Период третий

Introduction. The emergence of theological science A general view of the conditions of the origin of Church literature of this period. The second century, with its peculiarities in the position of the Christian Church, was reflected in ancient church literature with an energetic struggle against external and internal enemies. At this time, paganism already reveals a clear consciousness of the irreconcilable opposition of the new religion to the entire religious and political system of the Greco-Roman Empire. On the other hand, an even more dangerous enemy penetrates into the Church itself: the great process of Hellenization of religions, which began with Alexander the Great, is directed with all its force towards the Christian Church, so that the Christian religion, in various combinations of its basic truths with the favorite tenets of modern religious and philosophical systems, becomes an element of the general syncretism of religions. In the fight against these enemies, apologetic and anti-heretical Church literature arose, which, by its attention to the refuted enemy, was supposed to enter into consideration of the broad problems of the Greek worldview and not neglect the means and results of ancient science. Thus, having opposed hostile efforts with a solid barrier in the ancient Christian Apostolic tradition, Church leaders at the same time gradually deepened their Christian worldview and expanded their horizons. By the end of the 2nd century, the position of the Church became significantly more complicated. True, it emerged from the previous struggle internally united, and faith continued to make its conquests in pagan areas, but the ancient world, for its part, began to gather all its forces. The union of religion and philosophy, as it manifested itself in that remarkable movement on the basis of which Neoplatonism soon developed, created new conditions: the spiritual power of Christianity was opposed by spiritual power, and if Christianity wanted to be firmly entrenched in these new circumstances, then it had to take with a firm hand the weapon of science and the shield of philosophy. The popular philosophy of apologists should have been replaced by scientific systems, scientific research on the essence of religion. But not only these external relations required from the Church new techniques in revealing and confirming the faith handed down from the Apostles - moreover, it was even more decisively encouraged by internal development. It is quite natural that contact with Hellenic culture and Gnostic systems, as well as the entry into the Church of educated pagans - who sought to become aware of new beliefs - served as sufficient motivation for the emergence of positive problems. In Church circles, the need gradually developed to understand and scientifically develop the content of Church teaching, to firmly establish it exegetically and to substantiate it philosophically, in order to thus satisfy the natural desire of the human spirit to study the revealed truth, to penetrate it more deeply and understand it as an integral worldview. Hence the further need - to comprehend the internal connection of individual points of Church teaching, compare with the knowledge and ideas to which the natural thought of cultural people was brought without the help of Revelation, establish a connection with them and, if possible, reconcile. In this regard, they sometimes went to extremes, and it is not without reason that one can assert that Saint Irenaeus had in mind not only heretical gnosis, but at the same time a direction that simultaneously emerged and was related to it within the Church. How multilateral were the intra-church interests of that time, this can be evidenced by the list of works of Melito of Sardinia - unfortunately, not preserved - and a number of scientific works that were then written by Church men (Eus. Hist. eccl. 4:26. ​​2; 5:27). Thus, already in the 2nd century, not only were experiments made in the application of the concepts and forms of modern philosophy and culture in theological science for apologetic-polemical purposes, the sources and criteria of theological teaching were indicated in the Holy Scriptures and in the rule of faith, in the Apostolic tradition, the bearer and guardian of which is the Apostolic Church, but at the same time, traces of the scientific-theological movement were increasingly discovered in different places of the Christian world. Schools similar to the one that Saint Justin had in Rome and which, one might think, other apologists (for example, Tatian) had, were already common at that time. They were founded like philosophical schools. No information has been preserved about the organization and methods of teaching in these schools. But Saint Justin, undoubtedly, was the same philosopher in school as in his literary activity. There was a strong impulse towards such a setting of Christian schools in the Gnostic schools of the Valentinians, Carpocrats, and Bardesans. In various places we come across entire circles of people imbued with scientific interests. In Asia Minor, the Alogs reveal a desire for critical study of the Holy Scriptures, and the activities of Meliton of Sardis and Theophilus of Antioch hardly remained without influence in the areas where they served their church ministry. Bishop Alexander of Jerusalem lays the foundation of the Theological Library in Jerusalem; the surviving fragments of his Epistles show that along with the language he also adopted the scientific spirit of the times. Next to him stands Theoctistus of Caesarea (in Palestine), as a champion of independent theological science. Firmilian of Caesarea (in Cappadocia) was an admirer of Origen. This was a circle of Church men who zealously devoted themselves to scientific aspirations. In Rome at the beginning of the 3rd century there was a scientific school, consisting mainly of people who came here from the East, in which formal exegesis, textual criticism, grammar, logic, mathematics and empirical sciences were developed, Aristotle, Theophrastus, Euclid and Galen were zealously studied here. The works of Tertullian show that even among the Christians of Carthage there was no shortage of persons who wanted to give scientific aspirations rights in the Church. Thus, gradually the work of theological thought within the Church and on internal Church issues created Church Theological Science, which embraced more and more specific problems and developed on the basis of Holy Scripture and Tradition - with the assistance of the modern scientific apparatus: a combination of the interests of the theological direction, of which Saint Irenaeus was a representative, arose, as well as the theological techniques of apologists. This laid sufficient grounds for the development of a multifaceted and deep theological movement. Church Theological literature, in connection with the past, preparing the ground for the future, sets itself new tasks, without losing attention to the previous ones, and paves new paths for itself. The very development of theological science in various places takes on its own special character: in some it outweighs the moment of adherence to Church tradition, in others it outweighs scientific goals, which depends primarily on the spiritual direction of the Church area in which these or other Theologians developed their activities. But it would be a big mistake to assert that the need for scientific research into the content of Christian teaching and its construction into an integral system at that time was universal, or at least clearly recognized by the majority of believers. Against this is the fairly firmly established fact that by the end of the 2nd century many of the believers seriously questioned the right of any scientific research, even any kind of literary activity. The attitude towards philosophy has long been favorable among some, while skeptical and even hostile among others. The Church triumphed over Gnosticism, but at the same time philosophy, which was made responsible for it, like its mother, aroused suspicion of itself - expelling it from the Church, perhaps, meant finally tearing out the roots of such dangerous growths for all subsequent times. Clement of Alexandria gives a vivid depiction of the struggle between these two parties and sentiments. “Many,” he says, “are afraid of Hellenic philosophy just as children are afraid of ghosts, fearing that it will mislead them” (Strom., 6:80, 5). “Some imagine that they are doing a very clever thing when they do not want to deal with philosophy or dialectics, nor do they want to study natural sciences, but are satisfied with simple faith alone” (Strom., 1:43, 1). “Some of the faithful exclaim: what is the use of knowing the reasons for how, for example, the Sun and