decline in the religious and moral level of the entire mass of believers, taken as a whole, and the presence in the church of persons with a semi-pagan way of thinking and the same morals, turned out, of course, to be a negative phenomenon if we compare this state of affairs with the general level of church life of previous times. But it must be borne in mind that the widespread spread of the influence of Christianity was in itself a blessing in itself, even if it had not yet managed to immediately penetrate into the depths of the consciousness of the masses. The task of the Church was to educate them in the Christian spirit, to develop its internal mission; the state was ready to assist her in fulfilling this task by means depending on it.” A.I. Brilliantov, Emperor Constantine the Great and the Edict of Milan in 313. Petrograd, 1916, p. 194. (A.S.) . It is necessary to note the difficulty in understanding the word “superstitio” in the surviving legislative acts of the sons of Constantine. It can sometimes be difficult to determine whether they are aimed only at extreme forms of pagan cult (blood sacrifices, witchcraft, etc.) or against paganism in general. See Histoire de ľÉglise depuis les origines jusqu’à nos jours. Publiée sous la direction de A. Fliche et V. Martin, t. 3: De la paix constantinienne à la mort de Théodose, Paris, 1937, p. 177. (A.C). “Purity and virginity” (lat.). The Russian translation omits the phrase: “The layman will reason, and the bishop will listen: the bishop will be taught by the layman.” (A.S.) Ambros, epist. 21 Valentiniano ang. (seript. a. D. 386). (Migne, Patr. lat. t. 16, pp. 1003–1007); n. 4. Quando audisti, clementissime imperator, in causa fidei laicos de episcopo judicasse? Ita ergo quadam adulatione curvamur, ut sacerdotalis juris simus immemores. et quod Deus donavit mihi, hoc ipse aliis putem esse credendum? Si docendus est episcopus a laico, quid sequetur? Laicus ergo disputet, et episcopus audiat: episcopus discat a laico. Quis est qui abnuat in causa fidei, in causa, inquam, fidei, episcopos solere de imperatoribus christianis, non imperatores de episcopis judicare? n. 5. Eris, Deo favente, etiam senectutis maturitate provectior, et tunc de hoc censebis, quails ille episcopus sit, qui laicis jus sacerdotale substernit. Pater tuus, Deo favente, vir maturioris aevi, dicebat: “Non est meum judicare inter episcopos,” tua nunc dicit clementia: “Ego debeo judicare.” Et ille baptizatus in Christo inhabilem se ponderi tanti putabat esse judicii; clementia tua, cui adhuc emerenda baptismatis sacramenta servantur, arrogat de fide judicium, cum fidei ipsius sacramenta non noverit. n. 15. Si tractandum, est, tractare in ecclesia didici: quod majores fecerunt mei. Si conferendum de fide, sacerdotum debet esse collatio, sicut tactum est sub Constantino augustae memoriae principe, qui nullas leges ante praemisit, sed liberum dedit judicium sacerdotibus... n. 16. Si ad synodum provocat Auxentius, ut de fide disputet (licet non sit necesse propter unum tot episcopos fatigari, qui etiam si angelus de coelo (Gal.1:8) esset, race ecclesiarum non deberet praeferri); cum audiero synodum congregari, et ipse non deero. Ambros, epist. 20 Marcellinae sorori. (Migne, Patr. lat. t. 16, pp. 994–1002). n. 19. Mandatur: “Trade basilicam.” Respondeo: “Nec mihi fas est tradere, nec tibi accipere, imperator, expedit. Dornum privati ​​nullo potes jure temerare, domum Dei existimas auferendam?” Allegatur imperatori licere omnia, ipsius esse universa. Respondeo: “Noli te gravare, imperator. ut putes te in ea, quae divina sunt, imperiali (sic) aliquod jus habere. Noli te extollere, sed si vis diutius imperare, esto Deo subditus. Scriptum est: “quae Dei Deo, quae Caesaris Caesari” (Mth.22:21). Ad imperatorem palatia pertinent, ad sacerdotem ecclesiae. Publicorum tibi moenium jus commissum est, non sacrorum.” Iterum dicitur mandasse imperatorem: Debeo et ego unam basilicam habere.” Respondi: “Non tibi licet illam habere. Quid tibi cum adultera? Adultera enim’est quae non est legitimo Christi conjugio copulata.” Sermo contra Auxentium de basilicis tradenblis (leg. post ep. 21 instar appendicis). (Μigne, Patr. lat. t. 16; pp. 1007–1018). n. 5... templo Dei nihil posse decerpere, nec tradere illud, quod custodiendum non tradendum acceperim. Deinde