The doctrine of the holiness of the Church and the fight against Montanism

The Lord Jesus Christ came to earth to renew humanity. He called him to endless moral perfection. A person enters this path of moral perfection by renouncing his previous life, changing his entire spiritual appearance (μετανοέω). In this regard, those who have embarked on the path of Christian perfection already become special people, separated from the environment of natural sinful life 1 . In this sense, as we have already seen when presenting the New Testament teaching about the Church, Christians in the New Testament books are called saints (ἅ γιοι). However, moral perfection is not thereby considered obligatory for a Christian in any particular measure; Yes, in the question of moral perfection it is hardly possible to talk about an equal degree of this perfection for everyone. The idea of ​​moral perfection within the confines of earthly life is alien to the sacred writers of the New Testament. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (1 John 1:8). And it is remarkable that the Apostle John speaks these words along with the instruction to walk in the light. Therefore, Christians can be called morally improving. The society of such morally improving people is the closely knit organism of the Church. When presenting the New Testament teaching about the Church, mainly of the Apostle Paul, we saw that the Church appears to be an organism constantly improving in the image of the God-man Christ. The existence of the Church is precisely οἰκοδομἡ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ and καταρτισμὁς τῶν ἁ γίων 2 . Christians gradually achieve moral perfection, become saints in the strict sense, which state in Greek is expressed by the words ἅ γιος 3 or more often - καθαρός. The word καθαρός in the New Testament is precisely used to designate either physically pure objects 4 or moral purity and purity 5 . Although Καθαρός can be called a synonym for ἅ γιος, it must be distinguished from it 6. In the works of church writers of the first two centuries, the name “Holy” is given to the Church primarily before all others, but precisely ἅ για. We find this name in the epistle with the name of Barnabas 7, in the epistles of St. Ignatius 8, in the “Shepherd” of Hermas 9, in Theophilus of Antioch 10, Apollonius 11, in the martyrdom of Polycarp 12 and in many other ancient monuments of church literature 13. What meaning was connected in the church consciousness with the name of the Church “holy”? This question, first of all, should be answered [this way]: the idea of ​​the Church as a society of perfected saints in our current sense of the word has never been connected with this name; such a thought is completely incomprehensible and contradicts many places of Holy Scripture, where a person who has entered the Church is still considered subject to sin, constantly sinning. The entire process of spiritual life, according to the New Testament, is a constant struggle with sin, and in this struggle there is always room for falls and uprisings. The Holy Apostle James writes in his epistle: Confess (ἐξομολογεῖσθε) ... your sins to each other (James 5:16). And St. The Apostle John writes: If we confess (ὁμολογῶμεν) our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive (ἀφῇ) our sins and to cleanse (καθαρίση) us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). Examples of repentance were also given in apostolic times. The Apostle Paul commanded that the Corinthian incestuous man be excommunicated from the Church 14, and then allows him to be accepted again, having sinned so gravely 15. There is also a touching story, found for the first time in Clement of Alexandria, about how St. The Apostle John returned to the path of salvation a young man who had been baptized by him, but in his absence had turned into a robber 16 . This narrative ends with these words: “The Apostle vouched and swore that he would ask for forgiveness from the Savior, begged him, fell on his knees before him and, kissing his right hand as if already cleansed by repentance, carried him away (ἐπανήγαγε) again to the Church. Here, offering frequent prayers for him, leading him into feats of continuous fasting and feeding his thoughts with various touching instructions, John, they say, left him only when he was completely returned (ἐπιστῆσαι) to the Church, and thus set a great example of true repentance, a great proof of rebirth ( παλιγγενεσίας )" 17. Turning to the monuments of ancient church literature, we must first of all note that at first the concept of “holiness” of the Church was not just a concept; no, this concept had the closest connection with the life of the Christian Church. The society was sacred not only in words, but also in life itself. The Church was just Holy. All the moralizing content of ancient Christian monuments is thoroughly imbued with purely ascetic ideas. The ascetic character of the ancient Christian worldview can be seen already when reading “The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles.” In the so-called “Second Epistle of Clement,” the ascetic worldview in the field of morality is justified by a unique dogmatic teaching about the holiness of the Church. “I don’t think you don’t know that the living Church is the Body of Christ... The Church, being spiritual, became manifest in the Flesh of Christ, showing us that if any of us keeps it in the body and does not defile it, we will receive it in the Holy Spirit. After all, the flesh is precisely a symbol (ἀντίτυπον) of the spirit, and therefore no one who defiles the symbol can have participation in the essence. Therefore we say: brothers, keep the flesh in order to receive the Spirit. If we say that the flesh is the Church, and the Spirit is Christ, then the one who insulted the flesh insulted the Church. Such a one will not receive the Spirit, who is Christ." 18 In this very teaching about the holiness of the Church, based on the ancient realistic understanding of the symbol, the author sees the basis of his exhortations to abstinence 19 . The moral teaching of the message itself is strictly ascetic in nature. “Brothers,” the preacher teaches, “having left the dwelling (τῂ ν παροικίαν) of this world, let us do the will of Him who called us and we will not be afraid to come out of this world 20. Know, brothers, that the wandering (ἡἐπιδημία) in this world of this flesh is small and short-lived, but the promise (ἐπαγγελία) of Christ is great and wondrous, and the peace of the future Kingdom and eternal life” 21. Earthly goods must be considered alien and not desired 22. If we want to serve God and mammon, then it is useless (ἀσύμφορον) for us 23. This century and the next are two enemies 24. We cannot be friends of both; we must, having left this one (τούτ ῳ ἀποταξαμένους), live with that one (ἐκείν ῳ χράσθαι). Let us think that it is better to hate what is here (τὰ ἐνθάδε), because it is small, short-lived and perishable, and to love what is beautiful and imperishable 25. The author strongly condemns those who prefer this pleasure to a future promise 26 . Such an ascetic ideal of life 27 was especially consistent with the idea of ​​the holiness of the Church, and it is quite understandable that the doctrine of the Church as Holy was its most common definition. However, the meaning of this teaching should not be exaggerated. The possibility of sins has never been denied to those who belong to the Church, and the same authors who set forth the general ascetic ideal of life also speak of the confession of sins. Thus, in Διδαχή we find the instruction: “In church, confess your sins and do not approach prayer with a bad conscience” 28 . The Eucharist must always be preceded by confession of sins 29 . Clement of Rome, in his letter to the Corinthians, also writes about repentance: “Let us go through all generations and learn that the Lord in each generation (ἐν γενε ᾷ καὶ γενε ᾷ) gave place to repentance to those who wished to turn to Him. Noah preached repentance, and those who listened to him were saved. Jonah announced destruction to the Ninevites; they, having repented of their sins, appeased God with their prayers and received salvation, although they were far from God (ἀλλότριοι τοῦ. Θεοῦ ὂ ντες) 30. The servants of God's grace, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, spoke about repentance; and the Lord of everything Himself spoke of repentance with an oath 31 . So, He decided by His omnipotent will to make all His beloved ones participants in repentance” 32. And Clement calls the Corinthians to repentance 33. St. Ignatius the God-Bearer expresses his conviction: “The Lord forgives all who repent if they return to the unity of God and to the Council of the Bishop. I believe in the grace of Jesus Christ, who will loose all bonds from you." 34 In the letter of Polycarp of Smyrna to the Philippians we find a strict condemnation of the presbyter Valens, who fell into covetousness: “Whoever does not restrain himself from covetousness will be defiled by idolatry and will be counted among the pagans” 35 . However, Polycarp speaks of the possibility of repentance for such sinners: “I grieve greatly, brothers, for Valens and his wife: God grant them true repentance! But be prudent in this and do not consider them enemies, but try to correct them as members of the suffering and lost (sicut passibilia membra et errantia), in order to heal your whole Body” 36. The homily attributed to Clement of Rome also contains a teaching on repentance: “Let us repent while we live on earth. We are clay in the hand of the Artist (τοῦ τεχνίτου). Like a potter, when he makes a vessel and it becomes distorted or falls apart in his hands, he restores it again; when he hastens to put him in a burning furnace, then it will no longer help him - so we, while in this world, will repent with all our hearts of the evil that we have done in the flesh in order to receive salvation from the Lord, while we have the time of repentance, for after our departure from the world we can no longer confess or repent there” 37 . The time of earthly life seems to be a time of repentance; Only after death does the possibility of repentance cease - then people are already pots put in the oven, which are too late to straighten. This monument speaks about repentance several more times 38, and Christians are constantly considered to be improving 39: only a life in the fight against sin and in virtue leads to perfect salvation (εις τέλος σωθῶμεν) 40. It must be remembered that the so-called “Second Epistle of Clement” is a sermon and, therefore, is directed specifically to members of the Church who have already been cleansed of sins in baptism. The evidence we have given about repentance in ancient times is, however, very uncertain. It is quite clear that the question of the ancient penitential discipline in church historical science is an almost insoluble question. This question is revised again and again, new and new views are expressed, which, however, have little evidence for themselves in the sources 41 . Approaching the question not from a historical point of view, but from a dogmatic one, we do not experience such an insurmountable difficulty simply because we can point to a completely understandable fact: the dogmatic teaching about the holiness of the Church has not yet been the subject of discussion. The holiness of the Church was more present in life than in dogmatics, and in life only the ground was prepared for the revelation of the dogmatic teaching about the holiness of the Church. Here we will only note that the data presented, where a member of the Church appears to be a sinner and repentant, gives us reason not to accept without objection the assertion very often found in historical and dogmatic works that from the very beginning the Christian Church thought of itself as a society of saints 42 . This idea is not clearly expressed anywhere in the sources 43 . We have already said that the clarification of the dogmatic teaching about the holiness of the Church was preceded by the holy life of Christians. There was a power that for a long time maintained Christian life at the height of perfection; This was the enthusiasm of the first Christians, which was reflected in the abundance of spiritual talents. The small Christian communities interspersed with the pagan world were under the watchful supervision of their shepherds, and virtue flourished in the fertile soil of common brotherly love. There was much in the very worldview of the ancient Christians that constantly fueled this enthusiasm. Reading the most ancient monuments of Christian literature, we constantly notice how [their] writers are imbued with the expectation of the imminent death of the world 44 . After all, we also find the idea of ​​the imminent end of the world among the New Testament writers 45 . We should also add here the chiliastic tendencies of some writers. The expectation of the imminent end of the world and the advent of the earthly kingdom of Christians, of course, was of great importance for maintaining the ascetic enthusiasm of the ancient Christians. This expectation gave Christians the strength to neglect the blessings of the visible world for the sake of imminent bliss in Christ's Kingdom 46 . But time passed. The world stood still. In vain did Christians raise their gaze to heaven: the coming Judge was not visible in the clouds. The expectation of His imminent Coming lost all tension, and at the same time the ascetic enthusiasm weakened 47. Moreover, great changes have taken place in the position of the Christian Church. She embraced the whole world; People of all social positions joined it. Christians lived in palaces and shacks. Slaves and masters joined the Church. But regarding any society, it can be argued that the larger and more diverse the composition of its members, the less unity there is in it, the lower its overall quality. The same thing was bound to happen to the Church. In the most ancient communities, a strictly ascetic ideal of life was alive, and the holiness of the Church was especially clearly recognized; new elements entering the Christian Church were less and less guided by the ascetic ideal. “Christians by name” became known 48 . Among such Christians, the idea of ​​the holiness of the Church, of course, was belittled. Thus, very early on, two directions emerged in the Church, each of which was guided by its own idea of ​​the holiness of the Church, and in accordance with this idea, outlined a special desired system of church discipline. But these two directions, of course, did not immediately enter into a struggle with each other. At its beginning, this difference of opinion was only an undefined concept of the holiness of the Church, in which a diversity of opinions among different persons was possible. [This is] the position of the dogmatic teaching on the holiness of the Church [set forth] in the “Shepherd” of Hermas, where the idea of ​​the Church in general occupies a central place 49. We will dwell on the analysis of “The Shepherd” in a little more detail. The worldview that we encounter in Hermas’s “Shepherd” is strictly ascetic. The shepherd told Hermas that the servants of God are on a journey. Their city is far from the cities of earth. Therefore, there is no need here on earth to buy estates, build magnificent buildings and unnecessary dwellings. Whoever acquires any things in an earthly city does not think about returning to his fatherland. This is a senseless, double-minded and pitiful person who does not understand that everything earthly is alien and under the power of another. The lord of this city says: either follow my laws, or get out of my area. What, therefore, will you do, [having] your own law in your fatherland? Will you really renounce the law of your country for the sake of your fields or other acquisitions? If you refused and then wished to return to your fatherland, you would not be accepted, but [you would be] expelled from there. So, look, like a stranger on a foreign side, do not prepare for yourself anything more than what you need for life; and be prepared so that when the lord of this city wants to expel you from it because you do not obey his law, you will go out to your fatherland and live according to your law carefree and joyfully 50 . These words need no explanation; they can only be supplemented with one very characteristic place. The woman who appeared to Hermas said to him: “Don’t you think that it is a vicious thing for a righteous person even if a bad desire arises in his heart? This is a sin for him, and a grave one at that; for a man is righteous and thinks what is right” 51. In accordance with this general ascetic ideal of Christian life, “The Shepherd” speaks very often about the holiness of the Church. The tower, in the image of which Hermas saw the Church, was built from shiny square stones 52. Those stones that were directly placed in the building were smooth, and their joints fit well with other stones, and were applied to one another in such a way that their connections could not be noticed 53 . In the structure of the tower, square and white stones were used, which fit well with their joints 54. Stones that were not as perfect, which meant sinful people, were not placed in the tower; they were put aside, and some were cut up and thrown far from the tower 55. There were white and round stones, which, however, did not go into the building 56. These are those who have faith, but also have the riches of this world. They will be pleasing to the Lord only when their riches are cut off 57 . Only perfect stones are taken into the tower building. Thus, when we talk about the Church, Hermas, of all its qualities, especially emphasizes its holiness. But this speech about holiness does not prevent him from being primarily a preacher of repentance 58 . The Shepherd's teaching on repentance is quite remarkable. Hermas saw stones brought from the earth, which were deposited 59. Erm asked the old woman accompanying him: “Who are the stones that were laid aside and placed near the tower?” She tells him: “These are those who have sinned and want to repent; That’s why they were thrown not far from the tower, because they would be fit for the building if they repented. Therefore, those who wish to repent, if they repent, will be firm in the faith, if they repent now that the tower is being built. When the building is completed, they will no longer have a place, but will be rejected: they will only lie near the tower” 60. This clearly speaks of the possibility of repentance for a person who has sinned. Repentance is impossible only after the creation of the Church is completed, that is, when the earthly existence of the Church ends. Elsewhere, the tower-Church building itself appears in a different form. It seems that some of the stones placed in the building were not made light, but remained as they were placed. These stones were ugly in the tower building. These stones were taken out and returned to the place from which they were taken 61. But even after this, just before the end of construction, a stop is made in the building. The Lord of the tower must come and test the building, so that if some stones in it turn out to be unusable, he will replace them 62. Next, this test of the building by the Master is described. The Master tested every stone; He hit each stone three times with a reed he held in his hand. Some stones, after being struck, became black as soot; some are rough; others with cracks; others are short; some are neither black nor white; others are uneven and did not fit other stones; others were covered with many spots. The master ordered all these stones to be taken out of the tower and placed next to it 63. But even after this, the Master gives the “shepherd” the command to cleanse these rejected stones and put into the tower those that can fit in with the others. The shepherd expressed the hope that most of the stones could be corrected and used for the building 64. Indeed, many stones were corrected, and when they were placed in the building, the tower seemed to be made of one stone 65. All this similarity is given this interpretation. “After people came together and became one Body, some of them desecrated themselves and were cast out from the ranks of the righteous, again returned to their previous state and even became worse” 66 . “Whoever knows the Lord must already refrain from evil and do good; and if such people do evil, they will be punished twice and die forever. This is how the Church of God will be cleansed. The Church of God, when it is cleansed and the wicked, the hypocrites, the blasphemers, the double-minded and all those who commit various types of unrighteousness are cast out from it, it will be one Body and one love, and then the Son of God will triumph among them and rejoice, having accepted His people pure” 67. In the quoted words of the “Pastor,” the immaculate state of the Church is imagined only in the future. Then there will be no people in it who practice various types of unrighteousness, and then the people of God will be pure. The earthly Church is a society only improving. For those who fall, repentance is possible. Only the sons of iniquity (οἱ υἱοὶ τῆς ἀνομίας) 68 are completely rejected. For all this, Herm gave thanks to the Lord, “because He, moved by mercy to all who call on His name, sent an Angel of repentance to us who had sinned against Him, and renewed (άνεκαίνισεν) our spirit, and restored life to us, already weakened and having no hope of living” 69. “The Shepherd” thus speaks of the possibility of repentance even for one who, weakened in spirit, has lost hope of living. The speech in the monument being analyzed is figurative: it is difficult to extract certain historical data from it. The shepherd constantly talks about repentance, but is forgiveness possible for every sin? There is no exact answer to this question in The Shepherd, but there is still some data for an answer 70. This is what is said about apostates. “Apostates and traitors (οἰ ἀποστάται καὶ προδόται) of the Church, who in their sins blasphemed the Lord and were ashamed of His name called upon them - they perished to the end (εὶς τέλος ἀπώλοντο) for God" 71. But from what follows it is clear that this destruction is not due to the quality of sin, but to the unrepentance of sinners 72. "None of them repented, and they despised the words of God that you said and which I commanded you (that is, words about repentance); Life retreated from such" 73. For them, repentance is possible if they did not renounce from the heart; “if someone did it from the heart, I don’t know whether such a person can have life” 74. The same can be seen in another place in the Shepherd, where we are talking about the possibility of repentance for the children of Hermas, whom he did not admonish and allowed to become horribly corrupt (ἀφῆκες καταφθαρηναι δεινῶς). The corruption of the house of Hermas is designated as wickedness against God and parents 75. However, it is said that the Lord will heal all the evil that has happened 76. “Do not cease to exhort your children, for I know that if they repent with all their hearts, they will be written in the book of life with the saints.” 77 The forgiveness of even adultery is stated quite clearly. “If a wife, released due to adultery, repents and wishes to return to her husband, then the husband must accept her, otherwise he sins, and even a great sin ἐπισπ ᾷ ται); must accept the sinner and the repentant, but not many times (μὴ ἐπὶ πολύ δέ), for for the servants of God there is only one repentance... 78 Let him who has sinned no longer sin. Regarding his previous sins, there is one who can give healing; for He has power over everything" 79 . Experience showed Hermas that of those who had seriously sinned, rarely anyone was capable of repentance 80, but from the dogmatic side, according to the views of the “Shepherd,” forgiveness is also possible for serious sins, in particular for adultery, which is why at the beginning of the 3rd century, by the way, with reference to the “Shepherd,” the Roman Bishop Callistus confirmed his edict on the forgiveness of carnal sins 81 . However, this condescending view of the author himself is not entirely consistent with the concept of the holiness of the Church. Hermas has such a conversation with the “shepherd.” “Sir, I have heard from some teachers that there is no other repentance except when we go into the water (that is, in baptism) and receive remission of our previous sins.” The shepherd replies: “Rightly (καλῶς) have you heard, for it is so. He who has received remission of sins must sin no more, but live in purity 83... Those who have just believed or will believe do not have repentance for sins, but have remission of their former sins (that is, in baptism). The Lord ordered repentance for those who were called before these days; for He, the knower of the heart, knowing everything in advance, knew the weakness of people and the great malice of the devil, that he would do evil to the servants of God and treacherously over them. Therefore, the merciful Lord took pity on His creation and also ordered repentance, over which power was given to me. So, I tell you that after this great and holy calling, if anyone, having been tempted by the devil, sins, he has only repentance. If he continues (ὑπὸ χεῖρα) to sin and repent, there will be no benefit to such a person: he will have difficulty living (δυσκόλως γὰρ ζήσεται)" 84. We have cited the most characteristic passage from “The Shepherd.” Were, obviously, in the Christian Church of that time teachers who denied the possibility of repentance 85. In their opinion, those who entered the Church through baptism received remission of previous sins and should have finally broken ties with a sinful life. And the pastor fully approved of this view. But then the speech begins in a concessionary tone. Both human weakness and temptations from the devil are taken into account, and therefore repentance is determined for those who have sinned. However, a restriction is made again: only those who have sinned before his preaching can repent, and in the future everyone, having received forgiveness of sins in baptism, must lead a sinless life. Here we encounter a more strict view than before, when they spoke about the possibility of repentance for everyone and only pointed out the futility of constantly repeating repentance 86 . Hermas, therefore, is a preacher of a special all-church repentance, after which there should be no more room for repentance 87. But the very possibility of this repentance and the very fact of preaching about such repentance suggests that the holiness of the Church is not understood strictly in the sense of a society of saints. There may be different people in the Church and not everyone is equally holy in it 88 . Hermas sometimes calls Christians saints (ᾅ γιοι), but with this, as can be seen from the above, he does not at all connect the thought of the exclusive holiness of the members of the Church. The holiness of the Church for Hermas does not mean the holiness of each individual member of it. Once in Hermas we encounter a very significant combination of concepts: “to the saints who have sinned” (τοῖς ἀγίοις τοίς ἀμαρτήσασιν) 89. This expression gives us reason to attribute to “The Shepherd” the idea that the Church is not exclusively a society of saints. Ἅ γιος and καθαρός in “The Shepherd” do not mix. Individuals can improve. The whole Church can improve. The task of moral transformation of the Church was the task of the repentant sermon of Hermas himself. And this is a very significant vision that depicts the moral renewal of the Church. The church appeared for the first time in the form of an oxbow. In the second vision she had a youthful face, but the body and hair of an old man; however, it was more fun than before. In the third vision, she was all much younger and with a beautiful face; she was quite cheerful 90. The first vision meant that the spirit of Christians had become dilapidated and weakened and had no strength due to the sins and doubts of the heart. Christians, burdened with everyday affairs, fell into carelessness and did not place their cares on the Lord, their meaning became decrepit and they grew old in their sorrows 91 . The second vision is interpreted as follows: the Lord took pity on the Christians and renewed their spirit; They put aside their infirmities, courage came to them, they strengthened in faith, and the Lord, seeing their strength, rejoiced 92. The third vision also means a complete renewal of Christian souls. Those who repent with all their hearts will become younger and stronger 93. In this vision of the young Church, the idea is clearly and definitely given that members of the Church in different eras of its historical life can deviate more or less far from the ideal of the holiness of the Church; at other times, the entire Church can be restored and renewed, can approach the perfect holiness of its members, unattainable in earthly life 94 . On this only, so to speak, dogmatic foundation, Hermas’ entire sermon on repentance is based. Herm opens the door of repentance very wide. Sometimes he seems to forget what was said about the possibility of repentance only for previous sins. We have seen that in the future Herm wants to completely close the doors of repentance for those who have sinned. However, in him we find a strict condemnation of those who deny repentance. Herm places such people closely with apostates. Having spoken about the first, he continues: close to them are those who returned the branches dry, although not rotten; for they were hypocrites, introducing alien doctrines (διδαχὰς ξένας) and seducing the servants of God, especially those who had sinned, not allowing them to repent, but instilling in them foolish doctrines (ταῖς διδαχαῖς ταῖς μωραῖς πείθοντες αύτούς ) 95 . We set forth the doctrine of the holiness of the Church in the Shepherd of Hermas. In this teaching it is impossible not to notice some points that are inconsistent with each other, and there seems to be no solid evidence for any definite reconciliation of them. Erm - preacher of repentance; to deny repentance, in his own words, means to preach a stupid doctrine; but he also approves of the opinion of some teachers who spoke about the impossibility of repentance after baptism. Erma is often considered a representative of particularly lenient views 96 . Indeed, any rigorism is alien to “The Shepherd,” but the strictest provisions can be found in it. Hermas is guided by the strictly ascetic ideal of the holiness of the Church, but reality was far from this ideal. The preacher of repentance wants to morally renew the Church, so that at least in the future the ideal dear to him will be embodied. Such an ideal is quite understandable for the ascetic that Hermas was, but it is remarkable that he does not immediately reject people who do not satisfy this ideal and have sinned after baptism from the Church, as should have been the case if the author was guided by a rigoristic concept of the holiness of the Church, but strongly calls them to repentance, after which they can be suitable for building the building of the Church 97 . From an ideal point of view, of course, it is good that people who are reborn in baptism no longer sin and do not need to repent, but to make this ideal a positive church law means “to seduce the servants of God, instilling in them stupid teachings” 98 . With all the uncertainty of the dogmatic teaching in “The Shepherd,” it is possible, however, to formulate the doctrine of the holiness of the Church as follows: Christians who have entered the Church thereby renounce a sinful life and