other luminaries move, or studying geometric theorems or dialectical proofs or any of the other sciences, for they bring no benefit to the performance of duties; Hellenic philosophy - a product of the human mind - is not capable of teaching the truth" (Strom., 6:93, 1). “I am also not ignorant of the fact that some fearful people chatter out of ignorance, who say that one should deal with the most necessary and related to faith, while the external and superfluous passes by as vainly tiring and delaying on what has nothing to do with the goal, while others think that philosophy has penetrated into life for the evil and destruction of people through some crafty inventor” (Strom., 18: 2, 3). And at the very beginning of Stromatus (1: 1, 2), Clement defends the right to write, at least for serious people, and rebels against those who prevent the preacher of the truth from giving help to posterity, while works with corrupting thoughts are freely distributed. Undoubtedly, here we need to see traces of the reaction that Gnosticism aroused in Christians who remained faithful to the Church. In the last 25 years of the 2nd century, Gnosticism seemed to be the most serious danger for everyone, and many saw the cause of evil in philosophy and literary works. They believed that, in view of such results of applying the methods of science and philosophy to the Christian teaching, it was better not to write at all. Whoever took up the pen became suspicious in the eyes of a certain part of Christian society. This clearly revealed the very hostile attitude of most Christians towards modern culture. The mass of Christians did not want to know anything outside of simple faith and looked very unfavorably at those who studied philosophy. And such a mood then prevailed among believers even in such a cultural center as Alexandria - Clement of Alexandria convincingly testifies to this. That this reaction was caused by Gnosticism is confirmed by Tertullian’s treatise “On Recusal against Heretics.” The purpose of this work is to protect believers from any contact with heresy; one should not even argue with heretics. He wants a praescriptio or legal challenge attached to them. This will be the most reliable means of protecting believers from the disastrous influence of heresy. It is necessary to protect oneself even from a feeling of amazement at the systems of Gnosticism: to be amazed at Gnosticism means to inwardly approach it, to submit to its influence. Tertullian excels in instilling prejudice in the souls of ordinary people, so that neither eloquence nor the authority of the most prominent heretics can shake them; in particular, he rebels against philosophy: from it all evil; Gnostics are students of philosophers. But this is not enough. Tertullian would like to strike evil at the very root: the true source of all error is the spirit of curiosity; The Gospel excludes both it and the desire for research based on it. It is unreasonable to refer to the words: seek and you will find, since this requirement has meaning only for those who have not yet found Christ. When they have faith, there is no need to search anymore. A Christian who continues to seek proves that he does not have faith. Tertullian strives to impress upon believers that they must remain within the bounds of simple faith; the rule of faith is a line that cannot be crossed. The rule of faith excludes all sorts of idle questions that only heretics invent. Not knowing anything that contradicts the rule of faith is the highest wisdom. It is crazy to say that the Apostles did not know everything or that they hid anything of their wisdom from us. These are the principles that were professed by another part of Christians and, moreover, by an incomparably more significant mass of believers. Fear of heresy gave rise to an exceptional prejudice against philosophy. They could not find a better way to stop the development of Gnosticism than to close themselves off from all culture, to suppress not only all development of thought, but even to eradicate curiosity itself. It is clear that these principles were deadly for scientific theology, for any scientific thought. If we compare both of these directions, we will understand that the emergence and development of theological science during the period under review encountered very significant obstacles. The struggle of these two directions was supposed to decide the question of the future of the Church: whether it should isolate itself from the world or become the bearer of a cultural mission that was to conquer the world. That the alternative was resolved in the latter sense is the historical merit of the Church Theological Science that emerged from Alexandria. It is quite natural that the beginning of Theology as a science was made in the Greek Church; this was a direct consequence of its previous spiritual development, which was almost a whole century older than the development of the Latin Church. Greek philosophy already gave the Greek apologists a more or less ready-made and firmly established terminology and a significant range of concepts and their combinations, common among the educated classes. Everything that was founded in the coastal cities of Asia Minor and Greece, that matured on Attic soil, that sprouted in Alexandria under the influence of the Old Testament Revelation - all this prepared the forms for Christian teaching. The Greeks, who possessed the necessary means, must, thanks to the peculiarities of their genius, have felt in the most vivid way the need to take upon themselves the fulfillment of the task that confronted Christian literature of this period. Since the means were the creation of the Greek spirit, since, further, Greek philosophy continued to fulfill its world-historical mission, and its meaning stood firm, it is self-evident that theological literature should have received the stamp of the Greek genius, the Greek way of thinking and the coloring of Greek national characteristics. It is also clear that Church science had to arise where secular science flourished. Alexandria was the center of pagan modern culture, and here, naturally, first of all, a gradual increase in internal church and scientific interests and needs should have been felt; therefore Alexandria was the natural birthplace of Christian Theology. Its development and approval constitute the great and immortal merit of the great Alexandrians Clement and Origen. Origen also had the first experience of a systematic presentation of Theology as a science - “On the Principles”, even if this experience cannot be considered completely successful either in formal or material terms. But these conditions of origin also determined the internal character of this first stage of Church Theology: its almost exclusive area was the speculative side of Christian teaching, its dependence on Greek philosophy was mainly reduced to the influence of Platonic philosophy on it. The merit of the Alexandrians in the development of Church Theology will become even more obvious if we pay attention to the fact that Greece did not produce a single theologian during this time; Asia Minor opposed them only to the antimontanist Apollonius and Firmillian of Caesarea (in Cappadocia); Syria and Palestine produced several writers - Serapion of Antioch, Julius Africanus and Alexander of Jerusalem, who in no case can be placed next to the Alexandrians. We find the only outstanding writer in Rome in the person of Hippolytus, who both writes and thinks in Greek. In terms of the versatility of his literary activity, he even surpasses Origen; but Hippolytus made no attempt at a systematic exposition of Theology, and cannot argue with Origen regarding the influence on subsequent generations. The beginning of the systematic presentation of Theology in Rome was laid by Novatian in his work De trinitate, but it is dominated by a polemical point of view against monarchianism and Sabellianism. Latin Church literature was significantly late in its development compared to Greek. True, already in the previous period we met with one apologist who wrote his work in Latin - Minucius Felix (“Octavius”); however, he does not set out the specific content of Christianity, does not possess any theological terminology and entirely adheres to classical models. In the Latin West it was necessary to create both a theological language and literary forms. Only Tertullian, with his bold changes and additions to the ancient lexicon, paved the way for Latin Theology, creating for it a language and literary forms that met its needs. Cyprian continued to build on this foundation, but at the same time, by his moderate and judicious character, he softened the roughness of his harsh and indomitable teacher and elevated Latin Christian literature, already at the very period of