cousulere me etiam imperatoris saluti; quia nec mihi expediret tradere, nec illi accipere; accipiat ergo vocem liberi sacerdotis, si vult sibi esse consultum, recedat a Christi injuria, n. 35. Solvimus quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, et quae sunt Dei Deo (Mth.22:21). Tributum Caesaris est, non negatur; ecclesia Dei est, Caesari utique non debet addici, quia jus Caesaris esse non potest Dei templum, n. 36. Quod cum honorificentia imperatoris dictum nemo potest negare. Quid enim honorificentius, quam ut imperator ecclesiae filius esse dicatur? Quod cum dicitur, sine peccato dicitur, cum gratia dicitur. Imperator enim intra ecclesiam, non supra ecclesiam est; bonus enim imperator quaerit auxilium ecclesiae, non refutat. In the autograph of V.V. Bolotov (PHB, department of manuscripts, f. 88, unit 151, l. 33) a somewhat different text of the Russian translation of the letter and sermon of Ambrose of Milan has been preserved. <epist. n. 19: > “They order me: “Give it to the basil.” I answer: “It is not permissible for me to give it away, and it is not good for you, sir, to take it. You do not have the rights to the house of a private person, and are you thinking of depriving the house of God of these rights?” They notice: the emperor is allowed everything, the whole world is his. I answer: "Please, do not imagine, sir, that you have some kind of imperial right over the divine. Do not be arrogant if you want a reign of many years, but be submissive to God. It is written: 'To Caesar the things that are Caesar's, to God the things that are God'" Matthew 22:21 >. sermo s. Aux. n. 35: > “We render to Caesar what belongs to him, and not to the God of letters. We render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's." Give it to the Caesar. It is not denied. The Church is God’s and cannot be handed over to Caesar; for the right of a sovereign does not extend to the church of God.” epist.: > The palace belongs to the sovereign, the priest belongs to the church. You have been entrusted with authority over public walls, not over churches." Sermo p. Aux. n. 5: > “I received this church in order to keep it, and not in order to give it away. I can't give it to the emperor. letters It is impossible to take anything away from the church of God, and it is impossible to transfer what should be preserved and not transferred>. He must also take care of the salvation of the sovereign. It's not good for him to take it. letters And besides, I care about the good of the emperor: because it is neither useful for me to give, nor for him to accept>. Let him listen to the free voice of the priest, and if he wants good for himself, let him stop offending Christ.” sermo s. Aux. n. 36: > " . What could be more honorable for an emperor than the title “son of the church”? But it’s good if he bears this name without sin, if he bears it with grace. letters Thus it was spoken, and spoken without sin, but with grace>. For the emperor is in the church, and not above the church. A good emperor seeks the help of the church, rather than rejecting it.” epist.: > They say, finally, the emperor said: “But I, too, must have one basilica.” I answered: “It is not fitting for you to have her. Why do you need an adulteress? And a church that is not united by legal union with Christ is an adulteress.” (A.S.). It should be noted that Julian overlooked an essential feature of the Christianity of his time, namely: that it, in the person of such outstanding representatives as St. Athanasius of Alexandria and the Cappadocian fathers, absorbed the best juices of Hellenic culture. In addition, Julian’s “Hellenism” itself was by no means “pure Hellenism,” for his worldview contained a large number of elements borrowed from Eastern religions. See R. Labriolle, La reaction païenne. Etude sur la polemique antichretienne du ler au Vle siècle. Paris, 1942, p. 424–425. Thus, in the personality of Julian, the Church was opposed not so much by Hellenism itself, but by “semi-eastern superstition” (A.S.). Soon afterwards the heretics Paulicians and Athenians (in Phrygia) had to be reckoned with. There were terrible rumors about the sectarians; some believed that they worshiped the devil and their deeds were unclean. When the question of persecuting them was raised, it came to the point that they