must therefore henceforth live in purity and integrity. But due to the weakness of human sinful nature, they can sin again, even gravely. However, even after the sin all is not lost. A person can improve and become a worthy member of Christ's Church. The holiness of the Church does not consist in the once and for all achieved holiness of its individual members, but rather in the fact that they have embarked on the path of holiness and are guided in their lives by the ideal of holiness, which they achieve through constant struggle with sin and devilish temptations 99 . “Shepherd” Hermas presents to us the doctrine of the holiness of the Church in a form that is still far from defined. This again indicates that at that time the Christian Church had not yet understood the concept of the holiness of the Church. But it couldn’t [continue] for long. St. Hermas expressed the desire that all contradictions between his ideal of the holiness of the Church and the actual life of Christians would end. During his time, Christian enthusiasm had already weakened. The opposite hopes could rather be placed on the future: the sanctity of life was to diminish more and more. Christians, deprived of their former enthusiasm, were more inclined to listen to the crafty seductions of the enemy of the human race. The contradiction between ideal and reality, which aroused the preacher of repentance, could only worsen in the future. History itself encouraged us to find out in more detail and develop the dogmatic teaching about the holiness of the Church. We have seen that Hermas already mentions the didaskals, which positively denied repentance for sinned members of the Church. The question of repentance and the compatibility of repentance with the idea of ​​the holiness of the Church, therefore, has already arisen in church society. Some already refused to reconcile the holiness of the Church and the presence of sinners and repentants in the Church and did not solve this issue, but cut it down, denying the second value, that is, repentance. The dogmatic teaching about the holiness of the Church in the sense of the holiness of its constituent members was already emerging 100. The question should have become more acute when it was transferred to practical soil, when abstract dogma was replaced by real relationships, church doctrine by church discipline 101. The second century inherited to the third a ripened contradiction, which was to be resolved only after some struggle, and the result of this resolution was to be a more detailed and more definitely revealed doctrine of the holiness of the Church. Most of the third century in the history of the dogma of the Church is precisely the history of the revelation of the concept of the holiness of the Church. This very concept was central; Entire church movements were created around it, and it was the subject of discussion among church writers. During the transition from the 2nd century to the 3rd, as we see from the writings of Tertullian, some, in order to reconcile the idea of ​​the holiness of the Church with the sinfulness of its members, considered it sufficient to declare some sins forgivable and others unforgivable. It was believed that on this sharing of sins mutual agreement could be allowed. A slight sin does not excommunicate one from the Church; this sin can be forgiven by the bishop 102. But there are serious sins that cannot be forgiven, even if the sinner repents. Repentance for light sins led to the complete reunification of the penitent with the Church; for someone who has sinned mortally, his repentance did not open the door to church communion 103 . Some sins are therefore compatible with the holiness of the Church. The holiness of the Church requires, at the very least, that its members be clean from mortal sins. But in vain we would look in Tertullian for any definite and completely satisfactory answer to the question: what is mortal sin? According to De pudicitia, a mortal and unforgivable sin is one that is committed against God, 104 but this definition can hardly be called clear and precise. Tertullian himself lists the mortal sins several times, but each time he has a different number of them and the sins themselves also turn out to be different. In "De pudic.", p. 19, Tertullian lists the seven deadly sins, quae veniam non capiunt - homicidia, idololatria, fraus, negatio, blasphemia utique et moechia et fornicatio 105. In Adv. Marc., IV. 9, – also seven sins (septem maculas capitallim delictorum): idololatria, blasphemia, homicidium, adulterium, stuprum, falsum testimonium, fraus 106. However, in "De pudic." Tertullian argues in detail that only three sins cannot be forgiven: apostasy (idololatria), fornication and adultery (moechia et fornicatio), and murder (homicidia). Only these three sins form an unbreakable chain: either forgiveness is possible for all of them, or for none 107, and Tertullian devotes one of the most powerful and eloquent pages to clarifying the mutual connection of these three sins in life 108. But, arguing elsewhere about the connection between these sins, Tertullian adds to them a fourth one - fraus, also calling it mortal 109. Moreover, in “De pudic.”, p. 19, having listed the seven deadly sins, Tertullian adds the vague et si alia violatio templi Dei 110, and in “De poenitentia” Tertullian proves the equality of carnal and spiritual sins, so that aspectus concupiscentia 111 also fits the concept of adultery. It should also be noted that the very expression peccatum inremissibile is found in Tertullian only in his Montanistic writings; it is not in “De poenitentia” 112. It must be said, however, that it was precisely three sins that were considered mortal primarily, and not only by Tertullian, but, for example, by his contemporary Hippolytus of Rome 113. However, in ancient Christian writing the scope of each mortal sin is not precisely defined, and they themselves do not have a definite scope, with the exception, perhaps, of murder 114. This is why we must admit that the concept of mortal sin in the 2nd and early 3rd centuries was vague 115: the division of sins into mortal and non-mortal was not common to the Church and was not associated with any specific dogmatic idea of ​​the holiness of the Church 116. If we turn to early church history and church literature, then it will become even clearer to us that the division of sins into mortal and non-mortal is not something original and precisely defined. There is not even sufficient historical data to answer the question: what is the origin of this division of sins into two classes? Representatives of church historical science answer this question differently 117 . Tertullian himself presents the definition of the three deadly sins as an apostolic institution; This is precisely the definition he sees in the message of the Apostolic Council to the Antioch Christians 118. But this understanding is completely contradicted by the canonical text of the New Testament: πορνείας 119. In this text there is no talk at all about mortal sins, but only the eating of things sacrificed to idols and blood, as well as fornication, are prohibited. Tertullian translates εἰδωλόθυτον with the word sacrificium or idololatria 120, and by αἱμα, sanguis he means murder 121. The meaning of the definition of the Apostolic Council is usually established in close connection with the solution to the question of the meaning of the Council itself, 122 and this definition is understood differently, but it is recognized that Tertullian’s interpretation is least acceptable. This understanding at the end of the 2nd century and after was of quite great importance in resolving issues of church discipline, but it is completely alien to the spirit and intentions of the Apostolic Council 123. Tertullian's understanding of the apostolic conciliar definition in his time is found only among Western writers and is unknown to Eastern ones. For example, Origen, in the definition of the Apostolic Council, sees only the prohibition of eating things sacrificed to idols and strangled and the prohibition of fornication 124. In the East, therefore, the definition of the Apostolic Council could not have any influence on church discipline in the sense of dividing sins into forgiven and unforgivable 125. Historical facts also do not give us any clear and definite indication for resolving the question of the origin of the division of sins into mortal and non-mortal. In fact, doesn’t the fact that in the church literature of the first two centuries there is no clear division of sins into these two classes speak against this division? Tertullian speaks of such a division in the 3rd century, but is it therefore reasonable to assert that the church practice of the first two centuries was only what Tertullian speaks of? On the contrary, in historical news for the first two centuries one can find facts showing that the division of sins into mortal and forgiven was not always observed. We have already pointed out the acceptance of the young robber St. John the Theologian. Although this case is special - it is accepted by the apostle, and not a simple hierarch, 126 it is difficult to admit that the apostle would act differently from what he himself taught others to do. We have also seen that Clement of Rome, in his letter to the Corinthians, speaks a great deal about repentance; however, he has no trace of dividing sins into any classes. There is also no talk of lifelong excommunication for any sins; on the contrary, it speaks of the return of all those who have evaded 127. The Corinthian bishop Dionysius (c. 170), in a letter to the Church of Amastria, commands to accept all those who convert after apostasy and crime or even heretical error 128 . The legend about the suffering of the Lyon martyrs says: “Then through the living the dead also came to life; then the Virgin Mother (Church) was filled with great joy, having again accepted alive those whom she had previously cast out (ἐξέτρωσε) as dead. It was through the martyrs that many who renounced were again accepted into her mother’s womb, again conceived by her and warmed by her life-giving warmth” 129. St. also has some news about the acceptance into church communion of those who have gravely sinned. Irenaeus of Lyons 130. Eusebius preserved the following information from the time of Zephyrinus’s bishopric in Rome. The heretics Asklepiodotus and Theodotus convinced Natalia to accept the title of their bishop. Miraculously admonished, “he put on sackcloth, sprinkled ashes on his head and immediately fell with tears at the feet of Bishop Zephyrinus, lay at the feet of not only the clergy, but also the laity, until finally with his tears he touched the child-loving Church of the merciful Christ. He had to pray for a long time and bear witness to the wounds he received in order to regain unity with the Church” 131. If the state of affairs in the Syrian Church in the 2nd century can be judged from the Syrian didascalia, then it must be admitted that the Syrian Church was completely unaware of the division of sins into two classes 132 . We have already noted above that the concept of mortal sin is somewhat unclear in Tertullian himself, which, in our opinion, gives [this] division of sins into forgiven and unforgivable only relative meaning and significance. In their assessment of the facts and news just cited, scientists of even the same confession differ significantly from each other. Mostly Protestant authors and partly only Catholic ones do not attach any significance to these facts 133. Most Catholic scholars and some Protestant scholars 134 consider these data sufficient to substantiate the assumption that in the first two centuries the division of sins into two classes was not common to the Church and in general it is not something original in the Church. We wholeheartedly subscribe to the opinion of the second group of scientists, and this gives us the right, not without reason, to assume that in the first two centuries the holiness of the Church was not placed in a dogmatically inextricable connection with any certain degree of holiness of individual members of the Church; this degree was not the absence of, at least, mortal sins. True, Tertullian, in his polemical work directed against the Church, declares that those who have fallen into mortal sins are not given communion by the Church 135, but this statement of his can hardly be called accurate even in relation to the Western Churches 136: just thirty years later St. Cyprian testifies that only some of the early African bishops refused forgiveness for the sins of adultery, who, however, did not break peace with those who adhered to a different practice 137. This fact is completely unthinkable if the concept of the Church as a society of saints or at least those who did not fall into mortal sins had initially dominated. Finally, let us turn once again to the writings of Tertullian. In his treatise “De poenitentia” Tertullian, starting from the 7th chapter, although with regret (piget), speaks of the second repentance, that is, of repentance after baptism. Here Tertullian seems to repeat the reasoning of Hermas. It is good, of course, not to sin after baptism, but the devil constantly tempts a person, there is no shortage of temptations and temptations, and therefore God placed a second repentance (poenitentiam secundam) on the threshold (in vestibulo). This repentance is a repeated benefit (iteratum beneficium), a repeated cure for a repeated illness (iteratae valetudinis iteranda medicina est) 138. This second repentance can be allowed only once 139 and must be accompanied by various penitential deeds, the totality of which is called exomologesis 140. According to Tertullian, this repentance is necessary, and he proves in detail its legality, wanting to dispel any doubts on this issue 141. Tertullian does not have a clear indication whether mortal sins can also be forgiven in the second repentance, but there is still more evidence that mortal sins are not excluded 142. The second repentance resulted in complete reunification with the Church 143; this can already be seen from the fact that in the parable of the lost and found drachma, Tertullian sees restituti rescatoris exemplum 144; the term restitutio in Tertullian means precisely the return to the Church 145. The fact of the existence of the so-called second repentance in the 2nd century also indicates, in our opinion, that the Christian Church of that time did not consider itself a society of perfect saints 146. One can only say that the idea of ​​the holiness of the Church, which had not yet been revealed, prompted some bishops to completely excommunicate from church communion those who had fallen into mortal sins. But this was a matter of their pastoral wisdom 147, and not a necessary consequence of the general dogmatic teaching about the holiness of the Church 148. Nevertheless, the issue of church discipline became more and more aggravated. Differences in practice could easily turn into fundamental dogmatic differences of opinion. All that was needed was an impetus that would give movement to church theological thought on the issue of the holiness of the Church. This impetus was given by Montanism. We do not need to understand in detail the complex question of the origin of Montanism and its history. There is a vast amount of literature on this issue. Together with many representatives of church historical science, we can admit that the essence of Montanism was not its rigoristic disciplinary requirements in themselves, but a new prophecy 149. This is precisely how the few historical reports that have reached us represent the essence of Montanism. Eusebius quotes the words of an anonymous author about the beginning of Montanism. “Someone named Montanus, from among the new believers, from an excessive desire for primacy was influenced by the enemy and suddenly, having come into a state of possession and frenzy (ἐν κατοχ ῇ τινι καὶ παρεκστάσει), began to speak and tell strange things, that is prophesying contrary to the custom handed down from ancient times and continuously preserved in the Church" 150. Epiphanius considers the only distinguishing feature of the Catafrigians to be the recognition of other prophets after the prophets 151. “They think about the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the same way as the Holy Universal Church; But those who listened to spiritual flattery and the teaching of demons (1 Tim. 4:1) separated from her, saying: “We must also accept gifts.” 152 Tertullian says quite definitely that what makes the Montanists spiritual is precisely the recognition of spiritual gifts 153, which psychics do not accept 154, and it was precisely the recognition of the Paraclete that separated them from the Church 155. What kind of prophecy was this? Some scientists have expressed the idea that the Montanist prophets are the direct successors of the spiritual gifts that existed in ancient, apostolic times. The prophecies of the Montanists were no different from the prophecy that existed in the ancient Christian Church 156 . Without going into a detailed analysis of this view, we will only say that all historical sources testify to the contrary. Both in the words quoted by Eusebius and in Epiphanius, it is precisely the form of the Montanistic prophecy itself that is disputed. The Montanist prophets prophesied “contrary to the custom of ancient times” ( τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἒ θος ) 157 . Epiphanius proves in detail precisely the unusualness of the new prophecy. According to historical data, Montanist prophecy was exclusively ecstatic, in which man was only a “lyre” 158. The Montanist prophets did not control themselves and did not maintain consistency in thought 159; “they spoke senselessly, inappropriately and strangely” 160; their words were the words of ecstatics 161. It is remarkable that both the opponents of Montanism and its defenders call this prophecy “new” 162 , and Tertullian himself says that it is about the form of prophecy that the Montanists argue with psychics 163 . “Features not found in the attitudes of other heresiarchs, in the description, for example, of the founders of the Gnostic sects, are very vividly depicted by the eccentric figures of the Phrygian prophets, who, apparently, very much resembled madmen” 164. Therefore, we must recognize Montanistic prophecy as a painful sectarian phenomenon that originated in Phrygia, perhaps not without the influence of Eastern cults, as Neander pointed out in his time 165. The historian of Montanism Bonvech 166, as well as Harnack 167, resolutely refuses to place the Montanistic prophecy on the same level as the ancient Christian one. A new prophecy presupposes a new revelation, and indeed, Montanism appears with a new doctrine of revelation; The question, therefore, concerns a very significant point - Christian Revelation 168. We can judge the relationship of the new prophecy to the New Testament revelation from the writings of Tertullian. Tertullian tries to prove that the Paraclete does not introduce anything new 169. Montanists and psychics have one faith, one God, the same Christ, the same hope, the same baptism; in a word, this is one Church 170. The prophets - Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla do not preach another God, do not reject Jesus Christ, do not pervert the “Rules of Faith” 171. The paraclete does not introduce anything new against the Catholic Tradition, while heresy always distorts the “Rule of Faith” (regulam adulterans fidei) 172. The paraclete does not speak from itself, but what Christ entrusts to it 173; Paraclete – vicar of the Lord 174. But there are good reasons to disagree with Tertullian on this point. Tertullian in the pre-Montana period of his life was, as we have seen, a zealous defender of the Apostolic Tradition preserved in the Church; He, polemicizing with the Gnostic teaching about secret tradition, argued that the whole truth was communicated by Christ and assimilated by the apostles and all believers. It is clear that even in the Montanistic period of his life, Tertullian could not say something sharply contrary to what he himself had expressed before 175. In reality, the preaching of the Montanist prophets appeared precisely as a new revelation. St. Hippolytus says about the Montanists that they considered their prophetesses higher than the apostles and that they, in their opinion, said something more than Christ Himself 176. The writer who supplemented Tertullian’s treatise “De praescr. haer.", writes about the Montanists: they said that the Apostles had the Holy Spirit, but there was no Paraclete; The paraclete through Montana said more than Christ in the Gospel, and not only more, but even better and higher 177. And even in Tertullian himself, much is hardly consistent with his assurances that the Paraclete did not introduce anything new. The paraclete, according to the teachings of Tertullian himself, is necessary to bring Christian teaching to perfection 178. Tertullian even presents a whole theory of the gradual development of revelation in the world. There is a time for every thing (Eccl. 3:17). Gradually in nature a tree develops from grain. So the truth of God was at first in its infancy; by the law and the prophets she was reduced to a childish state; then the Gospel - until youth; and now the Paraclete has brought her to courage 179. This later theory of the development of revelation is very different from the earlier one, where all development ends in the teaching of Christ and the apostles 180. But if the revelation of the Paraclete relates to Christ’s teaching as courage relates to youth, then it is obvious that this new revelation abolishes the old: the Paraclete abolishes Christ, just as Christ abolishes the law of Moses. Tertullian only avoids calling Christ, but replaces Him with apostles. If Christ rejected what Moses taught, why cannot the Paraclete reject what Paul 181 established? After all, even in human institutions, later laws (decreta) have greater meaning than older ones 182. It can be noted that Tertullian himself felt with some concern such a departure from what he himself had previously preached 183. He sometimes tries to prove that the Paraclete does not establish anything new, but only restores what was previously 184. But all such interpretations, of course, could not convincingly prove that Christ’s teaching lies at the basis of the new Montanist revelation 185. Tertullian was faced with a dilemma: Christ and the apostles - or the Paraclete. For himself, Tertullian resolves this dilemma by sharply distinguishing the area of ​​faith and the area of ​​morality, dogma and discipline. The "rule of faith" is unchanged 186. The work of the Paraclete concerns the interpretation of the Scriptures and the field of discipline which he brings to greater perfection 187 . The paraclete only changes the discipline 188, but confirms the teachings of Christ 189. In fact, all these arguments of Tertullian represent only an artificially constructed theory with the preconceived goal of proving that the Paraclete does not abolish Christ. With this view, we get a purely formal attitude towards the “Rule of Faith”; it is just a collection of abstract formulas. Christ is recognized only as the theoretical Teacher of Christianity; His moral teaching was conditioned by the circumstances of place and time. In the area of ​​moral teaching, Christ, obviously, if not completely eliminated, still fades into second place, yielding first to the Paraclete 190. The scope of discipline in Tertullian is sometimes very extensive, and the Paraclete not only changes some disciplinary requirements, but also gives new strength to courageously endure persecution 191, it also gives strength to abstain from a second marriage 192. It cannot even be said that Montanism left the dogmatic side of Christianity completely untouched, 193 although, of course, its main meaning did not lie in the dogmatic area 194. Based on all this, there is reason to assert that Montanism wanted to be a new level of revelation - higher than revelation through Jesus Christ and the apostles 195. The Montanists even compiled new writings 196, very numerous, βίβλους άπείρους, according to Hippolytus, from which one can learn more than from the law, prophets and Gospels 197. There were grounds for opponents of Montanism to claim that the Montanist prophets deny Jesus Christ, although Tertullian so vehemently objects to this 198. The Church of that time stood firmly on an apostolic foundation. In a somewhat early struggle against Gnosticism, the Church defined itself as Apostolic. For this reason, representatives of Montanism slandered the entire catholic celestial Church 199. The Montaist is the spiritualis homo 200. A person who does not recognize the Paraclete is a psychic, devoid of Spirit and having only flesh and soul 201. Faith of psychics - spiritual faith 202. In general, in Tertullian we will find a lot of sharply condemnatory expressions regarding the Church of Psychics 203. A very interesting, apt comparison of Montanism with gnosis was made by V.V. Bolotov, who sees in them one common feature that distinguishes them from all later heresies: “They willingly admitted that the Church is Catholic and currently adheres to the same teaching that the apostles announced to it, that the Church now adheres to the same teaching and practice that it held in the apostolic age; but only they were convinced that they had a source of revelation much higher than that possessed by the Church. Thus, for them, the Catholic Church was not so much a sinner, erring, as a backward Church” 204. With this attitude of Montanism towards the Christian New Testament Revelation, the question arose for the Church in the struggle against Montanism: should it remain with that Tradition, which in both dogma and moral teaching came successively from the eyewitnesses of the Lord, from the apostles, or trust the ecstatic “new” prophecy, even if this required breaking in many points with the apostolic tradition - whether the Church should remain Apostolic or become Montanistic. Montanism, with its “new” revelation, revalued Tradition and thereby encouraged church writers to enter into a detailed consideration of the doctrine of the Church. In the fight against Gnosticism, the principle of tradition was established as a counterweight to arbitrary rational interpretations of Christianity. Montanism raised the question of the relationship of tradition to charismatic revelations. Therefore, in the polemics with Montanism one can find additions to the doctrine of the Church as the guardian of truth, developed in the fight against Gnosticism. “The power that fights in truth opposed the Catathrygian heresy with a strong and invincible weapon in Apollinaris of Hierapolis, and with him in many other learned men living at that time.” From these fighters against Montanism to the time of Eusebius, many works have survived 205. But of all the anti-montanist literature, very few monuments remain; almost only the fragments preserved by Eusebius 206 remain. Only recently has church-historical science, through the analysis of some ancient Christian monuments, indicated a few more remains of anti-montanist literature 207 . Montanism, even at its very appearance in Asia Minor, immediately received rebuff from representatives of the Church. “The believers began to gather often and in many places in Asia and, having examined the new teaching, declared it impious and rejected it as heretical; then those devoted to him were excommunicated from the Church and deprived of communion with it” 208. The Church has never been an ecstatic, sectarian phenomenon, 209 and therefore Montanism was rejected. In polemical literature, the church teaching about charismas and the attitude of Tradition towards them was revealed in more detail. The most remarkable monument of anti-montanist literature in the alteration of 210 was preserved by Epiphanius. It is, of course, difficult to decide who the author of this work was. They call the author anonymous, excerpts from whose works are given by Eusebius 211, Apollonius 212, Rodon, who is mentioned by Jerome 213, Hippolytus 214. But Voigt rightly writes: “Finding the author of a work of ancient times that has come down to us anonymously is an undertaking with dubious results, even if this work remains to us completely in its original text. How much bolder should it seem to speak with an opinion about the author of a work that lies before us only in processing” 215. Whoever was the author of this anti-montanist work, one can judge from it the positions that church writers developed in opposition to the Montanists 216. First of all, church writers rejected the ecstatic form of prophecy 217. An anonymous author in Eusebius reports about Miltiades: “he preached that a prophet should not speak in a frenzy” 218. The Saints of God, filled with the Holy Spirit, according to the extent of the gifts given to each by the Spirit, and according to the measure of faith (Rom. 12:6) for benefit (1 Cor. 12:7), prophesied everything in the true spirit, in a sound mind (ἐῤῥ ωμένη διανοία) and with consistency in thoughts ( νῷ) 219. The Prophet spoke everything with a calm (καταστάσεως) and consistent flow of thoughts and spoke (ἐφθέγγετο) from the Holy Spirit, speaking everything soundly (ἐῥῤ ωμένως) 220. The words of a prophet are the words of a person who speaks consistently, and not frantically (ἐξισταμένου) 221. Such are the characteristics of true prophets that, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, their teaching and conversation are sound 222 . Montanistic prophets, promising to prophesy, turn out to be not in control of themselves (εὐσταθοῦντες) and not observing consistency in the word 223. Then, various passages of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to which the Montanists could refer in defense of the ecstatic form of their prophecies 224 are examined in detail. Denying the ecstatic form of Montanistic prophecies, church writers developed their own, broader view of spiritual gifts in the Church - the same view as expressed by the Apostle Paul 225. On the issue of spiritual gifts, St. Hippolytus 226, who, as historical sources show, was also an opponent of Montanism 227. Although Hippolytus’s writings περὶ χαρισμάτων have not survived, it is assumed that Hippolytus’ views on χαρίσματα were reflected in the eighth book of the apostolic decrees 228 . In any case, one must think [that] the apostolic decrees, when they talk about gifts, they mean the false teaching of Montanism about them 229. The apostolic decrees first of all say that gifts exist only for unbelievers, so that those who are not convinced by the word may be convinced by the power of signs 230. Consequently, gifts have a temporary and limited significance 231, and among those who believed in God through Christ there is no person who has not received a spiritual gift (χάρισμα πνευματικόν). The gift can be called “the very liberation from polytheistic wickedness and faith in God the Father through Christ.” Therefore, “let none of those who perform signs and wonders condemn any of the believers who have not been granted the gift of performing them; for the gifts of God, given by Him through Christ, are different: you received this, and he received some other thing, or a word of wisdom, or knowledge, or discernment of spirits, or foreknowledge of the future, or the ability to teach, or gentleness, or legal (ἒ ννομον) abstinence” 232 . Consequently, church ministries and even the virtues of individuals fit under the concept of “gifts” 233 . Church writers do not reject gifts in the Church, but provide a criterion for determining true gifts. This criterion was set by the Apostolic Tradition: “And the Holy Church of God also accepts gifts, but real gifts and already tested in the Holy Church of God by the power of the Holy Spirit on the basis of the prophets, apostles and the Lord Himself” 234. Church writers absolutely did not accept the idea that a prophet could say anything contrary to the word of God. A true prophet can only be in the Church, and he must be in full agreement with Church Tradition. “The Lord sealed (ἐσφράγισε) the Church and in her concluded the fullness of gifts (ἐπλήρωσεν αὐτή τὰ χαρίσμα τα)” 235. Church writers constantly refute the Montanistic prophecies with references to the Holy Scriptures, obviously looking at the Holy Scriptures as a reliable criterion of truth, as an authority higher than the “new” prophets “Montanus turned out to disagree with the Divine Scriptures in everything, as is clear to any reasonable reader. Therefore, if you do not agree, then you are alien to the Holy Universal Church; His heresy is also alien to her, boasting that she has prophets and gifts - she did not receive them, but is removed from them. Who, speaking consistently (παρακολουθῶν), would dare to call them prophets? 