its emergence, to a high degree of literary perfection. But with its very origin, Latin Church literature takes a special direction, different from the direction of Greek literature, and paves its own paths: Practical-Church interests dominate in it. This is clearly revealed even with a comparative look at the list of works of Tertullian, Cyprian, Novatian on the one hand, and Clement, and especially Origen, on the other. Thus, at the very beginning, Eastern and Western literature show a very characteristic difference - not to say opposition, which is rooted not in the individuality of individual authors, but in the national properties of Hellene and Roman. The Hellenes are idealists, the Romans are realists; some have a passion for speculation and dialectics, others seek what is most immediately necessary for life and useful. There, scientific interests are focused on speculative and theological problems about the One God, about the Son of God, about the Creator and creation; here, practically theological questions about man and his duties, about the Church and Its organization, about the attitude of a Christian to forms of pagan life, and the like, attract attention. This difference, which constitutes the characteristic contrast between the two great Africans - Tertullian and Cyprian in comparison with Clement and Origen, runs through the entire history of the development of Eastern and Western literature. While Tertullian, in his apologetic, anti-heretical and dogmatic works, comes into close contact with Greek Theology and serves as a mediator for transmitting the results of Greek speculation to the Latin West, the works of Cyprian serve exclusively the practically religious and ecclesiastical interests of the Latin West. During this period, there was also a widespread development of branches of Theological literature. Origen not only laid the foundation for systematic theology, but also founded biblical scholarship in its main branches with his textual-critical, hermeneutic and exegetical works. Next to him, Hippolytus stands out as a prolific exegete. Unfortunately, very little of their many exegetical works has survived. Julius Africanus, in his short letter to Origen, showed himself to be a witty biblical critic. Apologetic literature in the works of Clement ("Protrepticus"), Origen ("Against Celsus") and Tertullian ("Apologeticus", "To the Nations", "To Scalula") reached its highest development in the pre-Nicene era, while for each of them, in a special understanding and application, Gnosticism for Church development now became harmless, but it continued to have significance as a theological-scientific principle; why anti-heretical or polemical literature continued to fight against the disciples of the Gnostics, as well as against the new dogmatic errors that monarchianism gave rise to. Origen, Hippolytus, and Tertullian dedicated a number of works to this struggle, most of which, however, have been lost. Practical-ecclesiastical and moral-ascetic issues especially occupied Tertullian in connection with his attitude towards Montanism. The struggle over the issue of penitential discipline in Carthage and Rome, with its underlying opposites in the understanding of the Church and Her task, completely directed the literary activity of Saint Cyprian towards resolving issues of religious and practical life. The same should be said about Novatian. Clement of Alexandria, even where his literary activity concerns theoretical problems, pursues practical goals and devotes several separate treatises to the development of practical-religious issues (for example, “Which rich man will be saved?”). Even Origen wrote works of an edifying nature (“Exhortation to Martyrdom”, “On Prayer”); and in his exegetical works he partly pursued the aims of religious edification, when he gave them a homiletical form - which makes him the first prolific exponent of preaching literature. Some of the exegetical works of Hippolytus of Rome also had a homiletical form. If we add to all this some of the Church-canonical works of Hippolytus, the canonical Epistles of the Roman bishops and the acts of various provincial councils, then it will be clear that already during the period of the emergence of theological science, practical theological literature gained a prominent position. Some acts of martyrdom (Passio SS. Perpetuae et Félicita, Martyrium Pionii, Actaproconsularia S. Cypriani), the church historical work of Julius Africanus, and church hymns date back to the same time. Thus, Church literature of this period is distinguished by both a very significant number of works and the diversity of their content, as well as extremely important internal merits. This third period of Church literature ends in the East with the death of Origen († 254) and in the West with the death of Cyprian († 258), that is, around the year 260, when such changes occurred in its development that give the right to believe at this time the beginning of the fourth period in the history of Church writing of the pre-Nicene era. Part I. Alexandrians (Alexandrian School) By the end of the 2nd century and almost throughout the 3rd century, the Alexandrian catechetical school was an outstanding place for the flourishing of theological science. It is difficult to imagine the extremely important historical significance of the work that was carried out in the Alexandrian διδασκαλει ον: the entire organization of theological school education in antiquity goes back to the Alexandrian model; schools in Caesarea, Antioch, Edessa, Nisibia - daughters of the Alexandrian school, and the glory of the name of the latter sufficiently testifies to the importance of the organization of scientific work at the Alexandrian school. What Plato's Academy was to philosophy, what the High School of Alexandria was to Christian Science. It is not surprising, therefore, that in view of such exceptional significance of the Alexandrian school for the emergence and ancient development of theological science, many scientific works have been devoted to research about it and its ancient representatives; but despite this, it has not yet been possible to shed clear light on the question of its origin and initial history. Alexandria, almost from the very beginning of its existence and for several centuries, was the center of the intellectual life of the world. From here came the remarkable cultural efforts to spread schools throughout the cities of the Hellenic world; here the impetus was given for the emergence of countless masses of rhetoricians and philosophers. In Alexandria the means of education were combined as completely as anywhere else. The museum (Μουσει ον), established under Ptolemy I Lagas, and the famous Library of Alexandria connected with it contained no conditions for the development of science, providing scientists in their huge premises with comfortable homes and a position free from everyday worries. Under Roman rule, the Museum little by little became an educational institution: teaching in all branches of scientific knowledge was conducted here. Young men thirsting for knowledge from all parts of the world flocked here as a source of learning and listened to lessons in grammar, rhetoric, poetry, astronomy, music, medicine, philosophy and other sciences. All philosophical systems were represented here: the teachings of Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, Epicurus were taught; In Christian times, eclecticism and Neoplatonic philosophy dominated. Thus, the Museum, the library, the collection of scientists, writers, representatives of philosophical schools, and rhetoricians created an environment in which education and philosophy were highly respected. In addition, Judaism and Greek culture came into close contact with each other here; Judaism adopted Greek forms and Greek ideas, and Greek philosophy, poetry and history found new material for themselves in the sacred books of the Old Testament. This situation naturally should have had a noticeable influence on the nature of the assimilation and understanding of Christianity and the forms in which its teaching should have taken on here. A sensitive gap in our information regarding the ancient Church is the almost complete absence of data about the beginning of Christianity in Alexandria and until about the year 180. Only at this time does the Alexandrian Church truly enter into the clear light of history, with a strong, fully established Church organization and with a higher school, which in turn serves to increase its influence and its glory. And the first reliable news about this school dates back to the end of the 2nd century. Eusebius reports that at the beginning of the reign of Commodus, a very educated man named Panten taught the faithful of the Alexandrian Church, and