began to be executed. Theodore the Studite spoke on this matter in a letter to the Bishop of Ephesus, Theophilus. The following words of Theophilus were conveyed to St. Theodore: “I neither advised killing heretics, nor did I advise against it; but even if I had advised killing them, I would have done a better job.” Against this, Theodore argued that such a relationship is contrary to the command of Christ to leave the tares to grow with the wheat until the harvest, so that, by pulling out the tares, the wheat would not be uprooted; and Chrysostom says that heretics should not be persecuted by death. Against the reference to the Old Testament examples of Phinehas and Elijah, St. Theodore objected in the sense that such actions were not consistent with the New Testament spirit. As for the reference to the example of John the Faster, who allegedly advised the execution of heretics, this fact has not been verified; moreover, there the matter was about magic, therefore the civil authorities executed the guilty there for civil lawlessness, but the church did not have the right to do this. “That is why we said to the blessed patriarch (Nicephorus): “the church does not take revenge with the sword,” and to the emperors - the first: “God does not like such a murder,” and to the second: “if consent to execution is required, then first remove our heads.” So, if you have a different Gospel, then good; and if the same, then remember that the shepherds of the church must admonish those who are in error with a word” [er. 155]. Thus, we have views against the persecution of heretics. But the significance of this evidence cannot be exaggerated, because this opinion is not the only one. Theophan the Confessor appears as an opponent of such views. When the Studite opinion triumphed under Emperor Michael, Theophanes said that “the pious emperor wanted to execute heretics, but bad advisers were found. who pretended that they should not be executed; but if they knew heretics, they would also know that they are not capable of converting to faith. The Apostle Peter struck down Ananias for one thought. However, the pious emperor killed quite a few of them.” Secondly, Theodore himself did not express an opinion on punishment [for heretics in general, not the death penalty]. The Holy Father could have brought Chrysostom and other fathers, but the fact is that the fathers opposed both the execution of heretics and execution in general. Thus, the question remained open, because the fathers did not speak clearly. And Chrysostom himself expresses that the Savior only forbade killing heretics, but did not forbid curbing their daring, did not forbid scattering their congregations [homil. 46, al. 47, in Math. XIII, 29]. O. Seeck, Das Toleranzedikt von Mailand, in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, XII, 1891, S. 381–386. Seeck does not renounce his opinion in the Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt. V.I. 3 Aufl. Berlin 1910. S. 498–499 (A. B.). “Let her be an heiress, but as a mother to her sons, that is, as a church to her flock” (lat.). In the autograph of V.V. Bolotov, dating back to the first years of his professorship, it costs 125,000, since the solidus is supposed to be equal to 3 rubles. 75.5 k. and not 5 rub. 81.25 k. (A.B.) . Theophanes, a. D. 324; ἡ δὲ ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ ἐκκλησία ἐλάμβανεν σίτου μοδίους ≠ λς'. 36,000 modians = 1,500 quarters. Julian in Galatia thought of having numerous hospices. ξενοδοχεῖα, in each city and for their maintenance (quite comfortable) he allocated 30,000 modii of wheat (1,250 quarters) and 60,000 sextarii of wine (2,666 buckets). The autograph contains the numbers: 82 1/2 t., 405000, 2160000, 2700000 (A.B.). E. Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des Römischen Reichs bis auf die Zeiten Justinians. I–II. Leipzig 1864. Cp. also J. Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung. I–II. 3. Aufl. Leipzig 1884. III. 2 Aufl. Leipzig (in Handbuch der römischen Alterthümer von J. Marquardt and Th. Mommsen). (A.B.) “Let no one impose obligations beyond what is possible” (lat.). “Church lands pay property tax” (lat.). When making any transfers of Byzantine money, one must take as the norm the Feodosian solidus, which was equal to our 5 rubles. 81 1/4 kop. gold coin