236 In another place, along with the Holy Scriptures, the entire presence of Church Tradition is also called as a criterion for prophecies. “In everything you see their disagreement with the Divine Scripture and the difference of their opinions and assumptions in comparison with God’s faith and correct teaching” 237. Silas and Agabus, the prophets of the apostolic time, did not compare (οὐ παρεξέτειναν) themselves with the apostles and did not transgress their limits (τὰ ἐαυτῶν μέτρα). Women also prophesied, but did not boast before men and maintained their boundaries 238. The Montanistic prophecy, which placed itself above the apostolic Tradition and broke with it, was declared by church writers to be a false prophecy 239, and the source of this prophecy was indicated in the devil 240. The Church, in its struggle with the new prophecy, once again confirmed that it is the Apostolic Church. In the fight against Gnosticism, the doctrine of secret tradition was rejected and it was said that the truth was communicated by Jesus Christ to the apostles, and the apostles transmitted it in full to the Church. Montanism proposed a new era of revelation, but the Church remained with the former, Christ's and apostolic heritage. In the fight against the Montanists, church writers began to refer to the words of the Apostle Paul: even if we or an Angel from heaven were to preach to you a gospel other than what we preached to you, let him be anathema (Gal. 1:8). Tertullian 241 heard this text from his opponents. From the anonymous Eusebius we also read: “A person who wants to live according to the law of the Gospel can neither add to it nor take anything away from it” 242. All Christian revelation was given already in the apostolic age. The words of Revelation (see: 22.18–19) also [protect] the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament 243, just as the words of Deuteronomy (see: 4.2) protected the Old Testament from addition. The author of the Muratorian fragment is an opponent of Montanism 244, and he clearly expresses the idea that the New Testament is finished, so that the “Shepherd” of Hermas, although useful for reading, can never be accepted among the apostolic and prophetic writings as recently written 245. In the life of the Church, the age of the apostles is an exceptional age and not to be repeated. The Church will not accept any “new” revelation like the Montanist one 246 . From the teaching of the new revelation of the Paraclete among the Montanists flowed their doctrine of the Church as a holy society of spiritual people, in contrast to which people who do not accept the revelation of the Paraclete are only a glorissima multitudo psychicorum 247 . In his Montanist writings, Tertullian places the Church in a special relationship with the Holy Spirit. Previously, he taught: where there are Three, that is, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, there is the Church, which is the Body of the Three 248. But Tertullian establishes a particularly close connection between the Church and Christ. Not only the Head of the Church is Christ 249, but the Church itself is Christ 250. In his Montanistic writings, Tertullian already asserts that the Church is primarily the Spirit, in Whom is the entire Trinity of the One Divinity, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit 251. From such a teaching about the Church as a society of spiritual people, saints, all the Montanistic demands for stricter church discipline flowed. A Christian lives in the light, and if he has sinned, he has already fallen from the light. Living in the light, a Christian cannot sin 252. One would expect Tertullian to completely deny repentance 253 . However, the Montanists, based on the idea of ​​the holiness of the Church, demanded the exclusion from the Church of not all those who sinned. For minor sins, the Montanists also allowed repentance 254; they demanded strict adherence to a custom already well-known in the ancient Church, according to which only those who had fallen into mortal sins were excommunicated from church communion. Tertullian’s literary struggle with the contemporary Roman Bishop Callistus was concentrated around this very point, who, immediately after ascending to the Roman see, took some measures in the field of church discipline 255. Callistus is a man of practice 256, and for such a person the circumstances of the time are always of great importance. In Rome at that time, licentious morals 257 reigned; under the influence of this licentiousness, strict morals and Christians fell. Callistus openly declared a certain softening of church discipline, obviously not finding in this a contradiction to the existing concept of the holiness of the Church. Callistus issued an edict by which he declared forgiveness of sins against chastity. "Ego et moechiae et fornicationis delicta paenitentia functis dimitto" 258. In this case, dimitto meant precisely acceptance into church communion, since Tertullian very often replaces dimitto with the words communicare, communicatio; Moreover, there are such combinations: recipere in communicationem, communicationem restituere and the like 259. Tertullian wrote the treatise “De pudicitia” against this edict of the Roman bishop. It should be noted that a characteristic feature of Tertullian’s polemical writings is the abundance of argumentation. Tertullian pours out the most varied types of evidence, of the qualitative value of evidence, preferring their accumulation 260. Perhaps in “De pudicitia” he conveys and refutes not only what he read in the edict, examining the question in more detail, but in any case, only from “De pudicitia” do we learn about the way of thinking of Tertullian’s opponents. "De pudicitia" represents, as it were, a debate between a psychic and a Montanist. Tertullian reports many texts of Holy Scripture that his opponent cited. If we assume that all these texts were in the edict of Callistus 261, then this edict for the first time provided detailed argumentation for the possibility of giving church communion to those who have sinned mortally, without thereby violating the holiness of the Church 262. The complete forgiveness of sins against chastity is proven first of all from the properties of God. Goodness and mercy are properties of God, as can be seen from many places in Scripture 263. The children of God must also be merciful and peacemakers, which is what Scripture requires of them 264. Tertullian also points to the justice of God (tamen et justus). God not only has mercy, but also punishes; so people not only can, but also must judge, as is clear from the Holy Scriptures (see: 1 Cor. 5, 3-5). Anyone who has sinned mortally must remain outside the Church 265. Tertullian's opponents believed that if a penitent does not receive church communion, then his repentance is in vain 266. Here, as it were, the idea is expressed about the impossibility of salvation without communion with the visible Church. The Church must accept the repentant into its bosom so that repentance is not useless. Tertullian thinks differently. In this view of psychics, he sees the usurpation of the power of God 267. According to the Montanists, forgiveness can only be given by God, and not by the Church 268. Repentance without acceptance into the Church is not in vain, because the repentant can receive the fruit of repentance from God. Although he will not achieve communion with the Church, he will find peace with God 269. Salvation, therefore, is achievable even without communion with the visible Church 270. Tertullian justifies the requirement not to accept a mortal sinner into church communion precisely with the dogmatic teaching about the holiness of the Church. If adulterers are accepted into church communion, then the Church cannot then be called the Body of Christ or the church of God, and believers are no longer members of Christ 271 . As soon as Tertullian cites the first words of the Edict of Callistus, he immediately exclaims: “And this is proclaimed in the Church, and she is a virgin? Let this announcement be alien to the bride of Christ! She is true, chaste, holy - even if she is not defiled by hearing” 272. Thus, according to Tertullian, the acceptance into church communion of those who have sinned mortally is completely inconsistent with its holiness. The holiness of the Church requires the exclusion of those who have sinned mortally 273. Callistus and everyone who agreed with him had a different view of the Church. To justify his order, he referred to the parables of the lost sheep and the lost drachma 274, by the lost sheep and by the lost drachma he meant precisely sinned Christians, the sheep of the flock of Christ, which is the Church. The parables teach such Christians to return to the Church, so that they, wandering for a long time on the side, do not perish completely 275. The historical task of the Church, therefore, is precisely to morally heal fallen people. Anyone who has joined the Church can stray from the Church like a sheep from the flock; it must be returned to the fence of the Church. Tertullian objects, arguing that the parables speak of the conversion of pagans, not sinners, although in “De patientia” and “De poenitentia” he himself referred to the same parables to the repentance of sinners 276. But even if the parables spoke about those who sinned, they still cannot justify the acceptance of those who have sinned into the Church. If the sheep did not only get lost, but completely perished, and if the drachma was not only lost, but was completely destroyed, then, obviously, there is no need to look for them 277. But the fornicator and the adulterer are precisely dead, and it is impossible to justify their acceptance into the Church with parables 278 . Tertullian’s last thought, obviously, agrees very little with his previous reasoning about the benefits of repentance outside the Church. The shepherds, who justified the acceptance of those who had sinned mortally into church communion, applied to themselves the words of Ezekiel (see: 34, 3-4), where the Lord reproaches the shepherds of Israel for not supporting the weak, not converting the erring, and not looking for the lost. Again, here we can see a general view of the Church, according to which it is not a closed society of saints, but has the goal of supporting the weak and erring. Tertullian dismisses this opponents' argument with a sophistical interpretation. The Lord condemns the shepherds for allowing the sheep to perish, but not because they did not return them, eaten by beasts, 279. And this thought of Tertullian contradicts his own speech that God Himself can forgive a mortal sinner. The views of the Roman Bishop Callistus and his associates on the Church can also be judged by some other arguments given to justify their practice. These are the parable of the prodigal son and the story of the Corinthian incest. The parable of the prodigal son is interpreted not in a historical sense, as Tertullian insists, 280 but in a moral sense. The Christian, depicted in the parable as the youngest son, lost the wealth he received from God the Father - of course, in baptism - by going far from the Father and squandering it, living like a pagan. If he, deprived of the blessings of the mind, having given himself up to the service of the prince of the age and having received from him the order to herd pigs, comes to his senses and returns to the Father, then he receives his former clothes, the robe of the Holy Spirit, and again a ring, a sign of purification 281. Such an interpretation of the parable of the Prodigal Son 282 was possible only when looking at the Church not as a society of saints and saved, but as a society of those being saved and sanctified. By repentance, a person returns to the fence of the Church, where he again receives all the gifts of the Holy Spirit, previously given to him in the Sacrament of Baptism, but lost by a sinful life. We have already seen that baptism in the ancient Church was often called repentance; it was a turning point in my entire life and my entire way of thinking. Now the importance of repentance for moral improvement in the depths of the Church is strongly emphasized. For Montanism this meaning did not exist: one who repented of mortal sin stood outside the Church, hoping for forgiveness from God. Callistus considers repentance to be a means of cleansing a person from sin. Sin does not cut a person off from the Church, but only prompts the Church to prescribe him decent healing, which is what repentance is actually called 283. Repentance is for Christians, not pagans. Medicines have no meaning for those who do not understand the dangers themselves. Repentance makes sense where one sins with conscience and will, where guilt and grace take place. He is sad and tormented, who knows what he has lost and what he will receive again if he repents before God 284. The view of repentance as a means of correcting a sinner, as a benefit for his moral recovery, is especially revealed in the interpretation of the story of the Corinthian incest. In the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul speaks of accepting into church communion that incestuous man whom in the First he commanded to be delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh (εἰς ὅ λεθρον τῆς σαρκός) (1 Cor. 5:5) 285. Callistus and his supporters understood this exhaustion of the flesh (interitus carnis) in the sense of an act of repentance, in the sense of exomologesis, which took place in church practice of that time. The exhaustion of the flesh is precisely fasting, repentant mourning (sordes), removal from every evil deed, etc. In this act of repentance, the sinner is cleansed of sin and therefore he must be accepted into church communion 286. Repentance, therefore, is precisely the cure for a morally sick member of the Church 287. Here is all the data that can be extracted from Tertullian’s polemic with Callistus to characterize the views of the early 3rd century on the Church from the perspective of its relationship to members who have sinned. This polemic is not about the dogma of the Church itself: its subject is different, namely, the acceptance into church communion of those who have fallen into the mortal sins of adultery and fornication. It is only quite clear that at the heart of this entire controversy lies a difference in views on the Church. One who has sinned mortally cannot remain in church communion, otherwise the holiness of the Church will be violated; The Church consists only of people of high moral level who do not allow mortal sins. These are the basic principles of the ecclesiology of Montanism. It can be noted that in the ecclesiological system of the Montanists, the importance of the Church is greatly diminished. The Church imparts the grace of the Holy Spirit only to those who enter into it in the Sacrament of Baptism. Man must preserve these gifts; if he loses them, the Church can no longer give him new grace-filled help. Church discipline only protects the holiness of the Church itself, but does not give anything for the moral perfection of the individual 288. The views of Tertullian’s opponents do not yet have such a precise formulation, but it is absolutely clear that Callistus did not consider the acceptance of mortal sinners into church communion to be inconsistent with the concept of the holiness of the Church. For him, the Church is not a society of saints, but a doctor’s clinic for morally sick people. Church discipline is not intended to protect the holiness of the Church by excommunicating those who have sinned mortally, but is aimed specifically at the moral education of members of the Church. The Edict of the Roman Bishop Callistus is often given too much importance in the history of ancient church discipline. They tend to consider it the first stone in the creation of a new disciplinary practice, sharply opposed to the entire structure of ancient church views on the essence of the Church 289. Previously, the Church was thought of as nothing other than a society of perfect saints; Now the foundation has been laid for a new teaching about the holiness of the Church, according to which it only serves the moral improvement of Christians, which is why the holiness of the Church is in no way contradicted by the presence in it of members who have even fallen into mortal sins. At the same time, Tertullian’s treatise “De pudicitia” is considered an apology for the general ancient church practice and the ancient concept of the Church. We have already proven in detail that the Church from the very beginning did not imagine itself as a society of exclusively perfect saints, and therefore one cannot think that the edict of Callistus brought about any decisive reform of the dogmatic teaching about the holiness of the Church. Montanism wanted to carry out such a reform, relying on the new revelation of the Paraclete 290, but this attempt only caused the Church to define its attitude towards those who have sinned mortally, clearly and definitely declaring in the edict of Callistus that the admission into church communion of those who have mortally sinned does not violate the holiness of the Church and does not contradict it. In disciplinary terms, the edict of Callistus, although it stands on the basis of an earlier tradition, 291, however, there is something new: what was previously a rare phenomenon, he made it legal, presenting some grounds for lenient practice, 292, but no change in the dogmatic teaching about the holiness of the Church followed from this 293. The question of the forgiveness of mortal sins was closely connected with another - the right of the bishop to forgive mortal sins or who in the Church belongs to the “power of the keys.” This question basically has the same division of sins into forgivable and unforgivable that we talked about. In Tertullian’s same treatise “De pudicitia” we find the idea that only non-mortal, lighter sins can be forgiven by the bishop, while mortal sins can be forgiven by God alone 294 . The edict of the Roman bishop Callistus shows that he looked at this subject differently: in his edict he says: “ego et moechia et fornicationis delicta paenitentia functis dimitto.” The question of who in the Church belongs to the “power of the keys” is resolved very clearly: it belongs to the bishop. The same treatise “De pudicitia” makes it clear that the Roman bishop substantiated his statement with some theory. The Lord said to Peter: “On this rock I will build My Church; to you I will give (dedi) the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; whatever you bind or loose on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” (see: Matt. 16:18–19). Callistos extended this power to bind and decide, given by the Lord to the Apostle Peter, to himself and to the entire Church of the Apostle Peter. The Church, in the person of its bishop, can knit and decide 295. The bishop, therefore, is the successor not only of the apostolic power to teach, but also of the power to knit and decide. Tertullian, based on Montanistic views, of course, could not agree with this theory of Callistus 296, and he completely rejects it. Tertullian says that it is necessary to distinguish between apostolic teaching and authority (inter doctrinam apostolorum et potestatem). The power to resolve mortal sins belongs to God alone (majoribus et inremissibilibus a Deo solo), and if sometimes the apostles resolved such sins, then they did this by their own authority, and not by the right of teaching (non ex disciplina, sed ex potestate fecisse) 297. For the apostles, the power to knit and decide was combined with the power to work miracles. Thus, Ananias was struck with death, Elymas with blindness. To prove his power to knit and decide, the bishop should show examples of the same miracles 298. The bishop inherited only the duty of teaching (disciplinae), not power, but service, and therefore cannot decide and bind. Tertullian does not deny that the Church has the power to absolve sins 299. One of the Montanist prophets said: the Church can forgive a crime, but it will not do so, so as not to fall into other sins 300. The paraclete can give forgiveness for the sins of adultery, but it does not want there to be no greater evil 301. If the bishop arrogates to himself the power to decide and bind, then this is a usurpation of the right of the Church (hoc jus ecclesiae usurpes). And the Apostle Peter knitted what needed to be knitted, and allowed what could be allowed. In this sense, the above words of the Lord were spoken to him, so that the example of the Apostle Peter cannot prove the right of a bishop to resolve even mortal sins 302 . In accordance with the personality of the Apostle Peter, the power to bind and decide passed to spiritual people (spirita-libus - in the Montanistic sense), to the apostles or prophets. Therefore, Tertullian summarizes his objections, the Church will absolve sins, but the Church of the Spirit, through a spiritual man, and not the Church - a body of bishops (sed ecclesia spiritus per spiritalem hominem, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum); for it is the Lord, and not the slave, who has the right and the decision - God Himself, and not the priest 303. Thus, two different practices regarding mortal sins were each accompanied by a specific theory. According to Callistus' theory, the bishop has the power to bind and decide in the Church; he inherited this power from the apostles. According to Tertullian’s theory, the power to decide and bind does not belong to the bishop, but to a spiritual person, a charismatic, through whom, in the proper sense, God Himself forgives sins 304. In the theory of Callistus we already see a replenishment of the early church teaching about the succession of bishops from the apostles. The bishop is not only the guardian of the purity of doctrine, but also the guardian of the holiness of the Church; from the apostles he inherited not only the power of teaching (locus magisterii), but also the “power of the keys.” Some additional features of the history of the dogma of the Church at the beginning of the 3rd century are given by the writings of Hippolytus of Rome. The disciplinary orders of Callistus, one must think, were one of the reasons for the formation in Rome of the so-called schism of Hippolytus 305. There were several points of disagreement between Hippolytus and Callistus regarding issues of disciplinary practice 306 . Hippolytus undoubtedly knew the edict of Callistus, although in his later work, the Philosophumena, he does not speak about it 307. Hippolytus reports that Callistus was the first to begin to be lenient towards sins against chastity, saying that he would give forgiveness of sins to everyone 308. Hippolytus reproaches Callistus for the fact that he did little to protect the morals of his flock, did not keep the Tradition, did not reason with whom to communicate, but indiscriminately gave communication with the Church to everyone 309. Hippolytus also reports another argument given by Callistus in defense of his disciplinary practice. It was Callistus who attributed the words of Christ to the Church: leave the tares to grow among the wheat, that is, sinners in the Church, and compared the Church with the ark of Noah, in which there were dogs, and wolves, and ravens, and everything clean and unclean. It should also be, said Callistus, in the Church 310. This comparison clearly expresses Callistus’s concept of the Church as a society not only of saints, but also of sinners 311 . This view was obviously sharply expressed by Callistus, and in connection with this concept of the Church are those lenient disciplinary orders of Callistus reported by Hippolytus. These very lenient disciplinary orders of Callistus and the abuses that accompanied these orders aroused the protest of Hippolytus, who stood at the head of a special community 312. He does not even call the community of Callistus a Church, but a school, as heretical communities were called 313. Hippolytus calls only his community a church; Kallista proposes to call his followers Callistians 314. But such a division between Hippolytus and Callistus on issues of church discipline had a completely different character than the disagreement between Callistus and Tertullian 315. There we saw a deep and fundamental difference - the dogmatic teaching about the Church was different. From the Philosophumena it is not at all clear that Hippolytus based his rejection of Callistus’s disciplinary institutions on the same concept of the Church that Tertullian opposes Callistus. Hippolytus does not approve of Callistus's disciplinary measures, not for dogmatic reasons, but more for practical ones. He considers these orders harmful to the moral state of Church members 316. Hippolytus believed that there was no need to make concessions to the spirit of the times. He was a zealot for the highest Christian ideals, strict with himself and others, and did not recognize any transactions with circumstances 317. But he, too, saw with annoyance and bitterness that strict everyday ideals found few admirers; the strict discipline of his community seemed to many an unbearable burden; it became smaller and smaller, and the community of Callistus grew more and more with more lenient discipline 318. Tertullian’s denial of the bishop’s “power of the keys” is inextricably linked with the general teaching about the Church. In Hippolytus we not only do not find the same thing, but, on the contrary, on the question of the power of the bishop, he completely agrees with his opponent 319. In the preface to the Philosophumena, Hippolytus calls bishops the successors of the apostolic grace of hierarchy and teaching; bishops are guardians of the Church, obliged not to close their eyes 320. So, we see that in the first quarter of the 3rd century the doctrine of the Church as a society constantly improving with the help of God's grace was expressed. The Montanist doctrine of the holiness of the Church in the sense of the moral purity of its members was condemned as heresy. The Church opened the door of repentance for those who sinned, and the bishop is called the body of repentance 321. The thoughts expressed by Callistus and partly by Hippolytus give rise to many accusations from representatives of Protestant church historical science. In the polemic between Tertullian and Callistus, Protestant science takes the side of the fiery African rigorist. And this is quite understandable. After all, as we have already had occasion to say, in modern Western church-historical science the view is almost universally accepted that the Christian Church of the first two centuries was a series of sectarian circles with a charismatic organization, or rather, without any organization. The Church thought of itself as a society of perfect saints, from which any member who had gravely sinned was excluded. With such a view, it is quite clear that Tertullian and Montanism in general appear to stand almost unshakably on the basis of more ancient church ideas, on the basis of Tradition. It was a reaction of ancient Christian piety against the secularization of the Church, which was necessarily associated with the establishment of the Catholic Church. The rejection and condemnation of Montanism was, as it were, a condemnation by the Church of its own past 322. The episcopate that developed in the 2nd century, replacing the charismatic organization, transformed the concept of the Church. In particular, claiming rights to the “power of the keys” is only a claim of an strengthened episcopate, which, however, has no historical basis 323. In the first two centuries the episcopate had almost no apostolic rights; The church was led by charismatics. The “power of the keys” belonged to them, and not to the bishops. Therefore, when Tertullian in “De pudicitia” declared that the Church can forgive sins only per spiritalem hominem, and not through a bishop, he stood on the basis of ancient church history. The question of the “power of the keys” of the bishop stands, therefore, in inextricable connection with a more general and fundamental one: did the Church of the first two centuries imagine itself as a sectarian spiritual society of saints, or did it always, in accordance with the apostolic teaching, recognize itself from the very beginning of its historical existence as a moral organization (the Body), in which the members, in close unity with each other, guided by the Holy Spirit, reach the measure of the age of Christ? Protestant scholarship almost unanimously speaks out for the first understanding of church identity in the first two centuries, denies the “power of the keys” of the bishop and generally rejects the originality of the Sacrament of repentance in the Christian Church. But are historical data so indisputable and clear as to so sharply place history and dogma in a position of adversativity? Historical data is so incomplete and uncertain that representatives of not only different confessions, but also scientists of the same confession contradict in their interpretation. In any case, the question of the “power of the keys” in the first two centuries cannot necessarily be resolved in the Protestant sense; one can find a lot of data for the opposite decision, and we do not need to assume such a radical revolution in the history of the concept of the Church, which Protestants talk about 324. First of all, it should be noted that there is no positive data anywhere that would talk about the “power of the keys” of charismatics 325. To judge the state of things in the 2nd century, according to the testimony of Tertullian, who fell away from the Church, is at least unfounded. Based on what we have in De pudicitia, we can only make the following statement: the Church considered the “power of the keys” to be the right of the bishop, and Montanism rejected this right of the bishop. Tertullian’s reasoning in “De pudicitia” (p. 21) does not represent an echo of the general ancient church conviction, but only the fruit of his Montanistic error 326. But if we subject Tertullian’s testimony to a detailed analysis, it says a lot about the “power of the keys” of the bishop in the first centuries. We have already cited evidence from Tertullian, where he asserts the right of a bishop to forgive less serious sins. It is remarkable that the evidence is given in the Montanist work De pudicitia. But if in the first two centuries the “power of the keys” was only in the hands of