adds that for a long time there was a school of the Holy Scriptures in Alexandria (Hist. eccl., 5:10). But Eusebius makes it clear that for this message he has no authority other than tradition (παρειλήφαμεν). This is all that we know from historical documents concerning the institution which had such a profound influence on the development of Christian thought. – We do not know either about the conditions under which it arose, or about what it was in the first period of its existence - on these issues we can only make assumptions. Eusebius connects the first mention of the Alexandrian school with the name of the famous and highly respected husband Panten; but we do not even know what the Alexandrian school under his leadership represented. We cannot say with complete certainty what it was like under Clement. But for that we have definite and most reliable evidence about the school from the very beginning of Origen’s activity in it. When persecution broke out in Alexandria in 202, the school was abandoned. No one else taught there; Clement had to flee. For some time the school did not exist. It is restored by Origen (Eus. Hist. eccl., 5:10; 6:3; 6:6; 6:18). The matter began with the fact that some of the pagans came to Origen, wanting to receive instruction in the word of God. Origen thus took up the work of propaganda. His first students were people whom he converted to Christianity. Many of them were captured and taken to execution. Origen supported their courage and exhorted them to martyrdom. His teaching then consisted exclusively of the explanation of the Holy Scriptures. Christians join his first disciples. Soon his teaching became so widely known and brought such benefit to the faithful and the Church that Bishop Demetrius entrusted to him, in a sense, the official administration of the school he had restored. Thus, the Alexandrian School is an institution recognized and protected by the Alexandrian Church. When a young scientist was absent from Alexandria for a long time, Bishop Demetrius called him and instructed him to resume his duties at the school. But subsequently the school’s program expanded; Origen felt the need to pay attention to the ideas that were revealed in the schools of philosophers. He himself studies philosophy and invites his students to do the same; he declares that knowledge of the literature and philosophy of the Greeks is also necessary for Christians. He is so convinced of this that he considers it necessary to give a full course of modern scientific knowledge in the school itself. At this time, the subjects of study in the Alexandrian school were: grammar, geometry, arithmetic and other ἐγκύκλια προπεδεύματα, instruction in recognizing philosophical schools and explanation of philosophical works - all these sciences were considered as a necessary preparation for perfect Christianity, which in the school was called “Divine Philosophy”. As can be seen, Origen strives to create Christian knowledge on a broad and solid basis. In the last years of his stay in Alexandria, Origen raised the Christian school to such a height that it could fight, not without success, against the higher pagan schools. It represented a serious experience in turning the best heritage of Greek culture into the service of the new Christian culture. Men and women, Christians and those preparing to accept Christianity, Christian heretics and pagan philosophers come to Origen. Just as Origen, himself already famous, listens to the lessons of Ammonius Sacca, as Plotinus enters into lively communication with Christian heretics, so Christians and Hellenes revolve around Origen as if on neutral ground, as if not yet clearly aware of the opposition, the hostile disagreement of both worldviews, without anticipating the same cruel struggle that they were soon to enter because of dominion over the world. A very valuable addition to the news of Eusebius is given by the speech of gratitude of Gregory the Wonderworker, which he probably composed in the year 238, when he left Caesarea and the local school of Origen. Through the flowery and artificial language clearly breaks through a stream of living feeling, idealism, true animation, excited both by philosophy and its great prophet: the setting sun remains the same sun. Probably in the year 233, the young lawyer Gregory comes to Caesarea, accidentally meets Origen here and remains in his school for five years. He calls the day of his first meeting with the teacher the most important day of his life, birth into a new life, the rising of the true Sun. The exhortation to philosophy constitutes a preliminary preparation. Origen shows him that only those know the true life who have known themselves and the true good, who have risen above earthly goods and above the everyday life of acquisitions and pleasures, that without philosophy there can be no reverence for God. Thus falls the first spark of Divine animation into the youthful soul; love for the Sacred Word and for its Divine Prophet fulfills it; philosophy and its great teacher now constitute the content of his life. Having thus prepared the young student, Origen began scientific studies in logic and dialectics. Then followed the physical study of the Universe and its laws, which was supposed to replace unreasonable surprise with reasonable admiration, geometry was connected to it, and on this solid foundation astronomy was erected, leading to a higher world. But the essence and final goal of education was ethics, which had as its task the transformation of character, and the best norm was the living example of the teacher and theological instruction, beginning with the study of philosophers (with the exception of the “atheists,” that is, the Epicureans) and poets and ending in the explanation of the Holy Scriptures. The very fact that Gregory was fully occupied in this school for five years shows how thorough the study of individual subjects was. Thus, in the school of Origen we see the entire circle of προπεδεύματα, which since Alexandrian times has been considered as the basis of higher education and a necessary step to philosophical education; but Origen’s school system was distinguished by its completeness and harmonious organization in view of a clearly understood specific goal. Origen himself says that he only resumed what had been done by his predecessors, and followed the direction they had adopted in teaching. Based on this, we are able to draw a conclusion about what the Alexandrian school was before Origen - at least under Clement. There is no doubt that even in the time of Clement, the Alexandrian Society was well aware that in his school it was possible to receive instruction in the new religion - otherwise could the pagans - about whom Eusebius speaks - turn to Origen if they did not know that Clement's student was continuing the traditions of the school. The spread of the new religion was carried out by the school before Origen and, probably, even under Panten; at the same time, one might think, they meant mainly educated pagans, for whom Clement’s “Protreptic” was undoubtedly intended, and especially young people who made up the usual contingent, which even in the time of Panten and Clement were not limited to the conversion of pagans - the school was also attended by Christian youths. Origen and his friend Alexander, who belonged to Christian families, were students of Panten and Clement. The school teachers were undoubtedly engaged in studying the Holy Scriptures with these young men. This was one of Clement’s most important activities - he not only dispelled allegorical interpretations of various passages of Scripture in the Pedagogue and Stromata, but also wrote a commentary on almost the entire Bible. One might think that with more mature students he was engaged in refuting Gnostic opinions when the occasion presented itself - indirect indications of this can be found in the Stromata. Since from the very beginning the Alexandrian catechets addressed the best representatives of cultural society, Greek culture and philosophy should always occupy a place of honor in the school. Clement considered them necessary both for pedagogical purposes and for achieving the highest level of understanding of Christianity. Finally, Clement's "Educator" indicates that the foundations and rules of Christian morality were also an important subject of study in school. Thus, the Alexandrian school, strictly speaking, cannot be called either a catechetical school, or a Theological Seminary, or a philosophical Institute; although it contained all the elements represented by these names, yet it would be wrong to connect it exclusively with one of them. It was the product of the gradual development of Church life in the special conditions represented by Alexandria, and was adapted at every given moment to the changing needs of the time. Obviously, intended initially for the instruction of the catechumens, it could not remain for long in the position of an elementary Christian school, and soon became a famous School of Theology; and, further, in view of the exceptional situation and the intellectual inclinations of its most outstanding teachers, it is not surprising that it became a philosophical school. Contact with the great center of modern learning has always influenced Church life, and in a university city like Alexandria, the Christian Society as a whole, and the catechetical school in particular, were inevitably forced to follow this path. The flower of their youth, students like Ambrose and Heracles, listened to the lectures of Greek professors, while some of the latter, like Celsus and Porphyry, were themselves engaged in the critical study of the Holy Scriptures. This reciprocal relationship between the Church and the center of classical learning gave catechetical instruction at Alexandria a more systematic and scholastic character than was common elsewhere, and in the first half of the Second Century it became a proper institution. Although the duties of a catechist were not in the proper sense a Church service and did not require special dedication, however, it was not simply the occupation of a “philosopher” who gave public lectures (διατριβ ή). Undoubtedly, no one could perform this ministry without the consent of the bishop; catechesis had to be performed in the name of the Church and under the supervision of the bishop. The Alexandrian school emerged from historical obscurity only around 180–190, when it was headed by its first leader known by name, Panten. His personal history is little known; only a few fragmentary information has survived about it. Pamphilus in the Apology of Origen, according to Patriarch Photius (Bibl. cod. 118), calls Clement of Alexandria the listener and successor of Panten, and Panten himself the listener of the elders who saw the Apostles. Clement of Alexandria (Strom., 1: 1, 11) calls him the Sicilian bee, which apparently points to Sicily as the homeland of Panten, although he was Jewish by origin (ibid.). Clement of Alexandria places him above all the teachers with whom he met: “gathering sweetness from the Apostolic and Prophetic meadow, he imprinted pure and holy wisdom in the souls of his listeners.” Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 5:10) calls him a very famous man for learning. Before converting to Christianity, according to the historian, he was a Stoic philosopher; he showed such a fiery zeal for the word of God that he took upon himself the preaching of the Gospel of Christ to the eastern peoples and even reached India (Arabia or Ethiopia), where he found the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, compiled by the Apostle Bartholomew. In the 80s and 90s of the 2nd century, he stood at the head of the Alexandrian school and remained its head until the end of his life († around the year 200). Eusebius testifies that he “explained the treasure of Divine dogmas orally and in writing” (Hist. eccl., 5:10), he also says that Clement of Alexandria in his ὑποτυπώσις reproduces interpretations and traditions (ἐκδοχάς καì παραδόσεις) his teacher Panten (Hist. eccl., 6:13). But at present, most researchers are of the opinion that Panten did not leave written works (compare: Strom., 1: 1. 11–14), and that Eusebius’ instructions regarding Panten’s συγγράμματα of Panten and similar news of later times (Maximus the Confessor, Anastasius Sinaite) are very likely based on hasty conclusions from the fact that Clement often cited the sayings of Panten. Jerome (De vir. ill., 36; Epist. 70, 4), who attributes to Panten many commentaries on the Holy Scriptures, no doubt developed only the remarks of Eusebius. Much more information has been preserved about Panten’s student, collaborator and successor - Clement of Alexandria. II. Clement of Alexandria Titus Flavius ​​Clement was born around the middle of the 2nd century. The basis for this chronological determination is not any positive historical evidence, but only conclusions from the subsequent chronological data of his life: soon after 181 he is mentioned as a student of Panten, around 189 he is a teacher of a catechetical school, between 192 and 202 he appears in the fullness of his powers. In ancient times they did not have exact information about the place of birth of Clement and some called him an Alexandrian, others an Athenian (Epiph. Haer., 32:6). The latter tradition deserves more confidence, since it is more consistent with Clement’s own report that, only having reached Egypt, therefore, heading here from some other country during his travels, he found peace in his quest for truth. Wide acquaintance with ancient Greek mythology, folk superstitions and mysteries gives reason to think that he was a pagan by origin, which is confirmed by Eusebius (Praep. evang. II, 2, 64) and Clement himself (Paed., 1: 1, 1; 2: 8, 62). His knowledge of the refined rules of the highest pagan society (compare: Paed., 2) shows that his parents belonged to the upper class and had good means, which is why he had the opportunity to receive a good upbringing and education. The ancients rightly praise the scholarship and extensive knowledge of all the passions of ancient literature demonstrated by his works. He was endowed with brilliant abilities and animated by a thirst for knowledge. But his irresistible attraction to truth remained unsatisfied: the brilliance of Hellenic culture, the deep thoughts and ideas of Plato, Zeno and Philo could not give him what his restless spirit was looking for; he strove for knowledge based on the highest authority, having an indisputable Divine sanction. Only in Christianity did he find peace. In the First Book of his Stromata, he points to some Christian teachers who helped him move from pagan darkness to the light of Christian truth. According to established custom, to complete his education, he undertook a journey to various countries of the East and West, to Lower Italy, Syria, Palestine and, finally, to Egypt, and everywhere he sought communication with “blessed and illustrious men” who received the true tradition of Divine teaching directly from the holy Apostles Peter and James, John and Paul. Unfortunately, Clement does not name these illustrious men, to whom he owed deep instruction in Christianity. One of them was an Ionian, and it follows that Clement met him in Hellas; in Magna Graecia - that is, in Lower Italy - he met two students - one was from Coelesyria, and the other from Egypt. He met the fourth and fifth teachers in the East - in Syria and Palestine, of whom the first was an Assyrian, and the second a Palestinian Jew. Finally, it seems, around the year 180, Clement arrived in Alexandria and became a student of Panten; carried away by his teaching, he stayed here for a long time: “having accidentally met the latter,” says Clement, “who, however, was deservedly the first, having caught him hiding in Egypt, I calmed down.” Alexandria provided Clement with rich new funds for education. Particularly important was familiarity with Gnostic and Hellenistic-Jewish literature. Philo had a strong influence on Clement's worldview. But there is no doubt that the lessons of Panten and the elders, “preserving the true tradition of the blessed teaching” (Strom., 1:1), protected the young and educated seeker of truth from excessive hobbies and forced him to constantly listen to the voice of Church tradition. Thus ended the first period of Clement’s life and began his activity as a Christian teacher. In Panten, Clement saw the most perfect ideal of a Christian teacher and treated him with great respect and ardent love. Around the year 190, he became an assistant and collaborator of Panten as a teacher and had the opportunity to use his outstanding philosophical education, his erudition in Greek and Christian literature and his brilliant eloquence in the first higher school of the then Christianity. Around the year 200, he became the head of the catechetical school (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:6). No information has been preserved about his activities as a teacher, especially about his teaching methods; some light on the general course of his lessons and their character can be shed by his works - “Protreptic”, “Teacher” and “Stromata”, if we accept as certain that they stand in connection with his activities at the School. Origen and Alexander of Jerusalem are the best evidence of the success and fruitfulness of his teaching in Alexandria. Clement was a presbyter of the Alexandrian Church, but it is not known when he received his ordination - in any case, he was already a presbyter when he wrote "Pedagogue" (Paed., 1: 6. 