charismatics, then it is completely incomprehensible why the bishop could still authorize lighter sins. If in the first two centuries the bishop only performed the liturgy and was the financial official of the Christian community, then it would be more natural if he had absolutely no “power of keys,” even in relation to all sins. Tertullian limits the bishop's "power of the keys" to less serious sins; That power does not extend to mortal sins. But, as we have already proven, the difference between mortal and non-mortal sins was very, very relative; in any case, it was not a definite rule based on any dogmatic theory. But if somewhere ever mortal and non-mortal sins were not distinguished, then, obviously, Tertullian’s entire structure falls down. If a bishop ever forgave a mortal sin, then from the dogmatic side this completely destroys the Protestant idea of ​​charisma as a necessary condition for possessing the “power of the keys” in the ancient Church. Then you need to pay attention to the following. Tertullian knows about the right of the Church to forgive mortal sins. In confirmation of this, as we have seen, he cites the saying of the Montanist prophet 327. But Tertullian limits this right to the Montanist Church, where the “power of the keys” belongs only to the spiritual man 328. The terms spiritalis ecclesia, spiritalis homo in Tertullian mean a Montanist who recognizes the revelation of the Paraclete. But the revelation of the Paraclete is already a new era in the life of the Christian Church. The Church, which did not recognize this revelation, was obviously a multitudo psychicorum before. Before Montanus there were no spiritual people and no spiritual church, and then, obviously, it was the ecclesia numerus episcoporum that could forgive sins. In his essay “Scorpiace,” Tertullian considers the Church to be the owner of the “power of the keys,” and it does not say at all that this power is limited in any way 329. In addition, it should be remembered that Montanistic prophecy is not a phenomenon identical with ancient Christian charismaticism; and if Tertullian attributes exclusively to the prophets of the Paraclete the “power of the keys,” it does not in the least follow that before Tertullian this power in the Church belonged to the charismatics 330 . After all, Tertullian himself calls the discipline of the Paraclete “new.” After all, Tertullian does not use the argumentum praescriptionis, so beloved by him in other cases, against Callistus! In “De pudicitia” Tertullian refutes not Callistus’s “innovation”, but also his own pre-montanist views on issues of church discipline. Between “De pudicitia” and “De poenitentia” he has an obvious contradiction, which the blj was very surprised by. Jerome 331 and which is noted by many modern scientists 332. It was not the Church that changed the concept of its holiness, but Tertullian, having deviated into Montanism, betrayed his former church convictions. He himself admits that he used to think the same way as psychics, and for changing his views he expects to be reproached with frivolity 333 . Why portray Tertullian the Montanist as a representative of ancient church views on the holiness of the Church, when he does not consider himself such! He himself makes it clear that the first two centuries of church history stand on the side of his opponents. In church historical science, as the main proof of the position that in the Church of the first two centuries the “power of the keys” belonged only to the charismatics, and not to the hierarchy, reference has recently been made to martyrs or confessors. Confessors or martyrs in ancient times were considered precisely as special spiritual people, charismatics. This view is equally visible in the narrative of the Lyon martyrs 334, in Tertullian’s letter to the martyrs 335 and in many later monuments 336. It is known that martyrs had a close relationship with the forgiveness of grave sins. From this the conclusion is drawn that only martyrs or charismatics in general belonged to the “power of the keys,” while the hierarchy only after the struggle with the charismatics assumed this power, which it did not have before. But the reference to martyrs is extremely unconvincing. There is very little historical information available, and there is no data in it for such broad generalizations. The first news of the acceptance into the Church of those who fell as martyrs is in the same message about the Lyon martyrs. This is what we read there: “They (the martyrs) defended everyone and did not blame anyone, they allowed everyone and did not bind anyone (ελυον άπαντας, έδεσμεύον δέ ουδένα); They even prayed for those from whom they were tormented, speaking like the perfect martyr Stephen. They did not exalt themselves over the fallen, but what they themselves abounded in, they shared with those in need, because they had maternal mercy for them and abundantly shed tears for them before the Father. They asked for life, and the Father gave it to them; They then shared this life with their neighbors and, having won victory over everything, went to God. Always loving the world and always offering peace, they went to the Father in peace: they did not cause sorrow in the mother’s heart, nor disorder and enmity between the brothers, but left joy, peace, unanimity and love” 337. But there is absolutely no basis for the assumption that only the martyrs, and not the hierarchy, possessed the “power of the keys.” On the contrary, there is no mention at all of independent forgiveness of sins: the martyrs only defended and prayed for everyone. Rather, one can see in this testimony an indication that the confessors only interceded for the acceptance of the fallen; they offered peace and left joy, peace, unanimity and love 338. In any case, this evidence is very vague from the historical side, and using this unclear piece of the mosaic to reconstruct the picture of church discipline of the 2nd century is at least risky 339 . Already the anti-montanist writer Apollonius, after describing the morals among the representatives of the new prophecy, asks ironically: “Who forgives the sins of whom? Proro 340? Here the Montanist principle is ridiculed, according to which the power of forgiveness of sins belongs in the Church not to the hierarchy, but to representatives of the “new” prophecy. The Church, obviously, did not recognize such a principle 341. Finally, there is some data on the same issue from Tertullian. The participation of martyrs in the penitential discipline is also known to him 342. Tertullian also speaks of the Holy Spirit living in the martyrs. But it is remarkable that Tertullian does not consider martyrs anywhere as an exclusive body for the remission of sins; he calls them, along with hierarchical persons, listing the actions of the Holy Spirit in the martyrs; however, he says nothing about the forgiveness of sins 343. But we should pay special attention to Tertullian the Montanist. Sometimes the matter is presented as if Callistus placed between the decree of the martyrs on the acceptance of a sinner and his acceptance by the community the decision of the bishop 344. But this idea is completely refuted by the sources. Tertullian reproaches Callistus not only because he arrogated to himself the right to forgive sins, a right that belongs only to the Paraclete, but also because he extends this power to the martyrs of the “spiritual” Church 345. If the martyrs had previously been, by virtue of their charisma, the exclusive body for the remission of sins, then Tertullian would have defended this right of theirs and reproached Callistus for appropriating for himself what belonged to the martyrs. But Tertullian disputes the right of martyrs to have any part in the forgiveness of mortal sins. Martyrs do not have the right to forgive mortal sins, and the bishop cannot allow them to do this 346. It is enough for a martyr if he cleanses his sins. It is common for an ungrateful or proud person to extend to others what he himself has achieved with great difficulty. Who, except the Son of God alone, resolved someone else's death by his death? The Son of God was Himself pure from all sin. If you are a sinner, how can the oil of your lamp (faculae) be sufficient for both you and me? If a martyr forgives mortal sins because Christ is in him, then let him reveal the secrets of his heart. This is exactly how Christ proved His power when healing the paralytic (see: Matt. 9:4 et seq.). He proved this power by a miracle, and without such proof one cannot trust anyone's power to forgive sins. Christ could prove His power, but the martyrs cannot. Martyrdom is the second baptism. If I can forgive sins after the second baptism, then why can’t I do the same after the first 347? So, Tertullian disputes the right of confessors to somehow participate in the forgiveness of mortal sins 348. This fact stands in the most decisive contradiction with the newest view of Protestant scholars, according to which the “power of the keys” in the first two centuries was inextricably linked with spiritual gifts. Both Tertullian and the Montanists in general, who denied the “power of the keys” of the hierarchy, adhered to the doctrine that the entire hierarchical church authority, after its secularization, appropriated to itself the rights of the charismatics. If this were so, if Tertullian the Montanist really stood on the basis of an imaginary ancient church tradition, then he would not have written the 22nd chapter of “De pudicitia”, where he disputes the rights of martyrs to forgive mortal sins. After all, then, from Tertullian’s point of view, the participation of martyrs in the forgiveness of sins would be a remnant of the ancient exclusively charismatic organization, distorted by the psyches, so dear to the hearts of Protestant scientists 349. Preuschen is surprised by this circumstance and admits that no explanation can be given for it, since the Montanists themselves did not deny the possibility of forgiving sins 350. One explanation can be given: the Church of Christ has never been a charismatic organization; “the power of the keys” was not associated with spiritual gifts in the ancient Church; all this was invented by German Protestants 17 centuries after historical events on the basis of few and very unclear evidence that can even be interpreted in the opposite sense. Martyrs were held in great veneration in the ancient Church; perhaps Tertullian calls them cari Dei. It is quite clear that their intercession, their intercession, was of great importance in accepting a sinner and repentant member into church communion, but there is no reason to attribute to them the “power of the keys” 351. This power belonged to the bishop as the apostolic successor. The Roman Bishop Callistus did not introduce a new doctrine about the ownership of the “power of the keys” in the Church by the bishop, and the Montanists did not dispute this doctrine because they stood on the point of view of the Church of the 2nd century, but only because they were heretics who introduced a new “revelation” of the Paraclete, rejected by the Church. If Callistus had created a new dogmatic teaching, previously unknown, then it is unlikely that this teaching would have been silently accepted by everyone except the Montanists, and Montanism would not have caused such quick and decisive condemnation in the East and in the West 352. Montanism was not the 1st and 2nd century Church in the 3rd century. True, he stood in opposition to the increasing decline of Christian morals, but, like any rigorism, he laid dogmatic foundations unknown to the ancient Church under the demand for greater severity of morals. This is precisely the doctrine of the holiness of the Church in the sense of the moral perfection of its members, the assignment of the “power of the keys” only to the Montanist prophets and the denial of this power to the hierarchy of psychics 353. These points have hardly yet been revealed in church dogma; the concept of the holiness of the Church was not precisely and definitely formulated. When Montanism definitely and sharply formulated the false doctrine of the holiness of the Church, church thought was directed to this subject and the beginning was laid for the Orthodox revelation of the concept of the holiness of the Church in connection with the question of who in the Church belongs to the “power of the keys.” In the first quarter of the 3rd century, only the first steps were taken. One can see how little positive dogmatic content there is in the anti-montanist monuments that have reached us, and how the dogmatic thought of the Church still does not have beaten paths or memorized arguments. We said this mainly about Western representatives of church theological thought. But nevertheless, Western theological thought turned its attention to clarifying the concept of the holiness of the Church: disciplinary disputes, so closely connected precisely with the idea of ​​holiness of the Church, had already become known there. In the East, such disputes are unknown, and Eastern writers had no reason to deliberately consider the dogmatic question of the holiness of the Church. Their idea of ​​the holiness of the Church can only be reconstructed from scattered and fragmentary remarks that are found in works devoted to completely different issues. If we turn to the works of outstanding Eastern writers of the 2nd and early 3rd centuries - Clement of Alexandria and Origen, then we will find a completely different formulation of issues related to the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe holiness of the Church than what we saw in Western writers of the same time. In all the arguments of Western writers, one cannot help but notice them as if of a legal nature: for them, sin is first of all a crime, exomologesis is satisfaction, followed by “forgiveness.” Deadly sins are too great a crime. The Church cannot forgive sins against God. We encounter a completely different concept of sin in Clement of Alexandria. Sins are passions that are contrary to human nature; sin – corruption of nature 354. The purpose of human life is purification from sinful inclinations, moral and even physical improvement (ἠ θικῶς τε καὶ φυσικῶς) 355. The true Gnostic, as Clement describes him, is in continuous movement forward (προκοπή) 356. The activity of the Gnostic, which Clement compares to the art of medicine 357, should be directed towards the improvement of other people (εἰς τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐπανόρθωσιν). Clement is not talking about the “forgiveness” of sins, but about their healing, and the more perfect can guide the less perfect and the latter must seek this guidance 358. Obviously, in Clement’s system there is not and cannot be a Montanistic idea of ​​the holiness of the Church in the sense of the holiness of its constituent members 359. Only God is perfect (τέλειος), and the followers of Christ are inexperienced babies 360. Only the Logos is sinless 361, and it is common for all people (ἔμφυτον καὶ κοινόν) to sin 362. There are several stages of moral perfection 363. People should try to sin as little as possible (ἐλάχιστα ἁ μαρτάνειν), and most of all care about liberation from passions and vices (τῶν παθῶν καὶ νοσημάτων ) 364 . One can only be surprised that some dare to call themselves perfect, placing themselves above the apostle. Clement quotes the words of the Apostle Paul (see: Phil. 3:12–14) and reasons: he considers himself perfect (τέλειον) because he renounced his former life and began to strive for a better one, not as perfect in gnosis, but as striving for perfection. It is clear that by “perfection” he meant renunciation of sins and rebirth to faith in the One Perfect One with complete oblivion of previous sins 365. For Clement, the Church, as for the Apostle Paul, is an ever-growing organism, a Body 366. The Church is holy 367 , Christ has her as His bride 368 . It belongs to Christ alone 369. Strict unity corresponds to its holiness. The Church transcends everything; there is nothing similar or equal to it 370 . But believers will achieve complete perfection only in the heavenly Church, where Christ will be in everything. In the church of God, that is, in the universal Church (ἡ π ᾶ σα ἐκκλησία), there are also lower monasteries 371. The earthly Church is only a similarity (εικών) to the heavenly Church. The Earthly Church strives for perfection, which is why we pray that the will of God may be on earth as it is in Heaven 372. The historical task of the Church is to educate the human race, to bring it to perfection 373. Only in the Church, having Christ as their Head, do people achieve perfection 374. The Church strengthens and multiplies by receiving the gifts of God 375. “There is One Father of all, One and Logos of all, One and the Holy Spirit, One everywhere, One only and the Virgin Mother. It’s nice for me to call the Church that way. This mother alone would not have had milk, because alone she would not have been a wife; she is both a maiden and a mother; chaste as a virgin; loving like a mother. Convening his children, he feeds him with holy milk, the young (βρεφώδει) Logos. That's why she didn't have milk; since milk was this beautiful child, the Body of Christ, feeding the new people with the Logos (τὴν νεολαίαν)... Logos is everything for this newborn - father, mother, educator, and nourisher.” All this guidance by the Logos of the members of the Church has one goal: cleansing from carnal passions (ἵ να καταργήσωμεν τῆς σαρκὸς ᾑ μῶν τὰ πάθη) 376. Repentance is one of the means for the moral improvement of members of the Church, and the church hierarchy serves for this same improvement 377. Clement cites discussions about repentance from “The Shepherd” and adds: he who turns from paganism and his former life to faith one day (ᾅ παξ) receives forgiveness of sins. The one who has sinned after that, repenting, should be ashamed, even if he received forgiveness (κ ᾂ ν συγ γνώμης τυγχάνη), since he cannot be washed (by baptism) for the remission of sins. True repentance, spiritual rebirth occurs when a person does not return to previous sins. Moral instability (επιτηδειότης εἰς εὐτρεψίαν) occurs from a lack of exercise, from a lack of feats (ἐξ ανασκησίας). Often asking for forgiveness in what we often sin is only words of repentance (δόχησις), and not repentance 378. Clement, therefore, knows about the forgiveness of sins, which can be asked, obviously, from representatives of the church hierarchy, but he looks at the matter of repentance more deeply: his speech has as its subject the moral revival of the members of the Church, and not just the forgiveness of sins. Regarding the second most famous representative of the Alexandrian Church - Origen - opinions differ. It is believed that Origen was aware of the disciplinary disputes taking place in the West. In his writings there are even direct allusions to the orders of Callistus; Origen does not approve of these orders. In the controversy between Callistus and Hippolytus, he stood on the side of Hippolytus. This idea, expressed by Dollinger 379, is often repeated in church history 380. The fact that Origen did not approve of Callistus's activities is not surprising. Origen is the same ascetic as Hippolytus. The too lenient practice of Callistus could not arouse sympathy in one who himself lived on several obols a day. But Origen, like Hippolytus, did not have a Montanistic doctrine of the holiness of the Church. Origen talks about the Church in a way that he could not have talked about if he had adhered to the Montanist doctrine of the holiness of the Church. “The whole Church of God is the Body of Christ, animated by the Son of God; the members of this Body as a whole are all believers. Just as the soul animates and moves the body, which by its very nature cannot produce vital movements, so the Logos, setting in motion and moving the entire Body, or the Church, to everything necessary, moves each individual member belonging to the Church, so that not one of them does anything without the Logos” 381. Origen speaks of the true Church (τῆς κυρίως εκκλησίας), which has no vice, but is holy and blameless 382. A sinner is excommunicated from the Church, even if people do not excommunicate him 383. But along with this teaching about the holiness of the Church, Origen says that the Church is daily renewed in the image of Him who created it 384. The church is not always at the same height 385. “The face of the Church, depending on the virtues and morals of the believers, is sometimes blooming with beauty, sometimes unattractive (turpis)” 386. In his discourses on the book of Genesis, Origen compares the Church to an ark. “The people who are saved in the Church are united together, like all those people and animals who were saved in the ark. But since not everyone has the same success in faith (in fide profectus), then the ark is not the same dwelling for everyone, but different rooms are separated in it - lower, upper and nests, in order to show that in the Church, although everyone is contained in the area of \u200b\u200bthe same faith and washed by one baptism, not everyone has the same prosperity, but each in a special way" (unusquisque in suo ordine) 387. Regarding the Lord’s parable about the net (see: Matt. 13:47–48), Origen says: “It is clear that in the net of the whole Church there are both good and evil. If everyone were clean, what would be left for God's judgment? According to another parable, on the threshing floor there are both grain and chaff together, since only the grain must be gathered into the granary of Christ (Luke 3:17). I am not saying that the threshing floor is the whole world, but the threshing floor is the totality of the Christian people. The threshing floor is described in such a way that it is full of grain and chaff - not all grain, not all chaff, so in the earthly Church (in Ecclesiis terrestribis) one is grain, the other is chaff... If anyone ever sees a sinner in our meetings, let him not be embarrassed and say: here is a sinner in the assembly of saints... While we are in the present age, that is, on the threshing floor and in the net, both the good and the evil are together” 388 . Comparing the members of the Church with the pagans, Origen says that they are like lamps in the world, however, among them there are better and worse 389. Explaining the fact that the Jebusites lived together with the sons of Judah in Jerusalem (see: Josh. 15:63), Origen recalls the word of Christ about the tares: let them grow together (Matthew 13:30). “Just as in the Gospel tares are allowed to grow along with the wheat, so in Jerusalem, that is, in the Church, there are some Jebusites - those who lead a low and unworthy life (ignobilem et degenerem), who are corrupt in faith, and in deeds, and in all their behavior. For it is impossible to cleanse the Church completely (ad liquidum) while it is on earth, so that no ungodly and sinful remains in it, but so that everyone is holy and blessed, without any sinful stain” 390. Vessels of wrath are often hidden in the Church. There will be a time when the Church will be cleansed, this is the time of judgment (κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τῆς κρίσεως), and now it contains vessels of wrath along with vessels of mercy, the tares are found along with the wheat, and in one net there are fish thrown out and chosen 391. The application of Christ's parable of the tares to the Church makes Origen related to Callistus of Rome 392. Thus, according to Origen, there are not only saints in the Church. Members of the Church are gradually improving, and the Church has as its goal to guide people in this improvement. “The Church is full of radiance from east to west, filled with true light, is the pillar and foundation of the truth” 393. “Just as the moon borrows light from the sun to illuminate the night, so the Church, having received the light of Christ, illuminates all who move in the night of ignorance. If anyone achieves to become a son of God, walking gracefully during the days, as a son of God and a son of light, he is illuminated by Christ Himself, like the day by the sun.”394 The Church, therefore, is conceived as a mediator between Christ and people in the matter of their enlightenment 395. If Origen even represents the entire Church, as one organism, as being perfected, then even more so each individual person who is part of the Church. True, in his allegorical interpretations of the Holy Scriptures, Origen sometimes seems to say that the sinner departs from the Church. So, for example, Origen sometimes interprets the speeches of the prophet Jeremiah about the Babylonian captivity as follows: the sinner surrenders to Nebuchadnezzar, that is, the devil, and he takes him away from Jerusalem (that is, the Church) to Babylon 396. However, more often Origen, speaking about the holiness of a member of the Church, represents him not so much as having achieved the state of holiness, but rather as only caring about holiness (sanctitatis stadium gerat). “Those who are not holy die in their sins; and those who are holy bring repentance for their sins, know about their wounds and their falls, look for a priest, ask for healing and cleansing through the high priest. Therefore, that word of the law clearly and intelligibly defines that the high priests and priests do not cleanse the sins of any others, but only of the saints; for holy is he who, with the help of the high priest, takes care of sin” 397. The righteous differs from the unrighteous in that in case of sinful falls he hastens to repent and knows how to repent, like David 398. But does Origen allow repentance for all sins, culminating in acceptance into church communion? Origen's attitude towards mortal sins appears to be very different among scientists. Some argue that Origen did not at all recognize the possibility of forgiveness of mortal sins here on earth; mortal sins can be forgiven by God 399 . Others suggest a change in Origen's views at the end of his life under the influence of later events in the Western Church, well known to him; in his earlier writings, referring to the disciplinary disputes between Hippolytus and Callistus, he was declared a supporter of Hippolytus 400. Finally, others consider Origen to be a representative of the most lenient view, according to which every sin can be forgiven by the Church here on earth, so that the acceptance into church communion of those who have sinned mortally does not in any way contradict the holiness of the Church 401. One can, of course, assume a softening of Origen’s harsh ascetic views towards the end of his life. The previously strictly ascetic views of the entire Church during the 3rd century were greatly softened by the circumstances of historical existence. It is only important for us to note that Origen did not adhere to the supposedly general ancient church teaching that was defended in the 3rd century by the Montanists and, as we will see later, by the Novatians. It should be noted that the teaching of Montanism about the forgiveness of mortal sins only by God Himself after the death of the sinner is hardly possible in the mouth of Origen: after all, he taught about apocatastasis, in which there will be no place at all for evil and suffering. Therefore, Origen’s words about the forgiveness of sins can rather be considered as indicating the possibility of forgiveness of even grave sins by the Church. Origen often speaks about the forgiveness of mortal sins. Mortal sins - not only murder or adultery, but also theft, perjury, embezzlement, violence - Origen calls the treasure of the devil, his coins, the money with which he buys slaves for himself 402. The devil constantly sows tares into the wheat. But one who has fallen into even the most serious sin should not despair. By repentance, crying and doing good you can make amends for what you have done and be healthy 403. A soul swallowed up in the abyss of depravity can still, like Jonah from the belly of the whale, be saved from death 404; the repentant does not need to despair, for the multitude of sins cannot exceed the mercy of God 405. Origen compares the penitents in his essay “Against Celsus” to those resurrected from the dead. There Origen says that those who have fallen into serious carnal sins are considered in the Christian Church as if they were dead, and if they show proper repentance, then they are considered as if resurrected from the dead and after a long trial they are accepted as newly converted, but even then they are not given any power or position in the Church 406. Origen knows about mortal sins, quae dicuntur ad mortem, but he speaks of the possibility of repentance for those who have fallen into this type of sin. And he who has fallen into mortal sins must resort to the help of repentance: if he has sinned once, let him not sin again; and if twice or even three times, let him not add new sins 407 . Even mortal sin can be healed: whoever confesses his sin and makes amends for it through acts of repentance (per exhomologesin) can earn forgiveness 408. It is desirable, of course, that a person of high piety and virtue (athleta pietatis ac virtutis) never fall. But if a fall occurs, let him hasten to atone for the sin committed by repentance (poenitentiae suae satisfactione) 409. Very often Origen speaks, like the Apostle Paul, about the betrayal of the sinner to Satan 410. Origen has this “tradition to Satan” as a terminus technicus to designate the excommunication of a sinner from the Church. “Jerusalem is the image of the Church, which is the city of God, built from living stones, from which the sinner is expelled, handed over to Nebuchadnezzar, that is, Satan” 411. But Origen interprets this tradition to Satan completely differently from Tertullian in De pudicitia. A person excommunicated from the Church must undergo feats of repentance during his entire stay outside the Church; otherwise he will not be accepted back into the Church. After the captivity, the Jews returned to Jerusalem - so even one who has sinned mortally can be accepted back, if only he repents 412. The time of penitential deeds must be proportionate to the severity of sin 413. “Origen views the excommunication of sinners dangerous to the Church as a pedagogical measure, similar to exile to distant places used in civil society, and it is not impossible for the sinner to be corrected and returned to the Church” 414. Origen understands the destruction of the flesh, for which the apostle handed over the Corinthian incest to Satan, in the sense of death to sin 415, the destruction of sensuality 416. The emaciation of the flesh is precisely its cleansing from sin - the same as is usually practiced by penitents 417, that is, Origen understands the emaciation of the flesh in the sense of exomologesis, as it was interpreted in the edict of Callistus, refuted by Tertullian. Defining in the preface to the commentary on the Epistle to the Corinthians the period of time between the writing of the First and Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Origen says that the same incestuous man whom the Apostle betrayed to Satan in the First Epistle, he takes back in the Second 418. And therefore it is the apostle who orders it to be accepted that during the time of excommunication he bore the fruit of repentance 419. Origen, speaking about excommunication from the Church for sins, at the same time clearly and definitely testifies to the fact that through repentance, a sinner can in this life return again to the people of God 420. Thus, Origen has very clear evidence of the possibility of forgiving mortal sins. When he speaks of the unforgivability of sins, these passages only apparently contradict the