37; cf.: Hieron. Ep. 88, ad Magn.; De vir. ill., 38). After twelve years of continuous activity in the Alexandrian school, Clement was forced by the persecution of Septimius Severus (in 202 or 203) to leave Alexandria. From this time on, the historical traces of Clement's further fate remain completely unclear. It is not even known exactly where he left Alexandria; one can only assume that he went to his student Alexander, who was first the bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and then became the bishop of Jerusalem. In the year 211, Alexander, who was then still in Cappadocia, wrote an Epistle to the Church of Antioch from prison and sent it through Clement; he calls Clement a blessed presbyter, a most virtuous and experienced man, who, having come here (that is, to Cappadocia) at the order and discretion of the Lord, established and multiplied his Church (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:11. 5-6). Thus, around the year 211, Clement was in Asia Minor with Alexander and took care of the organization of the orphaned Church of his disciple and friend. Alexander's letter suggests a rather long stay of Clement in Caesarea. Already being the Bishop of Jerusalem, Alexander wrote a letter to Origen in which he speaks of Clement as having already died: “we recognize as our fathers those blessed ones whom we ourselves will soon follow, namely: Panten, in truth a blessed and honorable man, Saint Clement, who was my boss and did me a lot of good” (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:14. 8-9). The exact date of this Message cannot be established and is determined approximately around the year 216–217. In this case, Clement finished his earthly career before the year 215–216 and after his flight from Alexandria he never returned to it. II. 1. Literary activity of Clement At the beginning of the Stromatus, Clement (1:1. 1 - 2) in strong terms defends the right to write - at least for serious people - and rebels against those who prevent the preacher of the truth from helping posterity through his writings, and he himself developed a fairly wide literary activity. But only part of what was written by Clement has survived to the present time. The literary heritage of the Alexandrian teacher shows him as a multifaceted writer; he was an apologist and polemicist, a dogmatist and moralist, an exegete and a homilet. Among the works of Clement, the main place is occupied by three of his works: “Protreptik”, “Teacher” and “Stromata”. a) “Protreptic” - Λόγος προτρεπτικός πρòς Ἕ λληνας - exhortation to the Hellenes, in form and content it belongs to apologetic works, which, however, it surpasses both in composition and in language. The work consists of 12 small chapters and, according to the inscription, sets its task by pointing out the irrationality of idolatry and the sublimity of Christian truth to convince pagans to accept the Christian Faith, and at the same time to confirm wavering Christians in the faith: The main idea of the work: The Divine word is superior to Hellenic philosophy, poetry and music and has produced true culture, while the pagan religion is unreasonable and immoral. This thought develops according to a strictly defined and completely consistent plan. The author comes from the beautiful Greek legend about Amphion, Orion and Orpheus, who with their songs built cities and tamed wild animals and dolphins, and convinces, instead of these mythical singers, the pagan gods to listen to a new song, the singer and subject of which is the Word-Christ emanating from Zion; He, like the new Orion, attracts everything to Himself, revives and calls for salvation (1). After this Introduction, the author proceeds to criticize paganism: oracles, mysteries, gods who are mortal and of human origin, cult, sacrifices and images (2-4), will give an analysis of philosophical systems and the teachings of poets, as they seek to resolve the question of the root cause; their views on divinity are very different, which clearly proves their falsity (5-7). Hence the natural transition in favor of the writings of the prophets, through whose mouth God Himself spoke, His holy lips and the Holy Spirit (8). Clement, on the basis of the Holy Scriptures, depicts the goodness and mercy of God as a motive for conversion (9), cites the evidence of pagan writers in favor of monotheism and refutes the argument of the defenders of paganism that it is unfair not to observe fidelity to religion and the customs of the ancestors (10), glorifies the Divine Revelation in the Logos in its individual manifestations, the moral teaching and saving institutions brought by Christ and ends with a depiction of the God-fearing life of Christians, exhorting to listen Christ, flee pagan life and live in honor of God and fellowship with Him (11–12). b) "Teacher" - Παιδαγωγός - in three books - has a moral and practical task: while "Protreptic" sets itself a theoretical goal - to teach non-believers - The Teacher means the moral correction of a believing pagan (τò τέλος αὐτο βελτιοω σαι τὴν ψυχήν ἔστιν, οὐ δίδαξαι, 1:1), his upbringing in Christian life, and thus represents an outline of Christian moral teaching, a guide to private and public Christian life according to the ideal of the true Christ Educator of people - to help move from the state of a simple believer to the second stage of the “gnostic” state. The first book (chapter 13) presents the Logos-Christ, who, Himself being sinless, sanctifies all states and ages and through Baptism makes them capable of knowing the Divine. In the Old Testament He acted through law and fear, in the New through word and love. The doubt of the Gnostics (Marcionites) in the unity of the Divine principle and therefore in the possibility of a single education is refuted by indicating the need for healthy education of both angry and punishing righteousness and goodness: righteousness and mercy serve the same pedagogical goal - to make us children of God. The same God, the same Educator, punishes and saves. The second book gives separate instructions for Christian life - about abstinence in food and drink, about fasting and self-denial, about behavior at feasts, in conversations, about clothing, sleep; regulations for single and married people. A Christian should avoid excessive luxury in home furnishings, food and clothing. The third book continues these detailed instructions and presents the sublimity and beauty of the life ideal of a true Christian, in which the Logos dwells, in contrast to the affected beauty of lovers of clothes and pampered persons. The latter are similar to Egyptian churches, which are decorated on the outside with gold and precious stones, paintings and statues, and inside are filled with animals, cats, crocodiles. Blaming the passion for luxury revealed in this, effeminacy, thirst for praise, and the like, Clement recommends the opposite virtues. He backs up the following rules of Christian life with numerous evidence from Holy Scripture. The work ends with a prayer to Christ as the Divine Teacher, Writer and Father. In Aretha's manuscript, two hymns are attached to the “Teacher” - the hymn to Christ the Savior (ὕ μνος του σωτήρος Χριστου) and the hymn to the Teacher (εἰς τòν παιδαγωγόν); the first of them, inscribed του ἁ γίου Κλήμεντος, perhaps belongs to Clement himself, or at least he himself attached to his work, and the second, which does not have such an inscription, was compiled by an unknown reader of the “Pedagogue”. It is possible that the author of the latter is Archbishop Arefa himself, known for other poetic works (O. Bardenhewer. Geschichtederaltkirchl. Literatur. Bd. 2 Freiburgim Br., 1903, S. 32). c) Stromata – Στρωματει ς – “carpets, motley patterns”, the original title of the work more accurately defines its content and character: Τω ν κατà τὴν ἀληθη φιλοσοφίαν γνωστικω ν ὑπομνημάτων στρωματέων πρω τω, that is, “patterns” (threads) of scientific comments (notes) about true philosophy. It is preserved only in Cod.Florent. Laurent. XI century (and one list from it) and has no beginning. It received its name due to the diversity of content deliberately chosen by the author to present his reasoning. In order to win pagans and Jews for Christianity and not give away the secrets of the faith to the infidels, according to Clement, it is necessary to mix Christian truth with pagan philosophy and offer it under its cover, just as the grain of a fruit is covered with a shell (1:1). To clarify his method of presentation, Clement also points out other analogies. “The various flowers in the meadow and the trees in the garden,” he says (6:1), are not arranged in order, separately from one another..., so the “Stromata” are composed in the likeness of a meadow, variegated from the flowers covering it, from what now comes to mind, mixing with one another. “Stromata,” it is said even more clearly in 7:8, “can be compared not with a garden laid out according to a beautiful plan, but with a mountain, densely overgrown with cypresses and plane trees, and laurel and ivy, and also planted with fruit trees in such a way that fruit and simple trees are deliberately mixed with one another, because this work wants to remain hidden, meaning those who intend to pluck and steal ripe fruits. These remarks apply not only to each individual book, but to the entire work. The work is distinguished by the lack of order in the arrangement of thoughts that amazes the reader: the author is always ready to evade the direct subject of speech, takes advantage of every opportunity to move from one question to another, completely different and far from the first, and does not investigate a single question to the end, and does not give a direct solution to it. The Stromata often fall back into the propaedeutic tone of the Protrepticus and the Pedagogue, giving thoughts an apologetic character and delving into questions of practical morality. In the distribution of material among the books, there seems to be no consistent movement of thought forward, which is why it is sometimes argued that at the end of the Seventh Book the author went a little further in revealing the intended subjects than he was at the beginning of the work. However, even if it is difficult to find a definite plan in the Stromata, it is still possible to establish more or less accurately the connection between the individual parts and one stream of thoughts penetrating the motley mixture of ideas. The main idea of ​​the work can be expressed as follows: Christianity is the true, highest philosophy, true wisdom, complete gnosis, leading to union with God, and the entire work sets as its task the scientific presentation of Christian revealed truth (Paed., 1:1; Strom., 6:1, 1). The work consists of eight books, of which the last is obtained only in fragments and sketches. Book One deals primarily with the meaning of philosophy and its importance for Christian Science. Philosophy comes from the original tradition of the human race and should not be rejected, because it is useful for the understanding and defense of Christian teaching. The Mosaic Law and Greek philosophy serve as preparatory steps to Christianity: “philosophy was for the Greeks the same guide as the law was for the Jews, and led them like children to Christ” (1:5). Every true meaning rests on faith in Divine Revelation, which alone leads to truth and virtue and ensures reconciliation. Therefore, Theology belongs to the dominion, and philosophy is its servant. Christians are God-taught philosophers. The second book persistently emphasizes the greatness of Christian truth in comparison with all the acquisitions of the human mind. The Christian science of faith leads to perfect knowledge and contemplation of God through repentance, moral purification and love of God. Clement defines the relationship of philosophy to Christianity in this way: Christian philosophy is based on faith in Divine Revelation, uses ἐπιστήμη as an auxiliary means of knowledge and ends in gnosis, which cognizes all things in God, their fundamental principle. In the Third and Fourth Books, Clement justifies the established idea of ​​genuine Christian gnosis and points out two practical points by which Church gnosis differs from heretical gnosis, namely: the desire for Christian perfection, as it is found in marital and virginal chastity, and the love of God, as it is most clearly demonstrated by martyrdom. In the Fifth Book, Clement returns to the question of the relationship of true gnosis to faith. Faith, which consists in the free recognition of Divine authority, is reasonable and agrees with gnosis in its essence and content. Faith and knowledge are different not materially, but only formally. Faith is as necessary for the spiritual life of a Gnostic as breathing is for physical life, only the form of faith for a Gnostic is different, but the subject is the same as for a simple believer. There is no knowledge (γνω σις) without faith and faith (πίστις) without knowledge. In the same book, Clement develops the idea, expressed in other places, about the Greeks’ borrowings from Barbarian, that is, Jewish and Christian philosophy. The sixth and seventh books portray the true Gnostic as the embodied ideal of Christian morality. The Christian Gnostic mortifies all passions in himself and strives, with the help of philosophy and using Church tradition, to a correct understanding of the Holy Scriptures (6). He alone has the fear of God. In his image, philosophers can and should come to understand what must be recognized as a blind and groundless thirst for persecution of the name of Christians, if they represent those who have knowledge of the true God as godless. The Son of God is the Ruler of the World, the Educator and Savior of the human race. The Gnostic strives for Godlikeness and achieves it through the infusion of the Logos into him. The pagans formed gods in their own image. The holy soul is the church of God, more excellent than any building erected by human hands. Prayer, thanksgiving and contemplation are the means of communication between the holy soul and God; love and union with Him is the highest level of perfection. Eighth book. According to ancient evidence (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:13. 1; Sacra Parallela; Phot Biblioth. cod. 111), Clement also wrote the Eighth Book of Stromatus. But in the Florentine manuscript (Cod. Medic. Laurent.), in which the work is preserved, under the title of the Eighth Book there is only a small treatise of a logical-dialectical nature, which has neither an introduction nor a conclusion. In it, the author shows how theologians and philosophers, in a common desire for accuracy of knowledge, can find truth. Therefore, we are talking about the logical method, definitions and proofs, about genera and species, and so on - in a word, the book has the character of a theory of knowledge, showing the way to achieve Christian truth and not only does not define its relationship to other “Stromata”, but also has nothing in common with them, revolving around questions that do not have a specifically Christian meaning. To this treatise in the manuscript are also added “Extracts from the writings of Theodotus and other followers of the Eastern School of Valentinus,” numbering 86, and selected passages from the prophetic writings, arranged without connection. How should we look at these passages? Researchers almost unanimously recognize that both the treatise and the extracts belong to Clement of Alexandria. The only question is how do they feel about the 8th book of Stromat? The quotation from the Eighth Book of Stromatus, preserved by Patriarch Photius, is found at the beginning of the treatise that has come down to us; but the volume of the latter is equal to no more than one-third of each of the previous books, which are approximately the same size. In addition, the very nature of the treatise does not allow us to see it as a whole book. Consequently, he alone cannot be recognized as the 8th book of the Stromat; why the remaining two passages are also brought into consideration. But regarding their nature and significance for judging the 8th book of Stromat, the opinions of researchers are divided. Th.Zahn came to the conclusion that Clement actually wrote the 8th book of the Stromatus, but it has not survived; The treatise that has come down to us, together with “Extracts from Theodotus” and “Selected Prophetic Places,” represents extracts from the Eighth Book made by an unknown person. But this hypothesis has not been established in science. Others (especially Arnim) argue that Clement did not have time to write the Eighth Book of the Stromatus, that the so-called Eighth Book of the Florentine Manuscript, as well as extracts from the works of Theodotus and the prophetic books, are only sketches and preparatory works that Clement intended for the continuation of the seven books of the Stromatus or for another dogmatic work. This opinion, apparently, has a future in science. The question of the mutual relationship between “Protreptik”, “Pedagogue” and “Stromat”. According to the established view, “Protrepticus”, “Pedagogue” and “Stromatae” represent, as it were, three parts of one work - a kind of trilogy, written according to a certain plan, in accordance with the three stages of Christian perfection and, as they think, not without the influence of the Eleusinian Mysteries. “Protreptic” depicts the errors of paganism, which dwells in the darkness of idolatry, and means to convert the pagan to faith in Christ - this stage corresponds