general position we have established: in these passages a lack of repentance on the part of the sinner himself is assumed. The reason, therefore, lies not in God or the properties of the Church, but in the unrepentance of the sinner himself 421. Taking into account this teaching of Origen on repentance, we will have to admit that in the dogmatic teaching on the holiness of the Church, Origen does not retain traces of the supposed ancient church-wide teaching about the Church as a society of saints. The Church, according to Origen, is not a society of saints, but a physician established by Christ for humanity sick with sin. This healing work of the Church, according to Origen, is entrusted to the shepherds of the Church. The highest Physician is the Savior Himself; He is followed in the Old Testament by the prophets, in the New by the apostles Peter and Paul and all those who were appointed after them in the Church, who were entrusted with church discipline for healing wounds and whom God appointed to be doctors in the Church 422. The Apostles and others like them, priests in the image of the great Bishop, taught in Divine service (τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ θεραπείας), know, taught by the Holy Spirit, about which sins one can make sacrifices, and when and how, and they know about which this should not be done 423 . Bishops, like Christ who established the priesthood in the Church, must take upon themselves the sins of the people and give them forgiveness of sins 424. Forgiveness of people's sins is given by God through people 425 and only in the Church 426. “The power of the keys” is possessed qui praesunt Ecclesiae; definitions of this power are given per episcopi vocem 427. Christ gave the Apostle Peter “the power of the keys,” and this is how Origen talks about the succession of this power in the Church: “Look what power has the rock on which the Church is founded by Christ and everyone who says: You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God (Matthew 16:16); so that his judgment has a firm meaning, as if God judged in him, lest the gates of hell overcome him in judgment (ἐν αὐτω τὸ κρίνειν). But the gates of hell belong to those who judge unjustly, and do not bind on earth according to the word of God, and do not loose on earth according to His will. He who does not possess the gates of hell judges fairly. Therefore, he has the keys of the Kingdom of God, opening to those who are forgiven on earth, so that in Heaven they will be forgiven and free, and closing for those who are bound by his fair sentence on earth, so that in Heaven they will be bound and condemned. Therefore, those who occupy the episcopal position (τὸν τόπον τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς) transfer this saying of the Lord to themselves, like Peter, and having received from the Savior the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, they teach that everything that is bound, that is, condemned by them, is bound in Heaven, and having received forgiveness from them, it is also resolved in Sky. It must be said that they claim this about themselves correctly (ὑγιῶς), if they also have that for the sake of which Peter was told: you ecu Peter (Matthew 16:18); and if they are precisely that the Church was founded on them by Christ, then this could rightfully be attributed to them. But the gates of hell should not prevail against the one who wants to knit and decide. If he is bound by the bonds of his sins, then in vain he both binds and looses” 428. The last words above are subject to different interpretations. Sometimes in these words they want to see the idea that “the purity of faith and life of a bishop is a necessary condition for the “power of the keys” that he possesses by office to be valid in his hands” 429. But purity of life, of course, is a very relative concept, and it is difficult to admit that Origen placed the “power of the keys,” which, in his opinion, is so important in the life of the Church, in an inextricable connection with the always relative and conditional concept of purity of life. The context of Origen’s speech gives the right to see in the last words only the thought that is expressed in a different form at the beginning of the above passage, namely, that unjust (maybe biased) condemnation or forgiveness does not matter in the eyes of God 430. The holiness of the ministry, of course, obliges every priest to behave in accordance with the ministry; after all, the Old Testament priests also ate the sin offering in a holy place 431. But representatives of Protestant scholarship focus their special attention on some few passages from Origen’s writings and draw conclusions that agree with their general view of ancient church history - namely, Origen is credited with the opinion of charismaticism as the only basis for the “power of the keys.” Of these places, the most often stopped is “De orat.” (28, 8). This is the place: “He who has received a breath (ἐμπνευσθείς) from Jesus, like the apostles, of whom by his fruits it can be known that he has received the Holy Spirit, and who has become spiritual in the sense that in every case where he must act with reasoning, he is guided by the Holy Spirit in the image of the Son of God, such a one lets go of what God would let go, and holds on to incurable sins ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν " γινώσκεσθαι δυνάμενος , ὡ ς χωρήσας τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ᾅ γιον καὶ γενόμενος πνευματικὸς τῷ ὐπό τοῦ Πνεύματος ᾅ τἱοῦ ᾀ φίησιν ᾃ ἐὰν ᾀ φῆ ὁ Θεός καὶ κρατεῖ τὰ ἀνίατα τῶν ἁ μαρτημάτων ). He is a minister; just as the prophets served God by speaking not their own, but according to the Divine will, so he serves the only one who has the power to forgive sins to God" 432 ... "I do not know how some, assigning to themselves a priestly dignity that exceeds [their] (τὰ ὐπὲρ τήν ἱερατικ ῂ ν ἀξίαν), perhaps without even studying priestly science, they boast that they can forgive idolatry, forgive adultery and fornication, as if through their prayer for those who dared to commit these sins, mortal sin is also resolved. They do not read that there is sin leading to death: I do not mean that he should pray (1 John 5:16)” 433. The above words of Origen are subject to a wide variety of, sometimes very decisive, interpretations. First of all, they want to see Origen’s teaching that the power to knit and decide belongs only to persons possessing spiritual gifts and charisma, and this power is given to a person not according to his hierarchical position in the Church, but is determined solely by his personal charisma 434. Along with this, there is even an opinion expressed that Origen in these words expresses a protest against interference in the matter of forgiveness of sins on the part of persons not called to this, namely, confessors and martyrs 435. First of all, it should be noted that Origen does not say anything about the idea that individual charisma is quite sufficient to possess the “power of the keys” 436. Origen always talks about the church hierarchy; To this hierarchy, in addition to its ecclesiastical dignity, Origen makes some moral demands. In his reasoning, Origen proceeds from the apostolic dignity of the person who forgives sins, but this person, in his opinion, needs some personal qualities. It is not that these qualities determine the very possession of the “power of the keys,” but they enable the person who has this power not to abuse it, but to use it in accordance with the will of God 437 . Such a person forgives those sins that God would forgive. For someone who forgives sins, you need to know, you need to be able to distinguish which sins can be forgiven and which cannot, based on the very condition of the sinner. Thus, in the first half of the above excerpt from “De orat.” (28:8) contains the same idea as in the passage from the commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, which we cited a little higher: “only the judgment of a worthy person is unshakable, like the judgment of God Himself, who judges in him.” Comparing both places, we can formulate Origen’s thought as follows: a hierarchical person, by virtue of his ecclesiastical position, has the “power of the keys,” but this power, like everything human, is not absolute, for its bearer can sometimes be unjust, so that someone who does not deserve this punishment may be excommunicated from the Church, [or] there will be people in the Church who will be condemned by God Himself 438 . In Origen’s words there is no indication of the inextricable connection between charisma and the “power of the keys,” but they are very important for defining the concept of the Church in Origen. If the judgment of the hierarchical authority does not always coincide with the judgment of God, then, obviously, belonging to the earthly Church does not condition an indispensable salvation in Heaven. There is no salvation outside the Church 439, but destruction is also possible in the Church—thoughts that are not at all Montanistic. Apparently, in the second half of the quoted words of Origen from “De orat.” (28:10), indeed, bishops are denied the right to forgive mortal sins; this right is said to exceed the priestly dignity 440. But to correctly understand Origen’s words, it is necessary to take them not separately, as is usually done, but in context. Origen, with reference to the Evangelist (see: John 20, 22–23), said that the apostles received from Christ the power to forgive sins. But, Origen suggests, the apostles may be reproached as to why they did not forgive everyone; on the contrary, some were bound, so that they are bound in Heaven. Origen deflects this reproach by pointing out that the Old Testament priests did not make sacrifices for all sins; So the apostles did not do their own will, but acted in accordance with the will of God. Both the apostles and their successors, the bishops, know which sins need to be forgiven and which ones cannot be forgiven 441. If we, taking into account the context of Origen’s speech, look at the passage under discussion, then we should read in it not a denial of the “power of the keys” from the bishop 442, but only a correct understanding of this power. “The power of keys” is the power to decide and knit. But some “boast (αυχοῦσι) that they can let go of idolatry, forgive adultery and fornication.” If the bearer of the “power of the keys” boasts that he can forgive at will (as indicated by the words: μηδὲ ἀκριβοῦντες τὴν ἱερατικὴν ἑπιστήμην) any sin, this is already misunderstanding of the "power of keys". The power to decide and knit according to one’s own desire, and not according to the state of the sinner, of course, exceeds priestly dignity. Consequently, Origen does not deny the hierarchical “power of keys” among persons, but protests against its indiscriminate use. Even the very denial of the bishop's power to forgive mortal sins, even if Origen had it, from his point of view, would only be an assertion of the bishop's power to knit. Hierarchical persons not only allow, but also knit. From the apostles they inherited this dual power. The power to knit is manifested in the excommunication of those who have gravely sinned from the Church; the very excommunication from the Church is precisely the revelation of the power to knit given to the apostolic successors 443. It is necessary to pay attention to one more expression in the words of Origen from “De orat.” (28.10). He reproaches those who boast of their power to forgive sins, “as if through their prayer for those who dared to commit these sins, mortal sin was also resolved. They do not read that there is sin leading to death: I do not mean that he should pray (John 5:16).” Those who boasted of their power to resolve sins obviously referred to the power of their prayer, saying that through their prayer mortal sin was also resolved. Therefore, there is no question that a bishop cannot forgive mortal sins at all: for this, just one prayer for a sinner is not enough. To forgive a mortal sin, one must first temporarily excommunicate the trespasser from the Church and only after feats of repentance accept him back into church communion. Therefore, is it not possible to assume that Origen in the above words only requires exomologesis 444 for the forgiveness of mortal sin? Isn’t a positive answer suggested by the concept of “tradition to Satan” and “interims carnis”, which we saw in Origen? Other passages from Origen are cited very rarely in support of his supposed inextricable connection between spiritual gifts and the “power of keys,” and there is no reason in them to attribute such an opinion to Origen 445 . Thus, there is no sufficient reason to consider Origen a defender of the rigoristic view of the Church, according to which the Church is a society of saints; There is no reason to attribute to him the Montanist delusion that only those with special spiritual gifts can forgive mortal sins. Now we can summarize the results of our research in this essay. The apostolic teaching on the holiness of the Church is not a teaching on the specific holiness of individual members of the Church. The Apostle Paul represents the Church as an organism constantly growing in moral perfection. It was not the smug and proud consciousness of one’s holiness, so characteristic of all sectarians, that dominated the ancient Church, but a humble consciousness of sinfulness and the need for correction and repentance. Therefore, in almost all the monuments of ancient church literature we find a tireless preaching of repentance. But the general ascetic worldview that prevailed in the ancient Church supported a strict disciplinary practice, according to which those who sinned mortally in some Churches were excommunicated from the Church, although this did not flow from the dogmatic teaching about the necessary holiness of members of the Church. The discipline was varied, and the division of sins into mortal and non-mortal was not known everywhere. But soon, under the influence of a general decline in morality, they began to soften the discipline regarding mortal sins, definitely speaking out about the possibility of accepting those who had fallen into these sins into church communion. This was only some change in disciplinary practice; the dogmatic teaching about the holiness of the Church remained unchanged. The softening of discipline met with protest from people of a strictly ascetic direction. But some rejected the softened discipline because, under the influence of the sectarian-ecstatic “new” revelation of the Paraclete in the Montanist prophets, they brought severity to the point of rigorism and began to pursue a new dogmatic view of the Church, according to which it is a society of perfect saints. A serious sinner must be completely excommunicated from church communion; he must spend the rest of his life in deeds of repentance, and this repentance can be crowned with the forgiveness of the sinner after death by God Himself. Others, such as Hippolytus of Rome, disputed the relaxation of discipline for practical reasons, without mixing into their polemics either new prophecies or a new dogmatic concept of the Church. In connection with their doctrine of new revelation, the Montanists denied the power of bishops to bind and decide mortal sins and attributed this power to God alone and to their prophets, in whom God Himself spoke. But at the same time, in the edict of Callistus, Bishop of Rome, the idea that the “power of the keys” belonged to the bishop in the Church was very energetically expressed. It is impossible to agree with the attempt of the newest scholars to present the Montanists as defenders of ancient church-wide views on the Church and the “power of the keys.” The doctrine of the holiness of the Church in the sense of the holiness of its individual members was not known in the ancient Church, and there is no reason to attribute the “power of the keys” exclusively to charismatics or confessors considered such. The reference to Eastern writers - Clement and Origen, who supposedly held views in the East close to Montanistic ones, after analyzing all the data cited in its defense, should be decisively rejected. In Origen we find a teaching not about the holiness of individual members of the Church, but about their gradual improvement in the Church. The evidence given in defense of the position that Origen denied that the “power of the keys” belonged to the bishops is also insufficient. Thus, although the dogmatic teaching about the holiness of the Church has not yet been revealed in detail, data from the history of the penitential discipline and from the teaching about repentance in general show that the apostolic teaching about the growing Body of the Church lay at the basis of church concepts about the holiness of the Church from the very beginning of the existence of the Church and persisted until the 3rd century, when the beginning of a detailed scientific and theological disclosure of the concept of the holiness of the Church began. See: lust. Dial. P. 119: “We have now come out of that way of life (ἀπὸ τῆς πολιτείας) that we led, living badly like other inhabitants of the earth.” – CAG, 1,2. R. 426. Works. P. 324. For the meaning of ὅ σιος, see: Cremer. Bibl.-theol. Wörterburh 9 S. 780–782. Matt. 27, 59: "Σινδόνι καθαρ ᾶ"; John 13, 10: "Ἔ στι καθαρὸς ὅ λος"; Rev. 15, 16: "Γίνον καθαρόν "; 19, 8: "Βύσσινον λαμπρόν καὶ καθαρόν"; 19, 14: “Βύσσινον λευκὸν καθαρόν” and others. See “Concordance” by C. H. Bruder, Lipsiae MDCCCLXXXVIII. P. 449–450. Cremer. Bibl.-theol. Wb. S. 528–529. Matt. 5.8: "Oi καθαροὶ τ ῂ καρδία "; 1 Tim. 1, 5; 2 Tim. 2, 22: “Ἁ γάπη ὲκ καθαρὰς, καρδίας”; 1Tim 3:9; 2 Tim. About the relationship between ἅ γιος and καθαρός (actually about the verbs ἁ γιάζειν and καταρίζειν) see the reasoning of the priest. E. A. Vorontsova (Theological Bulletin. 1910. T. I, pp. 1–4). Also see D. Kasitsyn: “The schisms of the first centuries of Christianity. Montanism, Novatianism, Donatism and their influence on the revelation of the doctrine of the Church." M., 1889. P. 8–9, approx. 5 (Additions. Part 43). Er. Barnab. 13.6: "Λαὸν ἅ γιον". Cfr.: lust. Dial. P. 119. CAG, 1,2. P. 426. Works. P. 323. Ad Trail, inscr.: "Ἐκκλησία ἐγία". Vis 1,1,6: "Ἕ νεκεν τῆς ἀγ ί ας έκκλησίας ". Vis. I, 3,4: κτίσας την άγίαν έκκλησίαν. Ad Autol. II, 14. CAG, 8. P. 98; Writings of apologists. C. 150. Eusebius. History Ecclesias. V, 18.5. GrchSch. 9.1. S. 474,18–19. Inscr.: "Τῆς ἀγ ί ας καὶ καθολικής έκκλησίας ". Funk F. X. Die apostolischen Väter. S. 115. Cm.: Hacnack A Dogmengeschichte 4,1, pp. 407–408, Anm. 2. This story is repeated by many later writers. Clement of Alexandria prefaces his story with the following remark: “Ἄ κουσον μῦθον οΰ μύθον, άλλά ὄντα λόγον περὶ Ἰ ωάννου τοῦἀποστόλου παραδεδομένον.” – Quis dives salvetur. C.42.1. GrchSch. 17. S. 188.1–2. From this we can see that Clement himself does not doubt the correspondence of the story with reality. On the historicity of the narrative, see: Hieromonk Evdokim. Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian. P. 393, approx. 121. Clem. Alex. Quis dives salvetur. pp. 42.15. GrchSch. 17. S. 190,12–19. Cfr.: Eusebius. Cit. op.III, 23.19. 2 Clem. 14, 2, 3–4: “Οὐκ οἴομαι δὲ ὑμ ᾶ ς ἀγνοεῖν, ὅ τι ἐκκλησία ζῶσα σῶμά ... ῇ σαρκὶ Χρίστοῦ, δηλοῦσα ἡμῖν, ὅ τι ἐὰν ἡμῶν τηρήση αὐτὴν ἐν τ ῇ σαρκὶ καὶ φθείρ ῇ, ἀπολήψεται αῦτὴν έν τῷ πνεύματι τῷ άγίῳ. ἡ γὰρ σὰρξ α ὕ τη ἀντίτυπός ἐστιν τοῦ πνεύματου. ???? οῦν τοῦτο λέγει, ἀδελφοὶ, τηρήσατε τὴν σάρκα, ἵ να τοῦ πνεύματος μεταλάβητε. εἰ δε λέγομεν ειτὴν σάρκα τὴν έκκλησίαν καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα Χριστόν ἄρα οῦν ὁ υβρίσας τὴν σάρκα ὕ βρισεν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν . Ὁ τοιοῦτος οῦν οὐ μεταλήψεταί τοῦ πνεύματος , ὅ ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός ". Idem. 15.1: "Οῦκ οἴομαι δὲ, ὅ τι μικρὰν σομβουλίαν ἐποιησάμην περὶ ἐγκρατείας , ἣ ν ποιήσας τις οὐ μετανοήσει , ἀλλὰ καὶ ἑαυτὸν " Idem. 5.6: "Τὰ κοσμικὰ ταῦτα ὡ ς ἀλλότρια ἡγείσθαι καί μὴ ἐπιθυμεῖν αὐτὐῶν ". Idem. 10, 3: "Προ ῃ ρημένοι μ ᾶ λλον τὴν ἐνθάδε απόλαυσιν ᾒ τὴν μέλλουσαν ἐπαγγελίαν." To characterize the ascetic ideal of life in the ancient Church, we have provided only a few data. Several other data are provided by Pierre Batiffol. See: Etudes d'histoire et de théologie positive. 2-me ed. Paris, 1902. P. 47–54. Idem. Cfr.: Barnab. 19, 12: ἐξομολογήση ἐπὶ ἁ μαρτίας σου ". Quotations follow: Ezek. 33.11; 18.30; 32.12; Is. 1.16–20; 1 Clem. 8.1–4. Idem. 51.1, 3: "Καλὸν ᾀ νθρώπφ ἐξομολογείσθαι περὶ τῶν παραπτωμάτων ἢ σκλυρυναι τὴν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ ". “However,” says F. X. Funk, “Clement of Rome in his letter to the Corinthians speaks so generally that from his words it is impossible to draw any conclusion on our question, that is, on the question of ancient Christian discipline. See: Zur." altchristlichen Bussdisciplin. Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen. I, S. 172. Johann Stufler does not agree with this opinion of Funk, who draws broad conclusions from Clement’s message on the issue of discipline. katholische Theologie. 1907. S. 451. For now, it is important for us to note in Clement the general idea of repentance along with the definition of the holiness of the Church. Er. Polyc. 11, 2: "Si quis non se abstinuerit ab avaritia, ab idololatria coinquinabitur et tamquam inter gentes judicabitur." Idem. 7.1–4; 9, 7: “ᾩ ς ἒ χομεν καιρόν τοῦ ἰαθῆναι, ἐπιδῶμεν ἐαυτούς τῷ θεραπεύοντι θεῷ ". 11.1; 16.4; 17, 3. Idem. 19, 2–3. Wed: Barnab. 4:11: “Let us become spiritual, let us be a perfect church to God; As much as may depend on us (ἐφ ᾽ ὅ σον ἐστίν έν ᾑ μῖν), let us meditate on the fear of God and strive to keep the commandments of the Lord.” On this see: S.I. Smirnov. Spiritual father in the ancient Eastern Church. Part 1. Sergiev Posad, 1906. P. 220 ff. Ernst Rolffs. Das Indulgenz Edict des römischen Bischofs Kallist. TU 11, 3. Leipzig, 1893. S. [Much contradicts this]. See, for example, Er. Barnab. 4:14, which says: “We must pray that what is written against us may not be fulfilled: Many are called, but few are chosen.” Christians, therefore, are not yet chosen, but only called. 2 Clem. 20:3: “The saints are set as examples for Christians.” The usual tendentious Protestant view of the Church of the first centuries is, not without reason, disputed by Catholic scholars. “The so-called “ancient concept of the Church,” according to which it should only be a society of perfect saints, and not an institution (Anstalt) appointed for the sanctification (Heiligung) of sinful humanity, is one of the many fictions with which the history of Harnack’s dogmas abounds.” – Johann Stufler. Die Sündenvergebung bei Origenes. – Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie. 1907. S. 195–196. In Διδαχή the prayer: “Let this world pass away” (10.6); Barnab. 4.3: “The last (τὸ τέλειον) temptation has come near”; [followed by] quotations from Dan. 9, 24–27; Matt. 24, 22; Dan. 7, 24; 8. Barnab. 21:3: “The day is near in which all will perish with the wicked. The Lord is near and His reward is near (Isaiah 40:10). 1 Clem. 23.5: truly His will will be accomplished quickly and suddenly, as Scripture testifies: the Lord and Holy One, for whom you are waiting, will come quickly and will not delay and suddenly come to His church (Isa. 14:1; Mal. 3:1. Compare: Hab. 2:3; Heb. 10:37).” 2 Clem. 12:1: “Let us wait hourly for the kingdom of God.” In 16.3 we read: γινώσκετε δέ, ὄτι έρχεται ἤ δη ἡ ἡμέρα τῆς κρίσεως, that is, giving a quote Small 4.1, the author inserts ἤ δη. For more on the Second Coming, see 17:4–6. Also in Ignatius the God-Bearer: Ad Ephes. 11:1: “the times are already past.” Herm saw a tower that was almost finished: Past. Sim. IX, 5.1; IX, 32.1. They rushed to build the tower: Sim. IX, 3.2; Sim IX, 5.7. For example, James. 5.9: The judge stands at the door; 1 Pet. 4.7: the end is near. Wed: 1 Cor. 1,7,8; 15, 51, 52; 1Sol. 4.15; Phil. 4, 5; Open 1.3; 22.10. The expectation of the imminent death of the world was a very important element of the ancient Christian worldview. See about this: Ritschl A. Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche. S. 509, 519, 522. Compare: Harnack. Das Mönchtum, seine Ideale und seine Geschichte. Reden und Aufsätze. I-er Band. Giessen, 1904. S. 88; Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums, I. S. 293. See note. prof. A. A. Spassky to Russian. translation of this book (Kharkov, 1907). P. 219. Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church. Vol. 2. pp. 349–350. Knopf R. Das nachapostolische Zeitalter. S.396 ff. Zahn Th. Der Hirt des Hermas. S. 316–326, 344–350. Cm. Knopf R. Das nachapostolische Zeitalter. S. 398–399. Harnack speaks well about this. See: Das Mönchtum. Reden und Aufsätze. I, pp. 89–92. See also: Smirnov S.I., Spiritual father. pp.221–222; Harnack A. Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentumes, I, S. 172 ff., esp. S. 184–185. Cm.: Zahn Th. Der Hirt des Hermas. S. 139; Seeberg R. Studien zur Geschichte des Begriffs der Kirche. S. 7. Idem. 1,1,8. Cfr.: I, 2.4. Idзm. Ill, 2.4; Sim. IX, 3.3; IX, 4, 5. “Shepherd” is a penitential monument in the proper sense of the word. From beginning to end, the author has one idea - to exhort all contemporaries, all church states in decisive words to speedy repentance.” – This is how Stufler characterizes “Shepherd”. See: Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie. 1907. S. 452. Idem. IX, 17.5. Cfr.: 13.8–9. Vis. Ill, 6.1. Cfr.: Sim. IX, 8.1–5. The same idea about the possibility of rebirth is expressed in the vision of the vine from which the Angel distributed branches. Many of these branches have dried up. The angel watered them abundantly, after which some of the branches turned out to be green and with shoots, and even fruit on them. See Sim. VIII; esp. VIII, 5,6. The vision ends with the following command: “Go and tell everyone to repent and live for God, because the Lord, in His mercy, sent me to give repentance to everyone, even those who, according to their deeds, are not worth saving. But the Lord is patient and wants those called by His Son to be saved... All those who repent with all their hearts and are cleansed from all the deeds of unrighteousness that were spoken about before, and do not add anything else to their crimes, will receive from the Lord healing of their former sins, if they do not doubt these my commandments and live with God” (Sim. VIII, 11, 1, 3). On the issue of repentance in “The Shepherd,” F. X. Funk has some comments. See: Zuraltchristlichen Bussdisciplin. Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen. 1-er Bd. S. 168–171. Also see S.I. Smirnov: Spiritual father. P. 221, approx. 1. See also the work: Prof. Gusev. Readings on patrolology. Saint Hermas and his book "The Shepherd". – Orthodox Interlocutor, 1896.1, pp. 111–115. The views of “The Shepherd” receive a wide variety of interpretations in the scientific literature. Some see in the author of “The Shepherd” a rigorist, others, on the contrary, see him as an opponent of Montanistic severity. See: Stufler. Zeitschr. fur kath. Theologie. 1907. pp.452–454. Stufler says: Hermas is neither a predecessor nor an opponent of Montanism, but a preacher of repentance who stands from the point of view of church orthodoxy. Past. Sim. VIII, 6.4. Cfr.: IX, 19.1; 26.5. Vgl.: I, Schwane. Dogmengeschichte der vоrnicäischen Zeit S. 449; Knopf R. Das nachapostolische Zeitalter. S. 433 Anm, 2.1, Stufler. Die Bussdisziplin der abendländischen Kirche bis Kallistus. Zeitschr. für kath. Theologie, 1907. S. 455–456. Vis. I, 3.1. The sins of the children of Hermas are described as follows: “Your children, Hermas, departed from the Lord, blasphemed Him and betrayed their parents in great wickedness; and they became known as traitors to their parents; having betrayed them, they did not reform, but added to their sins debauchery and the filth of wickedness.” – Vis. II, 2, 2. Idem. I, 3.1. Cfr.: Sim VIII, 11.1. Past. Mand IV, 1:7–8; the same applies to the wife; she, too, must accept her sinful husband. See Sim above. VIII, 6:4. Cfr.: Vis III, 7, 2: “Because of criminal lusts, the thought of repentance no longer occurs.” See about the sins of the children of Hermas - Vis II, 2,2. Tertullian's harsh review of The Shepherd is known for this condescension. De pudicitia. C.10: “Scriptura Pastoris, quae sola moechos amat, divino instrumento meruisset incidi, si non ab omni concilio ecclesiarum, etiam vestrarum, inter apocrypha et falsa judicaretur, adultera et ipsa et inde patrona sociorum.” – CSEL, 20.1. P. 240.11–14. Moreover, Tertullian calls "Pastor" "Pastor moechorum". - De pudic. C. 20. CSEL, 20.1. P. 266, 21. Cf. judgment of Stufler'ä Zeitschr. für kath. Theologie. 1907. S. 457; Frank Fr. Die Bussdisciplin der Kirche von den Apostelzeiten bis zum siebenten Jahrhundert. Mainz, 1867. S. 420, 836–837; Schwane I. Dogmengeschichte der vornic. Zeit. S. 487. It should be noted, however, that the author’s condescending view also requires moral deeds from the repentant. “Do you think that the sins of those who repent are immediately forgiven? No; but the repentant must test (βασανίσαι try on stone, from βάσανος touchstone) his soul, deeply (ἰσχυρῶς) humble himself in every matter and endure many and various sorrows (ἐν πάσαις θλίψεσι ). And when he endures all the sorrows that come upon him, then the One who created and established everything will have mercy and give him some healing. And this is when he sees that the heart of the repentant is pure from every evil deed.” – Sim. VII, 4–5. Cfr.: Vis. 1,2,1. Wed: lust. Dial. P. 44: “There is no other way except that you, having come to know our Christ and having been washed by that baptism for the remission of sins, which Isaiah proclaimed, then live without sin.” – CAG, 1,2. R. 148. Works. P.202. Past. Mand IV, 3.1–6. Wed. notes about this in Funk'ä Kirchengeschictliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen. 1-er Bd. S. 169–170. The same thing is repeated in Vis. II, 2, 4-8: “The sins they have committed will be forgiven, as well as all the saints (Christians) who have sinned to this day, if they repent with all their hearts. For the Lord swore by His glory about His chosen ones that if anyone sins after this certain day (ᾡ ρισμένης τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης), he will not have salvation. The repentance of the righteous has an end, and days of repentance are determined for all the saints, but for the pagans there is repentance until the very last day... Those who deny the Lord destroy their lives, that is, who will deny in the days ahead. To those who had previously denied, out of great mercy He became merciful.” Wed. more Sim. IX, 26.5. E. Preuschen tries to prove that the διδάσκαλοι mentioned by Hermas did not belong to his generation, but were earlier than him, so that in Mand IV, 3.1 one can even see an indication of Heb. 6.4–6 and the opinion of the didaskals should be considered an expression of the ancient church ideal. See: Zur Kirchenpolitik des Bischofs Kallist. – Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums. 1910. S. 148–149 · However, all the evidence that Preuschen provides is extremely unconvincing. The Didascals, about whom we read in Hermas, must be considered representatives of the rigoristic direction of the modern Hermas. Hermas’s denial of repentance for the future is, of course, due to his expectation of the imminent end of the world. See about this: Stufler I. Zeitsch. für kath. Theologie. 1907. S. 461–463. Vgl.: Bardenhewer O. Patrologie 3, § 37.1, S. 108. In addition, this denial is not carried out consistently (Stufler. Ibid., S. 463–465). The Angel of the Lord, having demanded from people the branches given to them, receives from them different branches (Sim. VIII, 1:1-18). The shepherd said when he saw various stones in front of him: “I will cut off most of these stones and use them for the building, and they will come (ἁ ρμόσουσι) to the rest.” Herm asked: “Sir, how can they, having been circumcised, take the same place?” – “Those who turn out to be small (μικροί) will go into the middle of the building; and the big ones will lie outside and hold them back” (Sim. IX, 7.4-5). Indeed, after two days, some stones were placed outside, because they were found strong, so that they could hold back the stones placed in the middle, for nothing was cut off in them... Other stones were cut and placed in the middle of the tower building, because they were weaker. Some stones were short and were also placed in the middle of the building (Sim. IX, 8.3–5.7). Past. Vis. II, 2:4. Cfr.: Sim. IX, 13, 2, where it is assumed that it is possible to bear the name of the Son of God without having His power. Past. Vis. Ill, 10.3–5. Cfr.: Vis. I, 2,2. Wed. remarks Th. Zahn'ä Der Hirt des Hermas. S. 191,192–193, 206, 222, 223, 285, 288, 291–292. See also: Seeberg R. Studien zur Geschichte des Begriffs der Kirche. S. 9–10. This is, for example, the opinion of Batiffol᾽ya (“Études d’histoire et de théologie positive 2.” P. 60–61). Compare: D. Kasitsyn. Schisms of the first centuries of Christianity. P. 73: “With special power to teach about the possibility of resolution and cleansing in the Church from all sins, no matter how great they may be, “Shepherd” Hermas, primarily a preacher of repentance.” A very detailed analysis of the “Shepherd’s” teaching on repentance was made by Stufler (“Bussdisziplin der abendländischen Kirche bis Kallistus.” Zeitschr. Für katholische Theologie. 1907. S. 451–473). Here Stufler proves in detail the following four points: 1. All sins committed after baptism, even the most serious ones, can be forgiven, so that only those perish who voluntarily refuse repentance and become hardened in heart. 2. Forgiveness, proclaimed by the Angel of repentance, is not only the otherworldly of God, but also includes church reconciliation and re-acceptance into the Church. 3. After the period of repentance announced by God through the “Shepherd,” the second repentance, that is, repentance after baptism and forgiveness of further grave sins, although it must cease, but not absolutely and unconditionally, but only on the assumption that the end of the world is near. 4. Already before Hermas there was a second repentance, and the forgiveness of sins proclaimed by the “Shepherd” is not something new. E. Preuschen makes some objections to Stufler. See: Zur Kirchenpolitik des Bischofs Kallist. – Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums. 1910. S. 146–149. Cfr.: Pierre Batiffol. Études d'histoire et de théologie positive. P. 67–68. The teaching of “The Shepherd” about the Church from the side of its holiness is correctly noted by Archimandrite Sylvester, although the analysis of “The Shepherd” is made very superficially and incompletely. This is precisely how the author defines the purpose of the Church according to the teachings of Hermas. “The purpose for which the Church exists on earth is spiritual and moral progress and holiness, which believers achieve as far as possible by entering into internal unity with the Church and using its sanctifying means.” – Doctrine of the Church. pp. 114–115. The latter words, as will be seen later, require greater limitation. Wed. work prot. A. M. Ivantsova-Platonov “Heresies and schisms of the first three centuries of Christianity.” M., 1877. pp. 106–107. Vgl.: Zahn Th. Der Hirt des Hermas. S. 310. Zahn suggests that for Hermas the διδάσκαλοι represented some authority; he speaks of them with respect, and not as he speaks of his other opponents (S. 310, Anm. 1). De pudic. C. 18: "Levioribus delictis veniam ab episcopo consequi poterit." CSEL, 20, 1, pp. 261, 26–27. De pudic. C. 2. “Haec dividimus in duos exitus.” Alia erunt remissibilia, alia inremissibilia. Next about repentance. Secundum hanc differentiam delictorum paenitentiae quoque conditio discriminatur. "Alia erit quae veniam consequi possit, in delicto scilicet remissibili, alia quae consequi nullo modo possit, in delicto scilicet inremissibili." CSEL, 20.1. P. 223, 29; 224.1–2.13–16. De pudic. C. 2: “Delicta mundantur, quae quis in fratrem, non deum admiserit.” CSEL, 20,P. 223.13–14; c. 21: “Mortalia, quae in ipsum (Deum) fiierint admissa et in templum ejus...” (P. 269, 4–5) “Praejudicatur non demit tenda in deum delicta, cum in homine admissa donantur” (P. 270, 31–32). CSEL, 20.1. P. 265, 23–25. Idem. 47. P. 441.28–442.1. Vgl.: Harnack A. Dogmengeschichte 4, I, S. 439, Anm. 1. De pudic. C. 5: “Adsistit idololatres, adsistit homicida, in medio eorum adsistit et moechus... idololatrem et homicidam semel damnas, moechum vero de medio excipis, idololatriae successorem, homicidae antecessorem, utriusque collegam?” CSEL, 20.1. P. 227.21–22, 28–228.1. De pudic. C. 5. P. 226–227. Cfr.: Scorp. C. 3: idololatrian moechiae sororem. CSEL, 20.1. P. 151.17. De idolol. C. 1: “Quodsi tarn fraus quam stuprum atque adulterium mortem afferunt, jam in his aeque idololatria de homicidii reatu non liberatur. Post talia crimina, tam exitiosa, tam devoratoria salutis...” CSEL, 20.1. P. 30.22–31.1. CSEL, 20, 1. pp. 265, 24–25. What is violatio templi dei, about this see: Rolffs E. Das Indulgenz-Edict. TU 11, 3. S. 45. Cfr.: Adhémar d’Alès. La théologie de Tertullien. P. 274–275, not. 5.485–486, Gerhard Esser. Die Busschriften Tertullians "De paenitentia" und "De pudicitia" und das Indulgenzedikt des Papstes Kallistus. Bonn, 1905. S. 14, Anm. 1. De poenit. C. 3: “Adulterum non eum solum definit (Dominus), qui cominus in alienum matrimonium cecidisset verum etiam ilium, qui aspectus concupiscentia contaminasse t.” PL.T.l.Col.l232B-C. Cfr.: Batiffol P. Études d’histoire et de théologie positive 2 . P. 83. E. Preuschen rightly says: “Casuistry regarding forgivable and unforgivable sins was just beginning, and it first formed in Montanist circles.” – Zur Kirchenpolitik des Bischofs Kallist. – Zeitschrift für die neutestam. Wissenschaft. 1910. S. 152. Cfr.: S. 151. Fragm. in proverbia. « Τρεῖς θυγατέρες ήσαν τῆ ἁ μαρτία ἁ γαπώμενοι ἀγαπήσεΙ , ἡ πορνεία, ό φόνος καί εἰδωλολατρεία διὰ τούτων τῶν πράξεων νεκροῦσα ἡ ἀμαρτία τὸν ἄνθρωπον, μηδέποτε ἠ λλιωμένη, ἀλλὰ πάντοτε ἐπαύξουσα ". PG. Τ. 10. Col. 62 ΙΑ. See about this: Das Indulgenz-Edict des römischen Bischofs Kallist kritisch untersucht und reconstruirt von der Theol. Emst Rolffe. TU 11.3. S. 49–50. Vgl.: Döllinger. Hippolytus und Kallistus oder die römische Kirche in der ersten Hälfte desdritten Jahrhunderts. Regensburg, 1853. S. 136; Rolffs E. Das Indulgenz-Edict. TU 11.3. S. 43; Knopf R. Das nachapostolische Zeitalter. S. 433; Ritschl A. Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche. S. 371.514; Böhringer. Die alte Kirche. 3-ter Th. S. 458–459; Shternov. Tertullian. C. 310; Adam K. Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullians. S. 181, Anm. 3; Frank. Die Bussdisciplin der Kirche. S. 419 ff. Vgl.: Rolffs E. Das Indulgenz-Edict. S. 43; Loots F. Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte, § 29.2a. S. 205; Batiffol P. Études d'histoire et de théologie positive. P. 82.96. Cm.: Rolffs E. Das Indulgenz-Edict. S. 46–47, Anm. 2; Harnack. Dogmengeschichte 4 ,I,S. 440–441. S. I. Smirnov. Spiritual father. P. 222, approx. 2. Acts 15, 29; De pudic. C. 12: “Hane regulam de auctoritate spiritus sancti apostoli emittunt ad eos qui jam ex nationibus allegi coeperant: visam est, inquiunt, spiritui sancto et nobis nullum amplius vobis adicere pondus quam eorum a quibus necesse est abstineri, a sacrificiis et a fornicationibus et Sanguine, a quibus observando vos recte agetis... haec sola praeponant utique non remissibilia.” CSEL, 20.1. P. 241.26–242.3.10. For textual notes, see Das Aposteldecret nach seiner ausserkanonischen Textgestalt untersucht von Gotthold Resch. TU 28, 3. Leipzig, 1905. S. 8. Tischendorf also accepts the reading given in the text (Novum Testamentum graece 8, I. P. 134). In addition to cit. "De pudic." C. 12. P. 242.2, also see: “De idolol”. C. 24. CSEL, 20.1. P. 57.26. De pudic. C. 12: moechiae et fornicationi locum... inter idololatriam et homicidium CSEL, 20.1. P. 242.4–5. Vgl.: Dr. Karl Ad. Heinrich Kellner. Tertullians sämtliche Schriften. I-er Bd. Köln, 1882. S. 422, Anm. 2. Cm.: Resch G. Das Aposteldecret., S. 68 ff. See: Prof. N. N. Glubokovsky. The Gospel of Christian Freedom in the Epistle of St. Apostle Paul to the Galatians. St. Petersburg, 1902. P. 76; Glubokovsky N. N. Jerusalem Apostolic Council. – Orthodox theologian, encyclopedia. T. 6, column. 436 ff. Resch G. Das Aposteldecret. TU 28, 3. S. 143–147; Preuschen E. Zeitschrift für die neutestam. Wissenschaft. 1910. S. 152; G. Esser sees nothing but extreme arbitrariness in Tertullian’s interpretation of the resolution of the Apostolic Council. See: Die Busschriften Tertullians. S. 25–26. The exegesis of Tertullian and Adhémar d’Alès is considered very suspicious (fort suspecte). See: Tertullien et Calliste. Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique. T. 13.1912. P. 249. In Math, commentariorum series. 10: "Eestatur Epistola apostolorum in Actibus, quam miserunt ad gentes, ut nihil servent ex lege nisi immolatum, et fornicationem." PG. T. 13. Col. 1613D-1614A. Resch, in the study cited above, argues that preference should be given to the apostolic decree in its Western formulation, but even in this formulation the decree has no relation to the definition of mortal sins: idolatry is, as it were, a general designation of all sins against God; murder is generally sins against one’s neighbor, and fornication is sins against oneself (S. 41–44, 53, 72–73, 75–79, 102–106,126–127,141–143,151,169). Thus, the apostolic decree is nothing more than the shortest systematic compendium of Christian ethics - “das kürzeste systematische Compendium der christlichen Ethik” (S. 52). Harnack also joined this view (in his newest works - “Die Apostelgeschichte. Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament”, III, 1908. S. 188–198, and “Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte und zur Abfassungszeit der synoptischen Evangelien. Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament." IV. Heft, Leipzig, 1911. S. 22–24), although earlier he thought differently about the apostolic decree (“Das Aposteldekret und die Blasssche Hypothese. Sitzungsberichte der königlich-Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.” 1899. Vgl.: “Lukas der Arzt der Verfasser des dritten Evangeliums und der Apostelgeschichte” Leipzig, 1906. S. 91 ff.). A detailed analysis of this view and criticism of its argumentation is given in the article: H. Coppieters. Le décret des Apôtres (Act. XV, 28. 29). Revue biblique internationale, 1907, pp. 34–58. The author gives preference to the eastern version of the decree (R. 50 et suiv). N. Diehl also spoke decisively against the same view of Resch and Harnack. See: Das sogenannte Aposteldekret. Ein Beitrag zur Kritikvon A. Harnack. "Apostelgeschichte". – Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums. 1909. S. 277–296. Vgl.: Zahn Th. Einleitung in das Neue Testament 2. Bd. 2. S. 345–347,354–356. The prohibition of certain types of food, and not mortal sins, is seen in the resolution of the Apostolic Council and K. Six (S. J.): Das Aposteldekret (Act 15, 28, 29). Seine Entstehung und Geltung in den ersten vier Jahrhundertea Innsbruck, 1912. See review by E. H. in Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift. 1912. S. 138–140. See also: Sanday W. The Apostolic Decree (Acts XV. 20–29). – Theologische Studien. Theodor Zahn dargebracht. Leipzig, 1908, pp. 321–325. Vgl.: Funk. Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen. I, S. 173: “Bei dem “geretteten Jüngling” darf die besondere Obhut, in die der Apostel genommen hatte, jedenfalls nicht ganz ausser Acht gelassen werden.” 1 Clem. 59.4: "Τούς πλανωμένους τοῦ λαοῦ σου έπίστρεψον". loh. Stufler even claims that Clement knows repentance for all sins without exception. See: Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie. 1907. S. 451. Vgl.: Frank Fr. Die Bussdisciplin der Kirche. S. 835–836. Eusebius. History Ecclesias. IV, 23, 6: “Ka ὶ τούς ἐξ ο ἵ ας δ ’ οῦν ἀποπτώσεως , εἴτε πλημμελείας εἴτε μὴν αἱρετικῆς πλάνης , ἐπιστρέψοντας δεξιοῦσθαι προστάττει." GrchSch. 9.1. S. 374.27,376.1–2. In vain, it seems, Harnack tries to weaken the strength of this evidence by pointing out the vagueness of the term δεξιούσθαι. See: Dogmengeschichte 4, I, S. 440, Anm. Vgl.: Döllinger. Hippolytus und Kallistus. S. 131. Eusebius. Cit.op. V, 1.45–46. GrchSch. 9.1. S. 420.5–9. We note here only the idea of ​​​​the possibility of the “dead” becoming alive again, but we do not resolve the question of the form of this rebirth. Compare, however, [the work] loh. Stufler in ed.: Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie. 1907. S. 445. But it is indisputable that already in the 2nd century, regarding those who fell away from the Bepibi, the intercessions of the martyrs were taken into account. See: Eusebius. Cit. op. V, 2, 5–7. See: Contra haer. 1,6,3; 10.1; 13,5,7; III, 4.3; IV, 40.1. PG. T. 7. Col. 508B, 552A, 588A-B, 592A, 857A-B, 1112B-C. Essays. C. 37, 50, 59,60, 222,439. It is necessary, however, to admit that all this news from St. Irenaeus is little defined. The conclusions that Irenaeus draws from messages are loh. Stufler (Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie. 1907. S. 440–441,447–448), in any case, can always be disputed. Compare: Hamack A. Dogmengeschichte, I. S. 440, Anm. I. Prof. Dr. Hugo Koch considers Irenaeus to be a representative of rigoristic views on the forgiveness of mortal sins (“Sündenvergebung bei Irenaus.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums. 1908. S. 35–46). In defense of his opinion, Koch refers to Contra haer. IV, 27.1–4; 28.1–2 (S. 41–44) and considers it possible to attribute the testimony of Irenaeus even to the Eastern Church (S. 46). But such broad conclusions from the quoted words of Irenaeus, in our opinion, can be disputed with much greater grounds than even the opposite conclusions of Stufler, who did not leave H. Koch’s articles without analysis. See: Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie. 1908. S. 488–497. E. Preuschen fully shares Koch’s opinion (Zeitschrift für die neutestam. Wissenschaft. 1910. S. 149). H. E. V, 28.9–12. CrchSch. 9.1. S. 502,504. In the Syrian didascalia we read: “Oh, bishop! Protect, as best you can, those who have not sinned, so that they remain without sin, and heal and accept those who have turned from their sins. If you do not accept those who repent out of your unmercifulness, then you sin against the Lord God, because you do not obey our Savior God to do as He did with that sinner whom the elders presented to Him” (follows John 8:9-11). “Our Savior, King and God, can be an example to you, bishops.” See: Die Syrische Diadascalia, übers, und erklärt von Hans Achelis und Iohs. Flemming. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur. XXV. 2. Leipzig, 1904. S. 38–39. The publishers rightly say: “The author does not know of sins that could not be corrected; even more so, he has never heard of some cases being too serious for the bishop’s power to forgive sins. The law on the removal of mortal sins did not take place in Syria” (S. 306–307). Ioh. Stufler decisively declares that there can hardly be any serious doubt about the Eastern Church: rigorism has never dominated in it. See: Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie. 1907. S, 438. Vgl.: Döllinger. Hippolytus und Kallistus. S. 131. Of the Catholic authors [whose works may be named]: F. X. Funk. Das Indulgenzedikt des Papstes Kallistus. – Theologische Quarterschrift. 1906. S. 541 ff. Zur altchristlichen Bussdisciplin. Kirchengensch. Abh. und Untersuch. I. S. 155 ff.; Ioseph Turmei. Histoire de la théologie positive depuis l’origine jusqu’au concile de Trente. 3rd med. Paris, 1904. P. 141: cas exceptionnels qu’on peut negliger. From Protestant works [we mention], for example: Loofs F. Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte, § 29.2b. S. 205–206. Vgl.: Harnack A. Dogmengeschichte 4,1. S. 440, Anm. 1. Among the Catholic ones can be named: Frank Fr. Die Bussdisciplin der Kirche. S. 840 ff.; los. Schwane. Dogmengeschichte der vornic. Zeit. S. 453, 489; I. Stufler. Die Bussdisziplin der abendländischen Kirche bis Kallistus. – Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie. 1907. S. 438; Adhémar d'Alès. La théologie de Tertullien. P. 487–489; La théologie de saint Hippolyte. Paris, 1906. P. 41–42; Tertullien et Calliste. Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique. T. 13.1912. P. 246. From the Russians - see: Kasitsyn D. Schisms of the first centuries of Christianity. pp. 70–81. De pudic. C. 12: "Neque idololatriae neque sanguini pax ab ecclesiis redditur." CSEL, 20.1. P. 242, 26–27. Vgl.: Frank Fr. Die Bussdisciplin der Kirche. S. 422, 840; Adhémar d'Alès. Tertullien et Calliste. Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique. T. 13. 1912. P. 246, 250: L’histoire du II-e siècle proteste contre une assertion aussi génerale. Epist. 55 ad Antonian. P. 21: “Apud antecessores nostros quidam de episcopis istic in provincia nostra dandam pacem moechis non putaverunt et in totum poenitentiae locum contra adulteria clauserunt, non tamen... quia apud alios adulteris pax dabatur, qui non dabat de ecclesia separaretur.” CSEL, 3.2. P. 638–639. C. 7. PL T. 1. Col. 1240B-1242A passim. P. 7: “Secundae, imo jam ultimae spei... sed jam semel, quia jam secundo.” P.L. T. 1. Col. 124OB, 1241B. Cap. 9: poenitentiae secundae et unius. Col. 1243B. C. 9.PL. T. 1. Col. 1243 sq. Wed. remarks by E. Rolffs in Das Indulgenz-Edict..., S. 33. See also: Adhémar d’Alès. La théologie de Tertullien. P. 340–344. C. 8. PL T. 1. Col. 1242 sq. C. 4: “Omnibus delictis seu carne, seu spiritu, seu facto, seu voluntate commissis, qui poenam per judicium destinavit, idem et veniam per poenitentiam spondidit.” P.L. T. I. Col. 1233A. The devil, by the way, tries to “fidem terrenae potestatis formidine evertere” (C. 7. Col. 1241B). Is this not an indication of a falling away from the faith? Wed. Loofc F. Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte, § 29, 2b. S. 206; Hamack A. Lapsi. Hauck's RE 3. Bd. 11; S. 286. Batiffol P. Études d’histoire et de théologie positive. P. 84. G. Esser considers it absolutely certain that grave sins were forgiven. See: Die Bussschriften Tertullians. S. 15,18. Some people object to this. See: Preuschen E. Tertullians Schriften “De paenitentia” und “De pudicitia” mit Rücksicht auf die Bussdisziplin untersucht. Giessen, 1890. S. 12 ff.; Rolffs E. Das Indulgenz-Edict. TU 11, 3. S. 38–40, 51; Funk F. Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen. I. S. 166; Harnack A. Dogmengeschichte, I. S. 441, Anm. 1. But: see: F. Loofs. Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte 4, § 29, 2b. S. 206–207, Anm. 11. Adhémar d'Alès. La théologie de Tertulliea P. 340. a 1 Schanz. Die Absolutionsgewalt in der alten Kirche. – Theologische Quarterschrift. 1897. S. 46; Bardenhewer O. Patrologie, § 50, 5. S. 163; Johann Stufler. Die verschiedenen Wirkungen der Taufe und Busse nach Tertulliaa – Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie. 1907. S. 372–376. The most detailed evidence is given by G. Esser. Die Bussschriften Tertullians. S. 12, Anm. 1, 19–24. Lately, even Preuschen has been inclined to admit that “Tertullian’s silence in De paenit on the question that there are some sins that cannot be expiated through an act of penitence leads, perhaps, to the conclusion that all sins were considered forgivable.” Tertullian. De paenitentia. De pudicitia. Herausgegeben von Erwin Preuschen. 2-te, neugearbeitete Auflage. Tübingen, 1910. Einleitung. S.V. From 8. PL T. 1. Col. 1242V. See "De pudic." c. 6.7 (four stars), 9.15,19.20, CSEL, 20.1. P. 229.9; 230.24–25; 232, 12.17; 233, 5–6; 238.15; 251.10–13; 262.24; 266.11–14.0 meaning of the term restitutio y Tertullian, see: Adhémar d’Alès. Tertullien et Calliste. Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique. T. 13.1912. P. 253. Harnack sees in the assumption of a second repentance the beginning of a change in the ancient idea that Christianity is a society of saints. See: Dogmengeschichte 4,1. S.442. “The practice of receiving sinners in different Churches and circumstances varied, as a matter of pastoral wisdom.” – Prof. V. V. Bolotov. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church, vol. 2. P. 364. Frank Fr. Die Bussdisciplin der Kirche. S. 841: “Es war also diese Härte ein Gegenstand reinpraktischer und nicht dogmatischer Natur.” Ritschl. Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche. S. 462 ff.; Harnack. Dogmengeschichte, I. S. 427,432; Adam Karl. Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullians. S. 134; V. V. Bolotov. Lectures, 2. pp. 356–357, 366. Eusebius. History Ecclesias. V, 16.7. GrchSch. 9.1. S. 462. Epiph. Haer.: "Ἑ τέρους προφήτας παρεισφέρουσι μετὰ τούς προφήτας ". PG. T. 41. Col. 845D. Creations. Part 2. P. 291. Epiph. Haer. 48.1; t. 41. Col. 85bV. Creations. Part 2. P. 303. De monogam. C. 1: “Penes nos autem, quos spirituales merito dici facit agnitio spiritualalium charismatum.” PL T. 2. Col. 979B. Idem. C. 1: psychicis non recipientibus spiritum. PL T. 2. Col. 980A. Advers. Prax. C. 1: et nos quidem postea agnitio paracleti atque defensio disjunxit a psychicis. CSEL, 47, pp. 228,19–20. See Ritschl's discussion of the form of the new prophecy; Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche. S. 465–477. But this view is developed in especially detail by Schwegler. See: Der Montanismus und die Christliche Kirche des zweiten Jahrhunderts. Tübingen, 1841. Schwegler’s view is presented and analyzed in some detail by D. Kasitsyn in the study: “The Schisms of the First Centuries of Christianity.” pp. 25–42 (additions. Part 43. pp. 25–42). Eusebius. Cit. op. V, 16.7. GrchSch. 9.1. S. 462.13–14. Cfr.: V, 17, 3: " ὔ τε τῦν κατὰ τὴν καινὴν πνευματοφορηθέντα προφήτην δεῖξαι δυνήσονται". S. 470,12–14. “Here is the lyre man (ὡ σεὶ λύρα), and I touch him as it rattles; the man is asleep, and I am awake; behold, the Lord brings into a frenzy (ὁ ἑκστάνων) the hearts of people and gives a heart to people.” Epiph. Haer. PG. T. 41. Col. 861A. Part 2, 308. Compare: Nitzsch. Grundriss der christlichen Dogmengeschichte. I. S. 261. Epiph. Haer. 48, 3: οὐδ ’ εὐσταθούντες φανοῦνται , ο ὔ τε παρακολουθίαν λόγου ἔχοντες. PG. T. 41. Col. 860D. Creations. Part 2. P. 308. Anonymous in Eusebius. H.E.V, 16.9. GrchSch. 9.1. S. 464.2. Epiph. Haer. 48.4: “Εκστατικού ρήματα.” PG. T. 41. Col. 861 A. 4. 2, 309. Eusebius. Cit. op. V, 16.4. GrchSch. 9.1. S. 460.16; Serapion ate, to Karik and Pontik [says]: “The false school of the so-called new prophecy (νέας προφητείας).” Eusebius. Cit. op. V, 19, 2. GrchSch. 9.1. S. 478, 27. Tertull. Advers Prax. C. 30: sermones novae prophetiae. CSEL, 47. P. 288.11; Adv. Marc. III, 24: novae prophetiae sermo testatur. CSEL, 47, pp. 419,25–26. Adv. Marc. IV, 22: novae prophetiae gratiae extasin, id est amentiam, convenire? De resurr. camis CSEL, 47. P. 492, 28; c. 63: per novam prophetiam de paracleto inundantem. CSEL, 47. P. 125,14–15; De monog. C. 14: nova prophetia. PL T. 2. Col. 1000B. Adv. Marc. IV, 22: in spiritu enim homo constituais, praesertim cum gloriam dei conspicit vel cum per ipsum deus loquitur, necesse est excidat sensu, obumbratus scilicet virtute divina. De quo inter nos et psychicos quaestio est. CSEL, 47, pp. 493,1–4. Vgl.: Bardenhewer O. Patrologie 3, S 31.1. S. 101. Prof. V. V. Bolotov. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church, vol. 2. P. 352. See also p. 356–358. Compare: Loots F. Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte, § 24.2–3. S. 172–174. See: Kasitsyn D. Schisms of the first centuries of Christianity. P. 18, approx. 1. (Additions. Part 43. P. 18, note 1). Wed. V. V. Bolotov. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church, vol. 2. pp. 351–352: “In the somewhat gloomy natural disposition of the Phrygians there was a deep religious feeling, which was reflected in the special frenzied cult of the mother of the gods, which was very widespread here.” Geschichte des Montanismus. Eriangea 1881. S. 63 ff. Dogmengeschichte 4.1. S. 430–431, Anm. 2. Cfr.: S. 429, Anm. 1. Ho Cm.: Die Lehre d. zwölf Apostel. TU 2.1. S. 122–126. For a very detailed study of the relationship of the “new prophecy” to general church revelation, see Adam. (“Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullians.” S. 151 ff). De monog. 3: Nihil novi Paracletus inducit. P.L. T. 2. Col. 983B. De virg. vel. C. 2. PL T. 2. Col. 939A. De iejun. C. 1. CSEL, 20.1. P. 274, 23–24. Cfr.: C. 11. P. 289–290. De monog. C.2.PL. T. 2. Col. 980–981. De virg. veland. C. 1.PL. T. 2. Col. 938B. Wed. Kasitsyn. Schisms of the first centuries. pp. 44–45 (additions. Part 43, p. 435). Philosopher VIII, 19: “Ὑ πὲρ δὲ ἀποστόλους καὶ π ᾶ ν χάρισμα ταῦτα τὰ γύναια δοξάζουσι, ὡ ςτολμ ᾶ ν πλεΐόν τι Χριστοῦ ἐν τούτοις λέγειν τινὰς αὐτῶν γεγονέναι." PG. Τ. 16. Col. 3366D. C. 52.PL. T. 2. Col. 91Ä Paracletum plura in Montano dixisse, quam Christum in Evangelium protulisse, nec tantum plura, sed etiam meliora atque majora. “Here the view of the perfectibility of Christianity declared itself in the broadest possible way, despite the fact that, in its entire meaning, Montanism can also be understood as a, so to speak, retrograde movement.” – V.V. Bolotov. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church, vol. 2. P. 366. Compare: Hamack A. Dogmengeschichte 4, 1.S. 429, Anm. 4. De ftiga in persec. C. 14: Paracletus necessarius deductor omnium veritatum, exhortatory omnium tolerantiarum. PL T. 2. Col. 142A-B. Paraclet ipsius disciplinae determinator. - De pudic. C. 11.PL. T.–2, col 1054A. De resur earn. P. 63. CSEL, 47. P. 125. De virg. vel. P. 1. Sic et justitia (nam idem Deus justitiae et creaturae) primo fuit in rudimentis, natura Deum metuens: dehinc per legem et Prophetas promovit in infantiam: dehinc per Evangelium efferbuit in juventutem: nunc per Paracletum componitur in maturitatem. P.L. T. 2. Col. 938A-B. Ad uxorem 1. C. 2. PL T. 1. Col. 1277A-B. Vgl.: Adam. Der Kirchenbegriff TertuUians. S. 152, Anm. 2. De monog. C. 14: cur non et Paracletus abstulerit, quod Paulus induisit? – P.L. T. 2. Col. 1000A. De exhort, castit. C. 6. PL T. 2. Col. 970B. In Adv. jud." (C. 8,11. PL T. 2. Col. 654A-B, 672A), in Tertullian himself one can find the idea that prophecy and all development of revelation had already ended at the time of Christ. De monog. C. 4: Nose ipsum demonstratur a nobis, neque novam, neque extraneam esse monogamiae disciplinam, imo et antiquam et propriam Christianorum; ut Paracletum restitutorem potius sentias ejus, quam institutorem. PL T. 2. Col. 983C. Vgl.: Adam K. Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullians. S. 153: “Seine Versuche, die neuen Gebote in die Intention des Alten uud Neuen Testamentes hineinzudeuten, sind denn auch zu gekünstelt, um vernüftig zu sein. Trotz dieser exegetischen Kunststücke vermag er Christus nicht als Prinzip und Grund der neuen Prophetie, sondern nur als deren Vorläufer festzuhalten.” Regula fîdei una omnino est, sola immobilis, et irreformabilis. – De virg. vel. C. 1. PL T. 2. Col. 937B. De virg. vel. C. 1: Quae est ergo Paracleti administratio nisi haec, quod disciplina dirigitur, quod Scripturae revelantur, quod intellectus reformatur, quod ad meliora proficitur? – P.L. T. 2. Col. 938A. For Tertullian’s views on the variability of discipline, see V. Kiparisov (“On Church Discipline.” Sergiev Posad, 1897, p. 137). De monog. P. 2: ipsum primo Christum contestabitur, qualem credimus, cum toto ordine Dei Creatoris et ipsum glorifocabit, et de ipso commemorabit. – P.L. T. 2. Col. 981B. Karl Adam [talks about this] in more detail. See: Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullians. S. 154–157,163–165. De fuga. C. 14: quem qui receperunt, neque fugere persecutionem, neque redimere noverunt, habentes ipsum, qui pro nobis erit sic et locutus in interrogatione, ita juvaturus in passione. – PL T. 2. Col. 142B. De monog. C. 14: Tempus ejus donec Paracletus operaretur fuit, in quem dilata sunt a Domino, quae tune sustineri non poterant, quae jam nemini competit portare non posse; Quia per quem datur portare posse, non deest. PL T. 2. Col. 1000C. Cm.: Ritschl A. Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche. S. 479–497. Cfr.: Tillemont. Memoires. T.4. P. 474–478. Wed: Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church, vol. 2. P. 359. Vgl.: Ritschl. Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche. S. 521. “Obviously, the Montanist doctrine of the “new revelation of the Paraclete” did not concern only the strengthening of church discipline, but amounted to a direct denial of Christian revelation at its very foundation.” - Kasitsyn. Schisms of the first centuries. pp. 47–48 (Additions. Part 43. pp. 438–439). Vgl.: Nitzsch. Grundriss der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, I, S. 26l; Harnack A. Dogmengeschichte 4 ,1. S. 429, Anm. 4. Eusebius. History Ecclesias. V, 120.3. GrchSch. 9.2. S. 566.16–18. Philos. VIII, 19: πλεῖόν τι δι ’ αὐτῶν φάσκοντες μεματηκέναι ᾒ ἐκ νόμου καὶ προφητῶν καὶ τῶν Εὐαγγελίων. PG. T. 16. Col. 3366C-D. De iieun. 1. CSEL, 20.1. P. 274, 21–25. Eusebius. Cit. op. V, 16.9. De iieun. C. 16. CSEL, 20.1. P. 295.13; De pudic. 21. CSEL, 20.1. P. 271.9. Ibidem. P. 17: "Merito homines solius animae et carnis spiritalia recusatis." CSEL, 20.1. P. 297, 5–6. Ibid. C. 1: "fides animalis". CSEL, 20.1. P. 274.11. See, for example: De pudic. C. 1. CSEL, 20.1. P. 220; De ieiua C. 12. CSEL, 20.1. P. 290–291. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church, vol. 2. P. 367. Eusebius. Cit. op. V, 16.1. Cfr.: H.E.V, 17,18,19. Therefore, D. Kasitsyn’s refutation of the Montanist doctrine of the “new revelation” is given not the one given by church writers contemporary to Montanism, but his own - on the basis of Christian revelation in general. See: “The Schisms of the First Centuries of Christianity.” pp. 57–63 (Additions; 43,448–455). We understand [work]: Heinrich Gisbert Voigt. Eine verschollene Urkunde des Antimontanistischen Kampfes. Leipzig, 1891; see also: Emst Rolffs. Urkunden aus dem antimontanistischen Kampfe des Abendlandes. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, herausg. von Oscar von Gebhardt und Adolf Hamack. XII, 4. Leipzig, 1895. We will use these studies in the future. Eusebius. Cit. op. V, 16.10. GrchSch. 9.1. S. 464. VgL: Hamack. Der erste Klemensbrief. S. 42. For how Epiphanius processed his sources, see Voigt (“Eine verschollene Urkunde.” S. 135–136, Anm. 1–5). So says Lipsius [in his works] “Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanies” and “DieQuellen der ältesten Ketzergeschichte.” Cm.: Voigt. S. 208–215. Here [you can find] an analysis of Lipsius’s assumption. Hilgenfeld. Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums. See: Voigt, S. 221–222. See here the comments about other anti-Gnostic writers known only by name: Apollinaris, Soter, Miltiades, Serapion (S. 222–223). Voigt, op. cit., S. 224–233. Bonwetsch, Roffis. Urkunden, TU 12.4. S. 100 ff.; Prof. Karl Johannes Neumann. Hippolytus von Rom in seiner Stellung zu Staat und Welt. Leipzig, 1902. S. 119. Voigt (S. 216–221) opposed the authorship of Hippolytus; also Harnack A. Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Literatur bis Evsebius. Bd. II. Leipzig, 1904. S. 229–230. Voigt., S. 208. VgL: Bardenhewer O. Patrologie 3, § 33.5. S. 102. Cfr.: P. de Labriolle. La polémique antimontaniste center la prophétie estatique. Revue d'histoire et de littérature religieuses. T. 11. 1906. P. 118–119. E. Rolffs, analyzing Tertullian’s treatise “De monogamia”, comes to the conclusion that Tertullian is polemicizing precisely with the anti-montanist work that Epiphanius used as a source. - Naeg. 48.1–13. Urkunden. TU 12.4. S. 60–70. Cfr.: Tertull. Adv. Marc. IV, 22. CSEL, 47. P. 493. Eusebius. History Ecclesias. V, 17.1: μὴ δεῖν προφήτην ἐν έκστάσει λαλεῖν . GrchSch. 9.1. S. 470.5–6. “Eastern polemicists against Montanism showed only a deep understanding of the very essence of this movement when they attacked precisely this side of Montanism, that it recognizes a new prophecy rejected by the Church.” – Prof. V.V. Bolotov. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church, vol. 2. P. 367. Epiphfni. Naeg. 48.3. PG. T. 41. Col. 857D. Part 2.306. Idem. 48, 3. PG. T. 41. Col. 86OA. Part 2.306. Idem. 48.3. PG. T. 41. Col. 86OV. Part 2.307. Idem. 48.3. PG. T. 41. Col. 86OC. Part 2.307. Cfr.: Eusebius. Cit. op.: V, 17.3. Idem. 48.3. PG. T. 41. Col. 860D. 4.2.308. Idem. 48.4–8. In De monogamia Tertullian does not give a detailed defense of the ecstatic form of prophecy. This defense was probably given in his work “De ecstasi”, about which Jerome speaks (“De viris illustr.” p. 40): “Tertullianus sex voluminibus adversus ecclesiam editis, quae scripta περί έκστάσεως, septimum propriç adver-sus Apollonium elaboravit, in quo omnia quae ille arguit, conatur defendere.” – P.L. T. 23. Col. 655B. Creations. 4. 5 (Kyiv, 1879). P. 313. Cf. C. 53. CoL 663A. C. 317. This work [is discussed] in Rolffs (Urkunden, TU 12.4. S. 71-74), where Rolffs, among other things, says: “De ecstasi” was, without a doubt, a justification of the ecstatic form of Montanistic prophecy and at the same time a defense of its content: it was the most comprehensive defense of the revelation of the Paraclete” (S. 73). Vgl.: Nitzsch. Grundriss der chr. Dogmengeschichte, I. S. 262. Vgl.: Harnack A. Chronologie. II. S. 275–276. It should be noted that among ancient church apologists there are judgments where prophecy is characterized as ecstatic. Justin Philosopher writes: “When you hear the words of the prophets, spoken as if from someone else, do not think that they are spoken from those inspired men themselves, but from the Divine word that moves them” - ἀπὸ τοῦ κινοῦντος αὐτούς θεῖου λόγου (Apol.) I. S. 36. CAG, 1,1. Ρ. 106. Essays. pp. 66–67. The author of the “Admonition to the Hellenes” says: “The Divine Spirit, as if a bow descended from heaven, using righteous men like a zither or a lyre, reveals to us through them the knowledge of the Divine and Heavenly” (P. 8. CAG, 3. R. 40; Russian translation in the works of Justin the Philosopher, pp. 411–412). Athenagoras claims that the Spirit of God moved the lips of the prophets, like instruments (ὡ ς ὄργανα), that the prophets, in a frenzy of mind (κατ ’ ἔκστασιν), moved by the Spirit of God, proclaimed what was suggested to them, for the Spirit used them in the same way as a musician inflates flute (Legatio. P. 7, 2; Geffcken. Zwei griechische Apologeten. S. 125,127; Works of Apologists. P. 60,6l). Theophilus of Antioch calls the prophets the organs of God (Ad Autol. I, 9. CAG, 8, ρ 76. Writings of apologists. P. 145). Cfr.: Just. Dial. C. 115. CAG, 1, 2. P. 412. Works. P. 307. Clem. Alex. Strom. VI, 18; l68, 3: προφήτας θεοῦ ... ὄργανα θείας γενομένους φωνῆς . GrchSch. 15. S. 517,23–24. For a correct understanding and proper assessment of all these expressions, one should not lose sight of the fact that they were said by apologists for polemical purposes and do not represent any specific theory, like the Montanist one. Church prophecy, as can be judged from 1 Cor. 14, "Didache" and according to the "Shepherd" of Hermas, it was not ecstatic. See more details: R. de Labriolle. La polémique antimontaniste contre la prophétie extatique Revue d'histoire et de littérature religieuses. T. 11. 1906. P. 122–127. Wed: Nitzsch. Grundriss der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, I. S. 261; Thomasius. Die Dogmengeschichte. I. S. I3O-I31.132; P. Heinisch. Der Einfluss Philos auf die älteste christliche Exegese. S. 44–46; V. V. Bolotov. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church, vol. 2. pp. 358, 367. The title of Hippolytus's work, dedicated to the question of spiritual gifts, was preserved on the monument to Hippolytus opened in Rome, a cast of which is also in the Moscow Historical Museum. Lines 9–11 of the surviving inscription read like this: ΕΡΙΧΑΡΙΣΜΑΤΩΝ ΠΟΣΤΟΛΙΚΗΠΑΡΑΔΟ ΣΙΣ These lines are read differently: some see two titles in them: (π) ερὶ χαρισμάτων and (Ἀ) ποστολική παράδοσις; others connect both lines and read the following title: (π) ερὶ χαρισμάτων (ἀ) ποστολικὴ παράδοσις Hans Achelis. Hippolytstudien. – Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, herausgegeben von Oscar von Gebhardt und Adolf Hamack. XVI, 1. Leipzig, 1897. S. 4.7. Voigt believes that Hippolytus had a condescending attitude towards Montanism, and as proof he cites the remark of Stefan Gobar in Photius: ππόλυτος περὶ τῆς τῶν Μοντανιστῶν αἱρέσεως . – Eine verschollene Urkunde. S. 216, Anm. 3. Vgl. S. 220. Rolffs rightly notes that it is difficult to read from these words a condescending opinion about the Montanists. – Urkunden TU 2.4. S. 109, Anm. 1. In those parts of the Philosophumen where it talks about the Montanists, it cannot be said that she is condescending. See: Philos. X, 25: Μαξιμίλλης τὰς ἀρχὰς τής αἱρέσεως λαβόντες . – PG. T. 16. Col. 3439 Β. Elsewhere, Hippolytus's expression is even stricter (Philos. VIII, 18: αὑτοὶ αἱρετικώτεροι τὴν φύσιν). It is completely in vain that G. Volkmar (Hippolytus und die römischen Zeitgenossen. Zürich, 1855. S. 111) considers Hippolytus a semi-montanist. But according to Volkmar, Hippolytus denies the particular and arbitrary that the ecclesia spiritualis, in contrast to the psyches and in limiting the prophetic gifts, associated only with the ecstatic form and individual personalities. Compare: Adhémar d'Alès. La théologie de saint Hippolyte. P. 69.169. See about this in Voigt'a (“Eine verschollene Urkunde.” S. 216–217, Anm. 6); Christian Carl Josias Bunsen. Hippolytus und seine Zeit. 1-er Bd. Leipzig, 1852. S. 434 ff.; Funk F. X. Didascalia et constitutiones apostolorum. vol. I. Paderbemae MDCCCCVI. Prolegomena. P. XVII-XVIII; St. Hippolytus, en. Roman. Creations in Russian transl., publication of the Kazan Theological Academy. Issue 1. Kazan, 1898. P. XUV; Harnack A. Chronologie. I. S. 503–507. See: D. Kasitsyn. Schisms of the first centuries of Christianity. P. 61, approx. 2 (Additions. Part 43. P. 452, note 2). Const, ar. VIII, 1,2. Ed. Funk. P. 460.20–22. Russian translation Kazan, 1864. P. 247. Idem. VIII, 1.17. [Here] it is directly stated that the power of signs over time may turn out to be unnecessary (περιττή) - Ed. Funk. P. 466.12–13. Russian translation C. 250. Idem. VIII, 1,10,12. Ed. Funk. P. 464.1–2.14–20. Russian translation pp. 248,249. Vgl.: Bunsen Chr. Hippolytus und seine Zeit. I. S. 436,437; Const, ar. VIII, 1.21: [here] bishopric is called charism. – Ed. Funk. P. 466.25–26. Russian translation P. 251. Epiph. Naeg. 48.1. Καὶ ἡ ἁ γία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκκλησία ὁμοίως τὰ χαρίσματα δέχεται αλλά ἁ γίου δεδοκιμασμένα παρά τε προφητῶν καὶ ἀποστόλων , καὶ α ὠ τοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου. PG. T. 41. Col. 85bV-S. Part 2. P. 303. See: Naeg. 48.2: μετὰ τὰς προφητείας τὰς διὰ τῶν ἁ γίων ἀποστόλων ἐν τ ῇ άγία Ἐκκλησία δοκιμασθείσας . PG. T. 41. Col. 857 Α . 4. 2. P. 304. In “Regulations.” apostle." we are talking about false prophecy and false prophets: “Nevertheless, this is not because we disparage true prophecies, for we know that they are fulfilled in the saints (ἐν τοῖς ὁσίοις) by inspiration (κατ 'ἐπίπνοιαν) of God, but in order to curb the insolence of the arrogant, we add that God takes away grace from such.” – VIII, 2, 7; Ed. Funk. P. 468, 24–28. Russian translation P.252. In the last words, of course, there is a clear allusion to the Montanist prophets. Epiph. Naeg. 48.3. PG. T. 41. Col. 857D. Part 2. P. 306. Idem. Naeg. 48.11. PG. T. 41. CoL 872B. Part 2. From 320. Epiph. Naeg. 48, 13: καὶ ὁρ ᾷ ς κατὰ πάντα τρόπον τὴν πρὸς τὸ θεῖον γράμμα ? τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ πίστιν καὶ ἀκολουθίαν. PG. T. 41. Col. 876D. 4.2. P. 325. Const, ar. VIII, 2,8,9–Ed. Funk. P. 468.29–31; 470.1–6. Russian translation pp. 252–253. Tertull. De iieun. C. 1, I, 12. CSEL, 20.1. P. 275.9; 289.15.23; 291.10. Idem. C. 11: spiritus diaboli est, dicis, o psychice. CSEI, 20.1. P. 289, 26–27; De monog. C. 2: ab adversario spiritu. – PL T. 2. Col. 981 A; Const, ar. VIII, 3.1: ἀλλοτρίφ πνεύματι κινουμένων; Ed. Funk. P. 470.13–14. See also: Eusebius. History Ecclesias. V, 16, where the same anonymous author repeatedly says the same thing. Compare: Epist. Firmiliani ad Cyprianum. C. 7: non veritatis spiritum sed erroris fuisse. – CSEL, 3.2. P. 814.25. Idem. C. 1: novitatem igitur objectant, de cujus inlicito praescribant aut haeresin judicandam, si humana praesumptio est, aut pseudoprophetiam pronuntiandam, si spiritualalis indictio est, dum quaqua ex parte anathema audiamus, qui aliter adnuntiamus. CSEL, 20.1. P. 275, 7–11. Morcelli and Bonwetsch also believed that in “De ieiunio” Tertullian refutes a certain anti-montanist work. This view is substantiated in detail by E. Rolffs. See: Urkunden. TU 12.4. S. 19–21. Rolffs, analyzing De ieiunio (S. 21–31), notes those passages that can be considered more or less literal quotations from the work being refuted, and gives a reconstruction of this work. The passage cited, according to Rolffs, is precisely a quote from an antimontanist writer. Eusebius. Cit. op. V, 16.3. GrchSch. 9.1. S. 460.13–14. See: Tertull. Adv. Hermog. C 22. CSEL, 47. P. 151,18–19. Strk. 73–80: legi eum quidem oportet, se publicare vero in ecclesia populo neque inter profetas completum numéro neque inter apostolos in finem temporum potest. Compare: Zahn Th. Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. Bd. II, 1. S. 116. Cfr.: Origen, in Math., comment., ser. 47: a Genesi usque ad apostolicos libros, post quos nullis scripturis ita credendum est sicut illis. PG. T. 13. Col. 1668B-C. Compare: Zahn Th. Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. 1.1. S. 115–117. Tertull. De iieun. C. 11. CSEL, 20.1. P. 289.1–2. De bapt. C. 6: ubi très, id est Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, ibi ecclesia, quae trium corpus est. CSEL, 20.1. P. 206, 26–27. Cfr.: De exhort castit. C. 7: ubi tres, Ecclesia est, licet laici. P.L. T. 2. Col. 971A. These words of Tertullian are subject to various interpretations, about which see: Michaud E. L’ecclésiologie de Tertullien. Revue internationale de théologie. 1905. P. 267–268. Adv. Marc. V, 18. CSEL, 47. P. 640.15 sqq. De poenit. C. 10: In uno et altero Ecclesia est, Ecclesia vero Christus. PL T. 1. Col. 1245B. De pudic., 21: “ipsa ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est spiritus, in quo est trinitas unius divinitatis, pater et fîlius et spiritus sanctus ecclesia spiritus.” CSEL, 20, 1. P. 271, 3–5, 6. Cfr.: De pudic. C. 11: “nemo perfectus ante repertum ordinem fide, nemo Christianus ante Christum coelo resumptum, nemo sanctus ante spiritum sanctum de coelo repraesentatum ipsius disciplinae determinatorem.” CSEL, 20.1. P. 241.14–17. Ibidem, 19: “emundabimur a delicto in lumine incidentes, in quo delictum agi non potest. a Deo sic emundari nos ait, non quasi delinquamus, sed quia non delinquamus.” CSEL, 20, 1. pp. 263,24–27. Vgl.: Adam K Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullians. S. 123–124. De pudic. P. 19: si nulla sit venia istorum, nemini salus competat. CSEL, 20.1. P. 265.20–21. Vgl.: Adam K. Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullians. S. 181–182. Hippolytus gives a biography of Callistus (Philos. IX, 12. PG. T. 16. Col. 3379 sqq.) Cm. “Die Geschichte des Kallistus” by Döllinger; Hippolytus und Kallistus. S. 115–125. See F. Böhringer's reasoning [in his work]: “Die alte Kirche”. III. S. 416,473–474. “Von der Natur mit dem χάρισμα κυβερνήσεως ausgestattet,” Döllinger says about him (S. 124). About this licentiousness, see, for example, Tacitus: Annal. XIV, p. 20. – Taciti libri qui supersunt. T. 1. Lipsiae, 1861. P. 262. Tertull. De pudic. C. 1. CSEL, 20.1. P. 220, 5–6. Since most of Tertullian’s literary activity fell during Zephyrinus’s bishopric in Rome (200–217), Zephyrinus was long considered the author of the edict. Pamelius, Baronius, Dion thought so. Petavius, Albaspinus, Morinus, Jacob Sirmond. Protestant historians - the authors of the Magdeburg Centuries, Basnage, Gottfried Arnold, Spanheim - do not notice the edict, or perhaps they are silent, not understanding the irony of Tertullian: pontifex maxim us, episcopus episcoporum - as applied to the Roman bishop. Newer church historians: Schrökh, Schwegler, Ritschl, Baur, Lipsius - also call Zephyrinus the author of the edict, but they assess the meaning of this act differently. Few, like Cardinal Orsi in his later writings and Gieseler, considered the author of the edict to be an unknown Carthaginian bishop, generally African. Morcelli, following Orsi, indicates in addition a certain author in Africa - the Carthaginian bishop Cyrus (Cfr.: Tillemont. Mémoires. T. 3. P. 224). Böhringer suggests that the author may have been the Carthaginian bishop Optatus and the edict may have been issued in 205. See: Die alte Kirche. 3-ter Th. S. 458. After the discovery of the Ippolitovs “Philosophumen”, De Rossi, who discovered them, began to consider Callistus the author of the edict. Harnack came to the same conclusion in 1878, and Jungmann in 1884. Nöldechen supported this opinion with new research about the time of Tertullian's writings. Preuschen declared the matter finally settled. See: Rolffs. Das Indulgenz-Ed. TU I, 3. S. 1–9. Currently, Callistus is unanimously recognized as the author of the edict. See: Adhémar d'Alès. La théologie de Tertullien. P. 478, n. 1; S. I. Smirnov. Spiritual father. P. 226, note; Funk. Kirchengesch. Abhandlungen und Untersuch. I. S. 156–157; Note prof. Brilliantova - Lectures by Bolotov, v. 2. P. 568; Preuschen E. Zeitschrift Шг die neutestam. Wissenschaft. 1910. S. 138 ff. Many opinions were also expressed about the composition of the edict. See Migne, P.L. T. 2. Col. 1031C-D; Rolffs. Das Ind. Ed. TU 11, 3. S. 11–12. Preuschen, Harnack and Nöldechen made attempts to restore the edict. Rolffs gave a reconstruction of the edict. See: Das Ind.-Ed. TU 11.3. S. 104–116. [The text is presented] on even pages, on odd pages - German translation. E. Preuschen abandons the experience of reconstruction that he made in his early work - “Tertullians Schriften “De paenitentia” und “De pudicitia””, and does not highly value Rolfft’s reconstruction. See: Zeitschrift für die neutestam. Wissenschaft. 1910. S. 141. Cp. Esser Gerhard. Die Bussschriften Tertullians "De paenitentia" und "De pudicitia". S. 5, Anm. 2; S. 12, Anm. 2. Döllinger has an original view, according to which Zephyrinus resolved sins against chastity, and Callistus also resolved other mortal sins. See: Hippol. und Kallist. S. 126–138. Döllinger’s view is shared by Hagemann (Rolffs. Das Ind.-Ed. S. 8) and G. Volkmar (“Hippolytus und die römische Zeitgenossen.” S. 107), who apparently follows Döllinger’s. Döllinger's opinion is partly shared by Prof. Ivantsov-Platonov. See [his work]: Heresies and Schisms. pp. 92–93. In Russian church historical literature, until recently, Zefirin was considered the author of the edict, without any reasoning. See: K. M. Mazurin. Tertullian and his works. M., 1892. S. 315–316; Farrar. The life and works of the holy fathers and teaches. Churches. Transl. A. P. Lopukhina. St. Petersburg, 1891. P. 120.932. But compare: S.I. Smirnov. Spiritual father. P. 225. V. V. Bolotov. (Lectures, issue 2. p. 369) considered Zephyrinus the author of the edict. De pudic. C. 15,18,22. CSEL, 20.1. P. 251.4; 252.6–7; 259, 3; 260, 24; 26l, 2; 272.30; 273, 4–5. See: Popov I.V. Tertullian. Experience of literary characterization. Sergiev Posad, 1893. pp. 32–34. “Tertullian cited evidence from Holy Scripture, argued about the interpretation of the text, turned to Tradition, did not leave a single objection of his opponent without refutation, and finally resorted to the arguments of reason” (p. 32). Vgl.: Rolffs E. Das Indulgenz – Edict. TU 11, 3. S. 12. Cfr.: I. Turmel. Histoire de la théologie positive, I. P. 142–143. However, Tertullian presents some justification for the “second repentance” in his early work “De poenitentia”. P. 8. For details, see: Adhémar d’Alès. La théologie de Tertullien. P. 479 et suiv. P. Batiffol. Études d'histoire et de théologie positive 2 . P. 33; Preuschen E. Zeitschrift für die neutestam. Wissenschaft. 1910. S. 136–137; Esser G. Die Bussschriften Tertullians... S. 12, Anm. 1. Joel. 2.13; Os. 6.6; Ezek. 33.11; 1 Tim. 4.10. De pudic. C. 2: “Deus inquiunt, bonus et optimus et misericors et miserator et misericordiae plurimus” etc. CSEL, 20.1. P. 222.9 sqq. It should be noted that in “Adv. Marc." IV, 10 Tertullian himself proves the mercy of God from the Scriptures of the Old Testament. Many passages of Holy Scripture are cited: De pudic., 2. CSEL, 20.1. P. 222–223. Ibid. C. 3: “Si enim, inquiunt, aliqua paenitentia caret venia, jam dog in totum agenda tibiest. Nihil enim agendum est frustra." CSEL, 20.1. P. 224.21–23. Ibid. C. 3: "Hujus quoque paenitentiae fructum, id est veniam, in sua potestate usurpaverunt." P. 224.27–28. Ibid. C. 3: “Quantum autem ad nos, qui solum dominum meminimus delicta concedere.” P. 224, 29–225.2. Ibidem, 3: “Non frustra agetur... et si pacem hic non metit, apud dominum seminat. Necamittit, sed praeparat fructum." CSEL, 20.1. P. 225,2,9–11. Tertullian recognizes the possibility of pardon for those who have sinned mortally even without the intercession of Christ when he declares that “horum ultra exorator non erit Christus.” Ibid. C. 19. CSEL, 20.1. P. 265, 25. Ibid. C. 6: “Non corpus Christi, non membra Christi, non templum dei vocabatur, cum veniam moechiae consequcbatur.” CSEL, 20.1. P. 230.13–14. Ibid. C. 1: “Sed hoc in ecclesia legitur, et in ecclesia pronuntiatur, et virgo est. Absit a sponsa Christi taie praeconium! Ilia, quae vera est, quae pudica, quae sancta, carebit etiam aurium macula." CSEL, 20.1. P. 220.10–13. Tertullian gives an original interpretation of 1 Cor. 5, 5: "Eum spiritum dixerit, qui in ecclesia censetur, salvum id est integrum praestandum in die domini ab immunditiarum contagione ejecfo incesto fomicatore." CSEL, 20.1. P. 246.8–11. Compare: remarks by Rolffs (“Das Indulg.-Edict.” TU 11.3, S. 69). De pudic., 7: “Ovis proprie Christianus et grex domini ecclesiae populus et pastor bonus Christus et ideo Christianus in ove intelligendus, qui ab ecclesiae grege erraverit.” CSEL, 20.1. P. 231.6–8. De patien. C. 12. CSEL, 47. P. 19.3 sqq; De poenit. C. 8. PL T. 1; col. 1242B-1243A. The difference in the interpretation of the parables in "De pudic." and "De poenit." clearly presented by Adhémar d’Alès. See: Tertullien et Calliste. – Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique. 1912. P. 229. De pudic. C. 7. CSEL, 20.1. P. 232.15 sqq. Ibid. P. 7: “Moechum vero et fomicatorem quis non mortuum statim admisso pronuntiavit? Quo ore mortuum restisues in gregem ex parabolae ejus auctoritate, quae non mortuum pecus revocat?” P. 233.4–7. Ibid. C. 8: "Quos enim populos in duobus filiis collocant, Iudaicum majorem, Christianum minorem." CSEL, 20.1. P. 234.9–10. Tertullian puts this interpretation of the parable into the mouth of Callistus. See: De pudic. C. 9: “Christianus est qui acceptam a Deo Patre substantiam utique baptismatis, utique Spiritus sancti et exinde spei aetemae longe evagatus a patre prodigit ethnice vivens, si exutus bonis mentis etiam principi saeculi servitium suum tradidit et ab eo porcis alendis, immundis scilicet spiritibus curandis praepositus resipuit ad patrem reverti... recuperabit vestem priorem, indumentum spiritus sancti, et annulum denuo, siguaculum lavacri..." P. 236, 28–237,1, 7–9. These words are also included in Rolffs’ reconstruction of Kallistov’s edict. See: Das Indulg.-Edict. TU 11.3. S. 106,108. Tertullian, as noted above, resolutely rejected this interpretation, becoming in direct contradiction with what he himself said in “De poenit.” P. 8: “Ilium etiam mitissimum patrem non tacebo, qui prodigum fîlium revocat, et post inopiam poenitentem libens suscipit. Immolat vitulum praeopimum, convivio gaudium suum oxornat... Is ergo te fîlium suum, etsi acceptam ab eo prodegeris, etsi nudus redieris, recipiet” etc. PL T. 1. Col. 1242C, 1243A. The interpretation is almost literally the same as that given to the parable according to De pudicitia of the “psyche”. – remedium. "De pudic." C. 10. P. 239.6. In another place, repentance is called help for the sinner (“De pudic.” P. 19: “Fornicationi posuerit poenitentiae auxilium.” P. 261.30. De pudic. C. 10. P. 239.7 sqq. De pudic. C. 13: “Hic jam camis interitum in officium paenitentiae interpretantur, quod videatur jejuniis et sordibus et incuria omni et dedita mal operaae tractationis camem exterminando satis Deo facere, ut ex hoc argumententur fornicatorem, immo incestum ilium non in perditionem satanae ab apostolo traditum, sed in emendationem, quasi postea veniam ob interitum id est conflictationem carnis consecuturum, igitur et consecutum.” CSEL, 20.1. P. 244.22–29. Tertullian understands the exhaustion of the flesh in the sense of death. "Incestum fornicatorem non in emendationem, sed in perditionem tradidit satanae... denique in interitum inquit, carnis, non in cruciatum, ipsam substantiam damnans, per quam exciderat." P. 245.26–246.2. On the meaning of the tradition of Satan in ancient church literature, see Dr. Anton Seitz (“Die Heilsnotwendigkeit der Kirche nach der altchristlichcn Literatur bis zur Zeit des hl. Augustinus.” Freiburg im Breisgau, 1903. S. 111–116). The general meaning is exactly the same as that of Callistus; Tertullian is alone with his view (S. 113). Vgl.: Adam K. Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullians. S. 184 ff. This opinion is considered almost universally accepted. See: Funk F. X. Das Indulgenzedikt des Papstes Kallistus. – Theologische Quarterschrift. 1906. S. 541–542. Tertullian himself sees church progress in his reasoning when he says: “Nemo proficiens erubescit.” De pudic. C. 1. CSEL, 20. P. 220.24. A. Ritschl admits that neither Montanism nor the Roman bishop stood on the basis of tradition, but each introduced something new on their part. See: Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche. S. 514, 516. Vgl.: Stufler I. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie. 1907. S. 440; Adhémar d'Alès. La théologie de Tertullien. P. 491. Vgl.: Loots F. Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte, § 29, 2b. S. 208; Jos. Schwane. Dogmengeschichte der vornic. Zeit. S. 453, 499; Paul Monceaux. Histoire littéraire de L'Afrique chrétienne depuis les origines jusqu'a l'invasion arabe. T. 1. Paris. 1901. P. 432; Adhémar d'Alès Tertullien et Calliste. Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique. T. 13.1912. P. 256; Bardenhewer O. Patrologie, § 56.1. S. 195. Cfr.: Adhémar d'Alès La théologie de saint Hippolyte. P. 48; Adam K. Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullians. S. 179–180, Anm. 4. Cfr.: Stufler Joh. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie. 1907. S. 325. Vgl.: Schanz. Der Begriff der Kirche. – Theologische Quarterschrift. 1893. S. 581. See also Gerhard Esser’ä Die Busschriften Tertullians. S. 8.28. De pudic. C. 18: “Aut levioribus delictis veniam ab episcopo consequi poterit aut maioribuset inremissibilibus a Deo solo.” CSEL, 20.1. P. 261.26–27. Ibid. P. 21: “Idcirco praesumis et ad te derivasse solvendi et alligandi potestatem, id est adomnem ecclesiam Petri propinquam.” CSEL, 20.1. P. 270.1–6. "Sed habet, inquis, potestatem ecclesia delicta donandi." P. 269, 22–23.– Wed. remark by I. Termerl: Tertullien. P. 215. For Tertullian’s attitude to episcopal power, see Adam (“Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullians.” S. 157–160). It must be admitted that in Tertullian’s Montanistic writings a significantly different assessment and different attitude towards hierarchy is noticeable than was the case before. See: Heinrich Bruders. Mt. 1b, 19; 18.18 und In. 20, 22–23 in frühchristlicher Auslegung. – Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie. 1910. S. 664–668. Here “disciplina” obviously corresponds to the “doctrina” used above. Wed: Kiparisov. About church discipline. pp. 16,18, approx. 27. De pudic., 21: "Exhibe igitur et nunc mihi, apostolice, prophetica exempla, ut agnoscam divinitatem, et vindica tibi delictorum ejluscemodi remittendorum potestatem." CSEL, 20, 1. pp. 269.2–19. Ibidem, 21: “Hoc ego magis et agnosco et dispono.” P. 269.23. But a little lower we read: “dabo tibi claves, non ecclesiae.” P. 270.9-S. De pudic., 21: "Potest ecclesia donare delictum, sed non faciam, ne et alia delinquant." P. 269, 22–25. Harnack, however, reads alii instead of alia. Compare: Adam K. Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullians. S. 221–222. Ibidem, 21: "Spiritus veritatis potest quidem indulgere fomicatoribus veniam, sed cum plurium malo non vult." P.269,29–31. Ibidem, 21: “Adeo nihil ad delicta tidelium capitalia potestas solvendi et alligandi Petroemancipata.” P. 270. Ibid. C. 21. P. 271.1–11. “C’est le disciple de Montan qui parle en ce moment,” notes I. Turmei (“Tertullien.” P.218). Let us present interesting arguments from Böhringer: “This testimony shows us that the bishops then already began to consider themselves, by virtue of apostolic succession, not only the owners of the true teaching, but also the stewards of the “power of the keys.” Tertullian recognized the first, but opposed the second. In any case, it was news that the bishops had usurped for themselves a right that the Church (communities) had hitherto enjoyed. Tertullian was not, of course, consistent here, because whoever had already recognized episcopal teaching authority as a result of apostolic succession had to recognize, by virtue of the same succession, the episcopal “power of the keys.” And if he does not want to recognize it, then he must reject the first one, because both have the same unhistorical justification. However, with this opposition against the “power of the keys” of the bishops, which resulted in a reference to the only permissive power of God, the matter constantly revolved only around mortal sins, because with weaker sins Tertullian does not deny the bishop the right and power of permission. Isn't this half-hearted again? It seems that it was almost the opposition only against the liberal discipline of the bishop that caused this opposition against the “power of the keys” (with mortal sins). If the bishops had adopted a stricter Montanist discipline, then Tertullian and his Montanist friends would probably not, at least in principle, have denied them the right of permission. The pure idea of ​​the Divine resolution of sins, which was opposed to the episcopal one, was not consistently pursued by Tertullian, not only in that he attributed it only to mortal sins, but also in the fact that the forgiveness of mortal sins, at least in abstracto, he again attributed to the Church. True, he - and this is another truth in the controversial point - spiritualized the concept of this Church, instead of the episcopal Church he substituted a spiritual one. But even this thought immediately becomes unclean, partisan, because who is this spiritual Church if not Tertullian and his Montanistic party associates.” – Die alte Kirche. III. S. 476–477. The main reason was, of course, trinitarian differences of opinion. See: Funk F. Das Indulgenzedikt des Papstes Kallistus. – Theologische Quartalschriff. 1906. S. 561; Döllinger. Hippolytus und Kallistus. S. 229–230. The schism of Hippolytus left almost no trace in church literature. The fate of Hippolytus himself is very unclear. The works of Hippolytus are known in many languages: Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopian, Slavic (Achelis. Hippolytstudien. TU 16.4. S. 1). Recently, Georgian fragments of his works have also been discovered (N. Marr. Texts and research in Armenian-Georgian philology, book III. Hippolytus. Interpretation of the Song of Songs, based on a manuscript of the 10th century). He is also a saint revered by the entire Church (Achelis. S. 35–62). But at the same time, Eusebius does not know where he was bishop (H. E. VI, 22); also [does not know] Jerome (De vir. ill. C. 6l) and others (Achelis. S. 11,14–15). According to Döllinger, Hippolytus in church history stands ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, ἀγενεαλόγητος (Hippol. und Kall. S. 54). Achelis diligently collected all the traces of Hippolytus in the monuments (S. 42–43,44, 32–34), but these traces are very few. For an attempt to explain this circumstance, see Fr. Ivantsova-Platonov: “Heresies and schisms.” pp. 100–102.0 we learn about the disputes between Hippolytus and Callistus only from the messages of Hippolytus himself. See: Philos. IX, 11–12. Quite a detailed commentary on these messages in the cited book by Döllinger. S. 115 ff. VgL: Rolffs. Das Indulg.-Edict. TU 11, pp. 88,134–135. Philosopher IX, 12: πρῶτος τὰ πρὸς ἡδονὰς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συγχωρεῖν ἐπενόησε, λέγων π ᾶ σιν ὑπ ’ αὐτοῦ ἀφίεσθαι ἀμαρτίας. PG. T. 16. Col. 3386 Α . The word πρώτος can hardly serve as a sufficient basis for the assumption that, according to the testimony of Hippolytus, the disciplinary measures of Callistus were a break with the early church tradition. Compare: Esser G. Die Bussschriften Tertullians. S. 28. Idem. Col. 3387B: Ταῦτα μὲν οΰν ό θαυμασιώτατος Κάλλιστος συνεστήσατο, οΰ διαμένει τὸ διδασκαλεῖον φυλάσσον τὰ ἔθη καὶ τὴν παράδοσιν, μὴ διακρῖνον , τίσι δεῖ κοινωνεῖν , π ᾶ σι δ ’ ἀκρίτως προσφέρων τὴν κοινωνίαν. Idem. Col. 3386C. Rolffs inserts a comparison of the Church with the ark into his reconstruction of the Edict of Callistus, believing that it is precisely this Old Testament likeness of the Church that Tertullian contrasts with the New Testament image of the “Body of Christ.” – “Das Indulgenz.-Edict.” TU 11, 3. S. 68, Anm. 3. In diesem Satze erscheint der Abfall von dem alten Kirchenbegriff vollendet,” says Harnack (“Dogmengeschichte,” I. S. 409). Wed. and further remarks by Harnack. But regarding the comparison of the Church with the ark of Noah used by Callistus, it should be noted that this comparison is not alien to Tertullian in his early works. From him we read: “Ecclesia est area figurata” (De bapt. C. 8. CSEL, 20, 1. P. 208, 1). “Navicula illa figuram ecclesiae praeferebat, quod in mari id est saeculo, fluctibus id est persecutionibus et tentationibus inquietatur” (Ibid. C. 12. P. 212, 3–5). Christian thought used the image of Noah’s Ark very early to clarify the concept of the Church, and Noah’s Ark was one of the most convenient and most visual symbols of the idea of ​​the Church (See: Archimandrite Christopher. Ancient Christian iconography as an expression of ancient church faith. M., 1887. P. 205). This symbol is found in the oldest catacomb images (Maurus Wolten. Die römischen Katakomben und ihre Bedeutung für die katholische Lehre von der Kirche. Frankfurt a. M. 1866. S. 28–30). This symbol, of course, first of all expresses the idea of ​​the impossibility of salvation outside the Church (cf.: M. Wolter, op. cit., S. 29), that is, the idea with which Tertullian’s Montanistic reflections in “De pudicitia” do not agree, which is why they cannot be looked at as a reflection of the ancient church-wide view of the Church. But the idea that Callistus emphasized in the image of the ark was also not alien to the ancient church consciousness. The same Tertullian wrote: “Viderimus enim si secundum arcae typum et corvus et milvus et lupus et canis et serpens in ecclesia erit certe idololatres in arcae typo non habetur” (De idolol. P. 24. CSEL, 20.1. P. 58.4–6). Cfr.: “De area Noë Ecclesiae typo patrum sententiae. Sanctorum patrum opuscula selecta in usum praesertim studiosorum theologiae edidit" H. Hurter. vol. III. Oeniponti. 1868. P. 217 sqq.; F. Loots. Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte, § 29.2b. S. 208. Cfr.: Adhémar d'Alès. La théologie de saint Hippolyte. P. 46–47. Philosopher IX, 12. Εκκλησίας. PG. T. 16. Col. 3386 Α . About the name διδασκαλειον cm. Döllinger, S. 102 and Anm. 118; Ivantsov-Platonov. Heresies and schisms. pp. 93–94, approx. 44. Idem. Col. 3387–3388В: “άφ * οΰ και τήν του ονόματος μετέσχον έπίκλησιν καλείσθαι διά τόν πρωτοστατήσαντα των τοιούτων έργων Κάλλιστον καλλιστιανοί ". Cfr.: Adhémar d'Alès. La théologie de saint Hippolyte. P. 68–70; Schwane. Dogmengeschichte der vomie. Zeit. S. 484. Philos. IX, 12: "οΰ διαμένει τό διδασκαλειον φυλάσσον τα έθη καί τήν παράδοσιν ". PG. T. 16. Col. 3387 Β. Vgl.: Volkmar G. Hippolytus und die römischen Zeitgenossen. S. 107. Ivantsov-Platonov. Heresies and schisms. C. 106. Philos. IX, 12: "Οΰ τφ öpco άρεσκόμενοι πολλοί συνείδησιν πεπληγότες άμα τε καί υπό πολ λών αιρέσεων άποβληθέντες , τινές δέ καί έπί καταγνώσει προσχωρήσαντες αύτοίς "" PG. T. 16. Col. 3386 Β. Cfr.: Hamack. Dogmengeschichte 4,1. S. 403, Anm. 2. Philos. prooem. "" τυχόντες πρότεροι οί απόστολοι μετέδοσαν τοις όρθώς πεπισιευκόσιν · ών ήμείς διάδοχοι τυγχάνοντες της τε αυτής ? Εκκλησίας λελογισμένοί σιω – πωμεν ... άλλα του ιδίου καιροί τά μέτρα έπιτελούντες , καί δσα πίχρέξει τό άγιον Πνεύμα πασιν άφθόνως κοινωνουντες " T. 16. Col. Böhringer compares the meaning of Montanism with the meaning of Gnosticism: “In contrast to the Montanistic idea of the holiness of the Church, conditioned by the purity of life of its members, the position was expressed that the holiness of the Church depends on the possession of sanctifying means, the Sacraments. Gnosticism was an intellectual phenomenon; its consequence was that the bishop was recognized as having teaching authority by virtue of apostolic succession. The disciplinary phenomenon of Montanism had the consequence that the “power of the keys” was united with the episcopate.” - “Die alte Kirche.” III. S. 482–483. Loots F. Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte 4, § 24, S. 172. "Diese Ansicht wird durch die Geschichte wideilegt, und die ihr zu Grunde liegende Deutung der Aussprüche Christi ist unrichtig." – Ritschl. Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche. S. 372. Vgl.: S. 372–388. Harnack. Dogmengeschichte, I. S. 403, Anm. 2; Tertullian. De paenitentia. De pudicitia. Herausgegeben von Lie. Erwin Preuschen. Freiburg i. B. 1891. Einleitung. S. VII-VIII. (In the preface to the new edition - Tübingen, 1910, S. V-VI, Preuschen expresses himself much less decisively). Compare: Preuschen E. Zur Kirchenpolitik des Bischofs Kallist. – Zeitschrift für die neutestam. Wissenschaf/t. 1910. Catholic science raises very serious objections to the view accepted among Protestant scientists and introduces radical changes into it. See, for example, the article by prof. Dr. Schanz's "Die Absolutionsgewalt in der alten Kirche". – Theologische Quarterschrift. 1897. S. 27–69. Here the essence of Protestant views on this issue is briefly outlined (S. 27–29). An analysis of the relevant passages of Holy Scripture, albeit with Catholic tendencies, will be given by Schanz. See: Theologische Quarterschrift. 1897. S. 30–43. Vgl.: Frank F. Die Bussdisciplin der Kirche. S. 79.81. De pudic. C. 21: “Sed habet, inquis, potestatem ecclesia delicta donandi. Hoc ego magis etagnosco et dispono, qui ipsum paracletum in prophetis novis habeo dicentem: potest ecclesia donare delictum, sed non faciam, ne et alia délinquant.” CSEL, 20, 1. pp. 269, 22–25. Therefore, V.V. Bolotov’s remark is fair: “By not allowing the forgiveness of “mortal” sins, Tertullian does not proceed from any dogmatic assumptions that limit the power of the Church... This severity is only a matter of the pastoral wisdom of the Montanist primates.” – Lectures, vol. 2. P. 365. Compare: Batiffol R. Études d’histoire et de théotogie positive. P. 97. De pudic. C. 21. CSEL, 20.1. P. 270.1–11. C. 10: “Memento claves ejus hic dominum Petro et per ejum ecclesiae relinquisse, quas hicunusquisque interrogatus atque confessus feret secum.” CSEL, 20.1. P. 167, 24–26. Doesn’t this contradict what Tertullian wrote later: “Dabo tibi claves, non ecclesiae?” De pudic., 21. CSEL, 20.1. P. 270.9–10. Schanz rightly observes: “We must be careful in suggesting that in this pseudo-prophetic movement we are dealing with the last vestige of the ancient doctrine of the forgiveness of sins through spiritual people.” – Die Absolutionsgewalt in der alten Kirche. – Theologische Quarterschrift. 1897. S. 46–47. See: Smirnov S.I. Spiritual father. P. 242: “The Great Church probably never adhered to such a doctrine that only the “spiritual” - the apostle or prophet - has the right to bind and decide.” Epist. ad Damasum. XXI, 3, 2: “vehementer admiror Tertullianum in eo libro, quem de pudicitia adversum paenitentiam scripsit et sententiam veterem nova opinione dissolvit.” CSEL, 54, pp. 115,17–19. Tillemont. Memoires. T. 3. P. 220; P. Monceaux. Histoire littéraire de G Afrique chrét. T. 1. P. 432–433; Esser G. Die Bussschriften Tertullians. S. 8 ff., 12; Preuschen E. Zur Kirchenpolitik des Bischofs Kallist. – Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. 19YU. S. 135,143–144; Bruders H. Mt. 16.19; 18.18 und In. 20,22, 23 in frühchristlicher Auslegung. – Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie. 1910. S. 668; Bardenhewer O. Patrologie, § 50, 5. S. 163; Adhémar d'Alès. Tertullien et Calliste. Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique. 1912. P. 227, 241,256. De pudic. P. 1: “Erit et hic adversus psychicos titulus, adversus meae quoque sententiae retro penes illos societatem, quo magis hoc mihi in notam levitatis obiectent.” CSEL, 20, 1. P. 220, 17–19. One can hardly agree with Funk that the change of convictions that Tertullian speaks of here concerns not the issue of repentance, but the general attitude towards the Church after the transition to Montanism. See: Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen. I. S. 166. Vgl.: Theologische Quartalschrift. 1906. S. 545. See analysis of this view in A. d’Alès: Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique. 1912. P. 236–240. Eusebius. History Ecclesias. V, 1,9,10,29– GrchSch. 9.1. S. 404.20–21; 406,2,3; 412.28–29. Ad. martyr. C. 1, 3. PL T. 1. Col. 620A, 624B. Cfr.: De pudic. C. 22: Christus in martyre est. CSEL, 20.1. P. 272.10. On the charismatic character of the martyrs, see S.I. Smirnov: “Spiritual Father.” pp. 236–237; Rolffs. Das Ind.-Ed., S. 42; Schanz. Theologische Quarterschrift. 1897. S. 55–57; Hamack A. Dogmengeschichte, I. S. 441, Anm. 1. Eusebius. Cit. op. V, 2,5,8. GrchSch. 9.1. S. 430–431. Eusebius quotes these words, “meaning those who subsequently, out of inhumanity and insensitivity, treated the members of Christ cruelly.” Vgl.: Schanz. Theologische Quarterschrift. 1897. S. 51. Harnack makes the following remark: “Ersucht dem Briefe Zeugnisse zu entnehmen, dass die Konfessoren die Wiederaufnahme definitiv Gefallener betrieben und erreicht hätten, aber die von ihm beigebrachten Steifen reden davon nicht.” Lapsi. RE 3. Bd. 11. S. 286. The depiction of the discipline of the 2nd century in the most contradictory terms is given by S. I. Smirnov. See: “Spiritual Father.” pp. 231–232: “It is assumed that while maintaining strict discipline regarding the fallen, the Church, to weaken it, resorted to the help of special revelations, as well as to the intervention of martyrs in favor of the fallen” (p. 231). Wed: Harnack. Lapsi RE 3. Bd. 11. S. 286: “It is clear that only the martyrs were the managers of this matter, because it was they who began to soften the severity of the Church of the 3rd century towards the fallen. There was obviously no authority above them that would check and approve their decision: the bishops did not consider this their right.” Just three lines later we read: “But, on the other hand, the decision of the martyrs did not have a generally binding and complete meaning: it only authorized, but did not necessarily force the church community to accept the fallen... This last decision remained in the power of the bishop.” Eusebius. Cit. op. 18.7. GrchSch. 9.1. S. 476.3–5. Vgl.: Schanz. Theologische Quarterschrift. 1897. S. 52. De pudic. C. 22: statim ambiunt moechi, statim adeunt fomicatores, jam preces circumsonant, jam lacnmae circumstagnant maculati cujusque, nec ulli magis aditum carceris red-imunt quam qui ecclesiam perdiderunt. CSEL, 20.1. P. 271.14–17. According to "De poenit." C. 9, the penitent must “presbyteris advolvi, et caris Dei adgeniculari.” PL T. 1. Col. 1244A, C. In the commentary Le Prieur explains: “Putarim ego per caros Dei intelligendos esse martyres.” This same view is repeated by Preuschen. See: Zeitschrift für die neutestam. Wissenschaft. 1910. S. 154–155. One can generally see in the cari Dei people of high life, whose prayer can accomplish much (James 5:16), but, of course, martyrs [are] not excluded. Vgl.: Rolffs E. Das Indulg.-Ed. TU 11, 3. S. 33, Anm. 3; Böhringer. Die alte Kirche. III. S. 477–478. See also the material collected from Karl Goll: Enthusiasmus und Bussgewalt beim griechischen Mönchtum. Leipzig. 1898. S. 129, Anm. 1. Vgl.: Schanz. Theolog. Quarterschrift. 1897. S. 57: “In general, wherever the charismatic character of the martyrs is spoken of, there is, however, no talk of their charisma serving as the basis for their power to forgive sins.” S. I. Smirnov. Spiritual father. P. 233. De pudic., 22: “At tu jam et in martyras tuos effundis hanc potestatem.” CSEL, 20.1. P. 271, 12. See Schanz's remarks (Theolog. Quartalschrift. 1897. S. 52–53). Ibidem, 22: “quis permittit homini donare quae Deo reservanda sunt?” CSEL, 20.1. P. 271, 27. Ibidem, 22. CSEL, 20.1. P. 272.1–28. Tertullian, although he highly values ​​confession, says Böhringer, his attitude changed if the confessor wanted to free others from sins, and even from mortal sins. This, in the eyes of Tertullian, was an undermining of discipline and an intrusion into the realm of God's authority, no better than the forgiveness of sins by a bishop. See: Die alte Kirche. III. S. 478–479. See: V.V. Bolotov. Lectures, vol. 2. P. 365. The particularly close relationship of the martyrs to the penitential discipline, according to Harnack, is precisely “ein archaistischer Rest, der sich aber bis zum Ende des 3. Jahrhunderts gehalten hat.” Novatian. RE 3. Bd. 14. S. 229. Cfr.: Tertulliaa De paenitentia. De pudicitia. Herausgeg. von Erwin Preuschen, Freiburg i. B. 1891. Einleitung. S. VIII, "Reste enthusiastischer Verfassung". In the second edition of 1910 there is nothing like this anymore. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. 1910. S. 158–159. Vgl.: Schanz. Die Absolutionsgewalt in der alten Kirche. – Theologische Quarterschrift. 1897. S. 57. Funk, briefly pointing to historical news about the participation of martyrs in the penitential discipline, says that there are indeed words in these news that indicate the power of resolving sins; sometimes martyrs made claims to this right, and it was sometimes practiced. But, as a rule, this is difficult to accept. The evidence provided is not sufficient for this. They are understandable in another case, since intercession with confidence in the expected and previously almost always achieved success could easily be indicated by the granting of peace or remission of sins... Moreover, on the other hand, the right of the bishop is also expressed. See: Zur altchristlichen Bussdisciplin. Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen. I. S. 180–181. Vgl.: S. 176. Contemporary to Montanism, the Bishop of Antioch Serapion wrote in a letter to Caricus and Pontik that the brotherhood around the world considered the Montanistic new prophecy a disgusting phenomenon. See: Eusebius. History Ecclesias. V, 19.2. Therefore, Schans rightly writes: “The few testimonies of post-apostolic times about the forgiveness of sins by the spiritually gifted cannot, contrary to the apostolic succession strenuously emphasized since the time of Callistus of Rome, be considered sufficient grounds for a theory that overthrows all the rights of the Church, and this is all the more so since the meaning of these testimonies is debated to this day.” He very aptly and wittily writes a little further down: “It is wrong if anyone attributes the later structure (zurückdatiert) to the beginning without further reasoning, but it is also false if anyone wants to find a remnant (Überbleibsel) of early Christianity in heretical movements.” – Die Absolutionsgewalt in der alten Kirche. – Theologische Quarterschrift. 1897. S. 68–69. Strom. II, 13; 59,6: « ἀπείθειαν τὰ πάθη ". GrchSch. 15. S. 145, 5–6 (PG. T. 8. Col. 997 B). Idem. IV, 26,163,1–4. GrchSch. 15. S. 320–321 (PG. T. 8. Col. 1373A). Idem. IV, 26.170.4. GrchSch. 15. S. 323.31–324.5. (PG. T. 8. Col. 1380A). Idem. VII, 1; 3, 4: “Αὐτὸς ὁ γνωστικός, ἀνθρώποις τὴν βελτιωτικὴν ἐνδυκνύμενος θεωρίαν , ὅ πως ἂ ν καὶ παιδεύειν ῇ τεταγμένος εἰς τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐπανόρθωσιν..." GrchSch. 17. S. 4,21–24 (PG. T. 9. Coi. 405A-B). Quis dives salv. P. 41, 1: “Δεῖ πάντως σε τὸν σοβαρὸν καὶ δυνατὸν καὶ πλούσιον ἐπιστήσασθαι ἐαυτῷ τινα ᾄ νθρωπον θεοῦ καθάπερ ἀλείπτην καὶ κυβερνήτην ". GrchSch. 17. S. 187, 8–10 (PG. T. 9. Col. 645C). Cfr.: Paedag. 1.1; 3, 3. GrchSch. 12. S. 91, 11 ff. (PG. T. 8. Col. 252A-B). Archim. Sylvester examines the doctrine of the Church of Clement and Origen precisely in connection with Montanism. See: Doctrine of the Church... pp. 224–225 ff. Paedag. 1,7,53,1. GrchSch. 12. S. 121.23 ff. (PG. T. 8. CoL 312C). Idem. III, 12.93, 3: “Μόνος γὰρ ἀναμάρτητος αὐτὸς ὁ λόγος.” GrchSch. 12. S. 287.9· (PG. T. 8. Col. 672C). Cfr.: Paedag. 1.2; 4.1–2. GrchSch. 12. S. 91,22,28 (PG. T. 8. CoL 252C, D). Idem. Ill, 12,93,3. GrchSch. 12. S. 287,10–11 (PG. T. 8. CoL 672Q. Idem. 1,2.4,2–3. GrchSch. 12. S. 91–92 (PG. T. 8. Col. 253A). VgL: Heinisch P. Der Einfluss Philos auf die älteste christliche Exegese. S. 277–278. Idem. 1,2.4,2. GrchSch. 12. S. 91.28–92.2 (PG. T. 8. Col. 293A). Paedag 1.6; 52.2–3. GrchSch. 12. S. 121.8 ff. (PG. T. 8. Col. 312C). Vgl.: Harnack A. Dogmengeschichte, I. S. 412. For more information about Clement, see: Dr. Karl Hall. Enthusiasmus und Bussgewalt beim griechischen Mönchtum. S. 226–230. The author incidentally writes that in Alexandria, earlier than anywhere else, they came to the idea, “dass der Gläubige nicht ein Fertiger, sondern ein Werdender ist” (S. 226). This, of course, was Clement’s thought, but no one came to it, but the Church had it from the very beginning. Paedag. 1.6; 42.1: ἀκ ή ρατος ὡ ς παρθένος . GrchSch. 12. S. 115,14–15 (PG. T. 8. Col. 300B). Strom. III, 6; 49, 3: τὴν ἰδίαν νύμφην εἰχεν, τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. GrchSch. 15. S. 218, 27–28. (PG. T. 8. Col. 1152C). Cfr.: Ill., 12; 80, 2. S. 232,11–12 (PG. T. 8. CoL 1180B). Idem. Ill, 11; 74, 2. S. 229, 19–20 (PG. T. 8. Col. 1173D). Idem VII, 17; 107.6. GrchSch. 17. S. 76.16 ff. (PG. T. 9– Col. 552B). Idem. VI, 14; 114.1. GrchSch. 15. S. 489, 6–7 (PG. T. 9– Col. 337B). Idem. IV, 8; 66.1: εἰκ ὼ ν δὲ της σὐρανίου εκκλησίας ἡ ἐπίγειος , ὅ περ εὐχόμεθα καὶ ἐπὶ γης γενέσθαι τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ ὡ ς ἐν οὐρανῷ. GrchSch. 15. S. 278, 10–12 (PG. T. 8. Col. 1277B). Cfr.: Strom. IV, 26.172, 2. S. 324, 28 ff. (PG. T. 8. Col.l381A). Paedag. 1.6; 27, 2: τὸ βούλημα αὐτοῦ ἀνθρώπων ἐστὶ σωτηρία καὶ τοῦτο ἐκκλησία κέκληται. GrchSch. 12. S. 106,10–11. (PG. T. 8. Col. 281B). Idem. I, 5; 18, 4: τελειούμεθα τότε, ὅ τε ἐσμὲν ἐκκλησία τὴν κεφαλήν, τὸν Χριστὸν, ἀπειληφότες. GrchSch. 12. S. 101.3–4 (PG. T. 8. Col. 272A). Idem. 1.6; 38.3: δι ᾽ ὡ ν ( σχ . τῆς πίστεως καὶ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ) ἡ ἐκκλησία , καθάπερ ἄνθρωπος ἐκ πολλῶν συνεστηκυῖα μελῶν, ἄρδεταί τε καὶ α ὔ ξεται. GrchSch. 12. S. 113, 2–4 (PG. T. 8. Col. 266B). Cfr.: 1.6; 42, 3; 43.1. S. 115, 20 ff. (Ibid. Col. 301A). Idem. 1.6; 42.1–43.1. GrchSch. 12. S. 115,10–22, 29 (PG. T. 8. Col. 300B-C, 301A). Strom. VII, 11; 3, 3: κατὰ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τὴν μὲν βελτιωτικὴν οἱ πρεσβύτεροι σ ῴ ζουσιν εἰκόνα. GrchSch. 17. S. 4,18–19 (PG. T. 9. Col. 405A). Idem. II, 13; 56, 1–2; 57.1–2; 58, 1–3; 59.1. GrchSch. 15. S. 143, 15–144, 22 (PG. T.8. Col. 996C). Hippolytus und Kallistus. S. 256–257. See: Harnack A. Dogmengeschichte 4, I. S. 416, 442–443, 447–449, 484; Rolffs E. Das Indulgenz-Edict. TU 11.3. S. 127 ff; Ios. Turmei. Histoire de la théologie positive. I.P. 144; Batiffol P. Études d'histoire et de théologie positive 2 . P. 110. Contra Cels. VI, 48 (PG. T. 11. Col. 1373B). GrchSch. 3. S. 119, 28–120, 5. De orat. 20.1 (PG. T. 11. Col. 477C). GrchSch. 3. S. 343,13–15. In. Ierem. 29.4. PG. T. 13. Col. 577B. In Cantic., lib 4. Having spoken about the daily renewal of the Church, Origen here says that Christ presented the Church to Himself as holy and immaculate, that is, souls who have come to perfection (quae ad perfectionem venerunt), which all together form the Body of the Church. And this Body must appear beautiful and comely if the souls from which it is formed are in all the beauty of perfection (in omni perfectionis decore permanserint). PG. T. 13. Col. 191B. For example, Origen speaks of his own time as being significantly worse than the previous time. - In Ierem. hom 4, 3. PG. T. 13. Col. 288D. (GrchSch. 6. S. 25.16 ff.) Comm. in Math. 1.17, n. 24. – PG. T. 13. Col. 1548C-1549A. In Contic. lib. 4.PG. T. 13. Col. 191C. In Genes, hom. 2.3. PG. T. 12. Col. 168B. In Ezech. hom. 1.11. PG. T. 13. CoL 677B-C. Cfr.: In Num. hom. 27.6. – PG. T. 12. Col. 779C. Contra Cels. Ill, 26. GrehSch. 2. S. 227. Cf. Harnack's remark: Dogmengeschichte 4, 1. S. 448–449, Anm. In les. Nav. hom. 21.1. PG. T. 12. Col. 928C-D. Cfr.: in Math, t. X. 13: δικαίων, ὑπό τῶν έπὶ τοῦτο ἐξαποστελλομένων ἀγγέλων, ὁρῶμεν ἡμῶν τὰ ἀθροίσματα πεπληρωμένα καὶ πονηρῶν . PG. T. 13, cot. 865 Β. In Ierem. fragm. 31. GrehSch. 6. S. 215.6–13– PG. T. 13. Col. 597D. Vgl.: Seeberg R. Studien zur Geschichte des Begriffe der Kirche. S. 30; Hamack F. Dogmengeschichte. I. S. 697, Anm. 2. In Math, comment, ser. 47.PG. T. 13. Col. 1669C. In Genes, homil. 1.5. PG. T. 12. Col. 150C. See: Archim. Sylvester. Doctrine about the Church. pp. 242–245. In Ierem. hom. 1.3; (19); 18.14. PG. T. 13. Col. 257B-C, 492. GrehSch. 6. S. 3, 3 ff.; 170 ff. In Num. hom. 10. t. PG. T. 12. Col. 638A. Cfr.: In Lev. 5.3. PG. T. 12. Col. 450B-C. In psalm. 36 hom. 4, 2. PG. T. 12. Col. 1351C-D. Cfr.: in psalm. 37 Rom. 2, 2. PG. T. 12. Col. 1382C. Cm.: Funk. Kirchengesch. Abhandlungen und Untersuch. I, S. 159,163. So Döllinger. Hippolytus und Kallistus. S. 256; Holl K Enthusiasmus und Bussgewalt. S. 230–231; los. Turmel. Histoire de la théologie positive 3,1. P. 144, not. 2; 147, no. 1; Loots F. Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte 4, § 29.2b. S. 207, Anm. 7. Cfr.: S. 208, Anm. 2. Frank. Die Bussdisciplin der Kirche. S. 838–840; Adhémar d'Alès. La thélogie de saint Hippolyte. P. 44–46; loh. Stufler. Die Sündenvergebung bei Origenes. – Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie. 1907. S. 205 ff. In Exod. hom. 6.9: “Haec omnia diaboli census est et diaboli thesaurus. Talis enim pecunia de ejus moneta procedit. Us igitur pecunia emit ille, quos emit, et efficit sibi servos omnes, qui de hujuscemodi censu ejus quantulumcunque susceperint.” PG. T. 12. Col. 338B-C. Idem. 6, 9: “Paenitendo, flendo, satisfaciendo deleat, quod admissum est. Dicit enim propheta, quia si conversus inemueris, tune salvus eris.” PG. T. 12. Col. 338D. Idem. 6, 6: “Si quem videris luxuriae camis et voluptatibus corporis deditum, in quo animus nihil valet, sed totum libido camis obtinuit, dicito et de hoc, quia devoravit eum terra... Nec tarnen penitus desperandum est. Possibile namque est, ut si forte resipiscat, qui devoratus est, rursum possit evomi, sicut Ionas.” PG. T. 12. Col. 335D-336A. In Lev. hum. 9, 8: “Nihil desperandum est his qui compugnuntur et convertuntur ad Dominum. Non enim superat bonitatem. Dei malitia delictorum." PG. T. 12. Col. 520D-521A. Cfr.: In lud. hom. 3.2. PG. T. 12, col 963B; In Lev. 1b, 2. PG. T. 12. Col. 561A. Contra Celsum III, 51: ' ἀσελγεὶας ᾔ τινος ἀτ ό που νενικημένους ὡ ς νεκρούς πενθοῦσι, ἐὰν ἀξιόλογον ἐνδείξωνται μεταβολήν , χρόν ῳ πλείονι τῶν κατ ’ ἀρχὰς εἰσαγομένων ὕ στερόν ποτε προσίενταΙ , εἰς οὐδεμίαν ἀρχὴν καὶ προστασίαν τῆς λεγομένης ἐκκλησίας τοῦ θεοῦ καταλέγοντες τούς φθάσαντας μετά τὸ προσεληλυθέναι τῷ λόγφ ἐπταικέναι . GrchSch. 2. S. 247, 22–248, 5. PG. T. 11. Col. 988B-C. F. Loofs notes about these words that Origen considers the possibility of accepting back excommunicated adulterers to be a general Christian practice. See: Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte 4, § 29, 2b. S. 208, Anm. 2. In Lev. 11.2. PG. T. 12. Col. 533C, D: “Si aliquis est qui forte praeventus est in hujuscemodi peccatis, admonitus nunc verbo Dei, ad auxilium confugiat poenitentiaë ut si semel admisit, secundo non faciat, aut si et secundo, aut etiam tertio praeventus est, ultra non addat.” However, in Lev. hom. 16.2 we read: “In gravioribus criminibus” semel tantum poenitentiae conceditur locus.” PG. T. 12. Col. 561A. Sel. in p.s. hom. 1, 5. PG. T. 12. Col. 1328B. Cfr.: in 1er. hom. 19.9. Here Origen imagines two adulterers - one repentant, the other despairing - and asks. « τίνα λέγεις ἐλπίδας ἔχειν παρὰ θεῷ ; ἀρ ’ ἐκεῖνον τὸν πορνεύσαντα καὶ μὴ φροντίσατα , αλλ ’ ἀπαλγοῦντα ὡ ς καὶ παραδόντα αὐτὸν τ ῇ ἀσελγεία ᾒ τοῦτον τὸν μετὰ τὴν μίαν ( κρειττόνων) ἐστίν. PG. T. 13. Col. 521B-C. GrchSch. 6. S. 191,31–192, 3. Sel. in p.s. hom. 4.2. PG. T. 12. Col. 1533B-C. In Lev. hom. 14.4; In Num. hom. 19.3; In les. N.hom. 7.6; In lud. hom. 2.5; In p.s. 37 hom. 1, 2. PG. T. 12. Col. 558B-C, 724C, 861A-B, 961A-B, 1375A; In 1er. hom. 1, 3; hom. 18, 14; hom. 19.9; In Ezech. hom. 12.3. PG. T. 13. Col. 257B-C, 492B-C, 521C-D, 755C-D. "Ἡ Ἱ ερουσαλὴμ εἰς t ὴ v ἐκκλησίαν μεταλαμβάνεται , ἥ τις ἐστὶ ?? In Ierem. fragm. 48. GrchSch. 6. S. 222, 7–10. PG. T. 13. Col. 577A. Cfr.: in. les. N. hom. 21,1: «Neque dicimus de iis qui manifeste et evidenter criminosi sunt, ut non de Ecclesia expellantur». PG. T. 12. Col. 929 A. "Ἴ στω δὲ ὁ τῆς Ἱ ερουσαλὴμ ἐκβληθεῖς ὡ ς, ἐὰν μὴ ποιήσηχρόνον αὐτάρκη πράττων ἔξω τῆς ἐκκλησίας ᾃ δεκ ἐπάνεισιν ἐπὶ τήν Ἱ ερουσαλήμ Δεῖ δὲ αυτὸν ἔξω γεγονότα μὴ Ταῦτα. γὰρ μὴ ποιῶν μηδὲ πληρώσας , τὸν συμβολικὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν έτών τῶν ἐβδομήκοντα σαββάτου καὶ ἀναπαύσεως ὄντα , οὐκ έπάνεισι κοινωνήσων τῇ ἐκκλησία, μένει δὲ καταδεδικασμένος ἔξω τῆς Ἱ ερουσαλήμ . 48. GrchSch. 222, 14–22. In Iud. 3.2: “Quanto tempore deliquisti, tanto nihilominus tempore humilia te ipsum Deo. Et satisfactio ei in confessione poenitentiae.” PG. T. 12. Col. 963B. Archim. Sylvester. Teaching about the Church in the first three centuries. P. 259. Comment, in epist. ad Roman, lib. IV, 6: "Apostolus peccatorem tradebat in interitum carnis, ut spiritum faceret salvum, hoc est, ut moreretur peccato et vivetur Deo." PG. T. 14. Col. 1068C. In psalm. 37 hom. I, 2: “Tradi ergo in interitum carnis taie est, ut emoriatur sensus carnalis in nobis, et non vivat camis cupiditas in eo.” PG. T. 12. Col. 1375B. In Lev. hom. 14.4: “Tradidi in interitum camis, hoc est in afflictionem corporis, quae solet a poenitentibus expendi, eumque carnis interitum nominavit, qui tarnen camis interims, vitam spiritui conférât.” PG. T. 12. Col. 558C. "In prima Epistola ejectum eum, qui fuerat incesti scelere pollutus... in secunda jam revocat." PG. T. 14. Col. 834B. It is worthy of note that, according to Tertullian, representatives of the condescending trend in his time believed “apostolum Paulum in secunda ad Corinthios eidem fornicatori veniam dedisse, quem in prima dedendum satanae in interitum carnis pronuntiarit.” De pudic. C. 13. CSEL, 20.1. P. 243.2–4. Ibid. “Quod utique non faceret, nisi processu temporis dignos in eo fructus pervidisset, et quod jam caro interitum, quem designaverat Apostolus suscepisset, peccato scilicet et vitiis mortua, ut ita demum viveret Deo. PG. T. 14. Col. 834B-C. In Ez. hom. 3.8: “Iuste autem proicitur, qui digna fecit abjectione ut auferatur a populo Dei et eradicetur ab eo et tradatur satanae. Et in praesenti quidem potest quis egrediens de populo Dei rursum per poenitentiam reverti.” PG. T. 13. Col. 694D. Vgl.: Stufler. Zeitschr. fürkathol. Theologie. 1907. S. 225–226. In psalm. 37 hom. 1.1: “...Et hi omnes qui post apostolos in Ecclesia positi sunt, quibusque curandorum vulnerum disciplina commissa est, quos voluit Deus in Ecclesia sua esse medicos animarum.” PG. T. 12. Col. 1369B-C. De orat. C. 28.9- « κατά τόν " μέγαν " " αρχιερέα ", έπιστήμην λαβόντες της τού θεού θεραπείας , ισασιν , υπό του πνεύματος διδασκόμενοι , περί ών χρή άναφέρειν θυσίας άμαρτημάτων καί πότε καί τίνα τρόπον, καί γινώσκουσι, περί ών ού χρή τούτο ποιείν. PG. T. 11. Col. 529 Α . GrchSch. 3. S. 381, 2–6. In Lev. hom. 5, 3: "Consequens est, secundum imaginem ejus, qui sacerdotium Ecclesiae dédit, etiam ministri et sacerdotes Ecclesiae peccata populi accipiant, et ipsi imitantes magistrum, remissionem peccatorum populo tribuant." PG. T. 12. Col. 451C. De orat., 28, 9: " τό νοηθηναι τήν δι ’ ανθρώπων αφεσιν ύπό θεού γινομένην άνθρώποις άμαρτημάτων. T. 11. Col. 528D. S. 380,23–24. In loan. T. VI; (59), 38.304. GrchSch. 10. S. 168.20. PG. T. 14. Col. 304B. In Lev., hom. 14, 3. PG. T. 12. Col. 556A. Comm in Math. T. 12.14. PG. T. 13. Col. 1013B-C. S. I. Smirnov. Spiritual father. C. 244. Origen very definitely says that in the administration of church discipline there can be abuses, “quando sine judicio et sine ratione non propter peccata quae faciunt, excommunicant quosdam, sed propter aliquem zelum et contentionem prohibent intrare frequenter et meliores quam sunt ipsi.” – In Math, comment, ser. 14.PG. T. 13. Col. I62OB. Stufler in Origen's speeches about justice in the use of the power to bind and decide sees an echo of his personal grievances on the part of an unjust bishop. See: Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie. 1907. S. 198. In Lev. 5.3: “Decent ergo et ipsi Ecclesiae sacerdotes ita perfecti esse, ut in officiis semper sacerdotalibus eruditi, ut peccata populi in loco sancto, in atriis tabemaculi testimonii, ipsi non peccando consumant.” PG. T. 12. Col. 451C-D. Interpretation by A. Katansky, according to which “by the bonds of one’s own sins one must understand not the priest’s crimes against morality, or, in other words, not his sins as a private person, but crimes against faith and church rules or crimes as a hierarchical person” (“Dogmatic teaching on the seven church Sacraments in the works of the most ancient fathers and writers of the Church up to and including Origen.” St. Petersburg, 1877. P. 247, approx.), – seems to us very artificial. De orat. C. 28.8. PG. T. 11. Col. 528C. GrchSch. 3. S. 380, 8 ff. Ibid. C. 28.10. PG. T. 11. Col. 529B. GrchSch. 3. S. 381,12–18. This view is strongly expressed by K. Holl. See: Enthusiasmus und Bussgewalt. S. 232–233. Compare: Rolffs E. Das Indulgenz – Edict. TU 11.3. S. 127. This is Redepenning's opinion. See: Origenes. Bonn. 1841. Bd. 2. S. 416. Others see in the above words a prohibition to forgive mortal sins to a simple priest - only a bishop can forgive mortal sins. See about this in Stufler (Zeitschr. für kathol. Theologie. 1907. S. 218–219). See: Smirnov S.I. Spiritual father. C. 243. In Lev. hom. 14.3: “Exiit a veritate, exiit a timoré Dei, a fide, a charitate, sicut superius diximus, quomodo per haec quis exeat de castris Ecclesiae, etiamsi per episcopi vocem minime abjiciatur. Sicut e contrario interdum sit, ut aliquis non recto judicio eorum, qui praesunt Ecclesiae depellatur, et foras mittatur... Et ita sit ut interdum ille qui foras mittitur, intus sit: et ille foris, qui intus retinere videtur.” PG. T. 12. Col. 556A. Cfr.: In Math. comment., ser. 14.PG. T. 13. Col. 1620: "quamvis vetiti, tamen intrant et haereditant regnum coelorum." In les. Nav. hom. 3, 5: “Nemo sibi persuadeat, nemo semetipsum decipiat: extra hanc domum, id est extra Ecclesiam nemo salvatur.” PG. T. 12. Col. 841 C-842A. In these words it would be in vain to see any contradiction with the words given in the previous note; there one should especially pay attention to the words: “non recto judicio eorum, qui praesunt Ecclesiae depellatur,” that is, we are talking about an abuse that shows that the bearer of the “power of the keys” has taken possession of the gates of hell. Cfr.: in Math. comment., ser. 14.PG. T. 13. Col. 1620B. According to Rolffs (Das Indulgenz-Edict. TU 11, 3. S. 127), in these words Origen is polemicizing precisely with Callistus. E. Preuschen sees the same tendency in Origen’s words. See: Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. 1910. S. 154. De orat. 28.9. PG. T. 11. Col. 528D-529A. GrchSch. 3. S. 380–381. S.I. Smirnov claims that, when discussing the power to knit and decide, Origen “did not consider all the bishops, whom he calls priests (ἱερεῖς, sacerdotes), to be its owners; he recognized personal holiness and grace-filled illumination - spirituality - as a necessary condition for this.” - Spiritual father. pp. 259–260. In Judic. hom. 2, 5: “Vides ergo, quia non solum per apostolos suos. Deus tradidit delinquentes in manus inimicorum, sed et per eos, qui ecclesiae praesident et potestatem habent non solum solvendi; sed et Ligandi." PG. T. 12. Col. 961A. Stufler expresses this opinion decisively: “De orat.” 28, tadelt Origenes einige Bischöfe, nicht deswegen, weil sie überhaupt die Sünden der Unzucht, des Ehebruchs und Götzendienstes nachlassen, sondern weil sie sich rühmen, dies zu vermögen « διὰ τῆς εὐχῆς ", durch ihr Gebet allein, ohne vorausgegangene vollwertige Bussleistung." Zeitschr. für katholische Theol. 1907. S. 220–221. With this understanding of Origen’s words, even Callistus, who in his edict declared the forgiveness of sins against chastity only paenitentia functis, is not subject to his reproach. It can be assumed that in the East in the first half of the 3rd century there was (of course, in the form of abuse) even more lenient practice than that established in Rome by Callistus. This is the assumption Stufler makes (Ibid. S. 227–228). See about this in Stufler (Zeitschr. für kathol. Theol. 1907. S. 224 flg.), who expresses himself very energetically: Es besteht aber kein Grund, dem Origenes auch diese Häresie aufzubürden. However, over the course of several centuries, some writers have expressed demands for special moral qualities from the person resolving sins; Often the power to decide and knit is also attributed to persons of a non-hierarchical position. See S.I. Smirnov about this: “Spiritual Father.” pp. 170–172. The words of Barsanuphius the Great are quoted here, and the author rightly considers them to be his personal opinion. See also p. 200–208. Some prevalence of this opinion, if not dogmatically understandable, is quite understandable psychologically, but we are writing the history of dogma, and not the history of repentance.