to κάθαρσις (φύσις, ἀπαλλαγη) - purification. The teacher aims to free the convert from the vices instilled in him by paganism, to show the path to moral sanctification according to the ideal of Christ, enlightenment of the mind and appropriate life behavior (κατà θεòν παιδαγωγία) and stands in parallel with the second stage of the Eleusinian Mysteries; “Stromata” correspond to the highest stage of the mysteries - the contemplation of God (ἐποπτεία του θεου), to which perfect initiation leads (H. Kihn. Patrologie. Bd. 1, Paderborn, 1904, S. 304) and aims to set forth the system of Christian Doctrine. But recently, a new view has been established on the literary character of “Stromat”, and at the same time on the relationship of this work to the other two. Based on a thorough analysis of the trilogy, they come (E. de Faye. Clément d’Alexandrie. Paris, 1898, p. 45–111. Alb. Ehrhard, Die altchrist. Litter. Abt I. Freiburg i. B., 1900, S. 302–3) to the conclusion that the “Stromata” do not at all constitute the third part of it, but that this third part, which should have had the title Διδάσκαλος and reveal the Theological system, was never written. “The Stromata,” according to this view, represent a special work, inserted between the “Teacher” and the intended third part, since they do not provide the promised system, and what is especially important, Clement from the beginning of the “Stromata” to the end speaks of the third part as a continuation of them. The purpose of this insertion of the “Stromata” between the “Pedagogue” and the “Didascal” is clear from the “Stromata” themselves, if their plan is correctly understood: they set themselves the task of justifying the use of the forms and methods of Greek philosophy, which for Clement is necessary for the sake of his experience of the Theological system, since neither the Holy Scriptures nor the existing Christian Tradition provided formal means for this. But the borrowing of these formal means from Greek philosophy was an undertaking that in some circles seemed dangerous and therefore in itself required great pedagogical skill. In view of this, Clement chose the literary form "Stromat", which gave him the opportunity to convey into the minds of his readers such thoughts that he could not express directly and openly. Hence the natural conclusion regarding the excerpta ex Theodoto, the Eclogae propheticae and the so-called Eighth Book of the Stromatus is that they represent the material for the third part of Clement's trilogy. This look at the Stromata and their relationship to the Protrepticus and the Pedagogue, solidly substantiated and therefore worthy of serious attention, eliminates the undeserved accusation by Clement that he was unable to write any system of Christian Theology, although he undertook it. However, it should be noted that these conclusions cannot be considered final, since there is reason to assume that the “Stromata” were begun earlier than the “Pedagogue” and even the “Protrepticus”, and in this case one can see in them the “memoirs” kept by Clement throughout his activity at the Alexandria school and then - in them he recorded his thoughts on various issues of Christian Science, united by the thought that permeated all his scientific aspirations. Already in ancient times, Clement's work Τίς ὁ σωζόμενος πλούσιος - “Which rich man will be saved?” was highly valued. , the authenticity of which, based on the testimony of Eusebius, Jerome, Photius and others, is indisputable. The work presents a conversation on the Gospel story about the rich young man (Mark 10:17–31, cf. Matt. 19:16–30) and is intended to especially explain the following words of the Savior: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God”; it is caused by the concern of wealthy pagans and Christians as to whether wealth should be viewed as an absolute obstacle to salvation. Clement explains that the Lord does not exclude every rich person from the Kingdom of God, but commands only to kill one’s attachment to earthly goods and to make the right use of wealth (compare: Paed., 3:6. 34–46). In the Introduction (chap. 1-3), Clement notes that prayer and teaching the rich are more useful than flattery, and in order to eliminate misunderstandings of the Gospel words, he explains the biblical passage in a spiritual, and not in a literal, sense. First (chap. 4-26) he shows that a rich person also has hope for Heavenly bliss if he renounces wealth in his heart, controls greed and other sensual lusts and leads a life worthy of the Redeemer. Property and treasures can be made very useful if these things - indifferent in themselves - are used not for pleasure and satisfaction of passions, but as gifts of God for doing good deeds, for alms, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and for other works of mercy. Without wealth, the implementation of many virtues, caring for the poor and hospitality is impossible. The rich must be poor in spirit and heed the word of the Savior: “Come, follow Me.” The words: “sell what you have” express that the rich must renounce the passions that dominate his soul and collect spiritual riches as treasures for the Kingdom of Heaven. He who with wisdom, meekness and humility turns his gaze to the Lord, the spiritual Pilot, and walks with God among his riches, has hope of entering the Kingdom of God. In the second part (chaps. 27–41) Clement explains how that hope can be realized. A rich person can achieve bliss if he fulfills the commandment of love for God and neighbor. A rich man fulfills this commandment if, like the Savior, he becomes a merciful Samaritan and, out of love for Jesus, does the will of God and, prompted by this love, performs works of Christian mercy. He who is rich in virtues is truly rich. But whoever is rich in carnal lusts and attachments to earthly things is poor before God. He who abides firmly in love is blessed. But whoever, after receiving the seal (Baptism) and absolution from sins, again falls into them and is completely immersed in them, there is no salvation for him. Only the one who, like the prodigal son, turns to God with all his heart, is welcomed by the Father with joy. For complete conversion, repentance and confession of sins, in turn, the mercy of the Father is necessary, who through the Holy Spirit resolves previous sins. The proud, strong and rich need a teacher and guide who instructs him in virtue and, after error, returns him to the path of truth. To confirm what has been said, he conveys in the conclusion (chapter 42) the story of the Apostle John, who entrusted the bishop of Smyrna with the education of a talented young man, who later found himself among the robbers. The gentle, fatherly words of the Apostles returned to Christian society the lost one, who, in tears of repentance, found a second baptism and became an example of true correction. So, anyone rich, through mastery over his passions or a truly repentant mood, can escape eternal fire and enter eternal life with the Savior and His army. Several of Clement's works survive only in fragments. 1) The most important of them should be recognized: “Brief explanations”, “Essays” - ὑποτοπώσεις - in VIII books (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:13:2). Excerpts from this work have been preserved in Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 1:12:1, et seq.; 2:1:3~- 5, 9; 2:15; 4:14. 2–4), Photius (Bibl., cod. 109), Ikumenia and others. All fragments of ὑποτυπώσεις were carefully collected by Th. Zahnom (Zu polementum Clementinum // Forschungen III). Zahn also proved that the passage mentioned by Cassiodorus in “De institutiore” (1: 1. P. 8, M. P. L. 20: 1120) “Ex opere Clementis Alexandrini, cuius titulus est περì ὑποτοπώσεων, de scrptionibus adumbratis, in conclusion abbreviated: “Adumbrationes Clementis Alexandrini in epistolas canonicas” represents part of the ὑποτυπώσεις, which, on behalf of Cassiodorus, were translated into Latin, and all the tempting dogmatic opinions of Clement were eliminated. Adumbrationes contain commentaries on the first Epistle of the Apostle Peter, the Epistle of Jude and the First and Second Council Epistles of the Apostle John. According to the testimony of Eusebius (6:14) and Photius (Bibl., cod. 109), the original text contained at least explanations of Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Acts of the Apostles, Epistles of the Apostle Paul and all the Council Epistles, and in addition, the Epistles of Barnabas and the Apocalypse of Peter. In it, judging by the passages, exegetical explanations were mixed with dogmatic and historical excursions. 2) “On Easter” περì του Πάσχα, directed against the Asia Minor Quatrodeciman practice and caused by the work of Melito of Sardinia - under the same title - and the insistence of friends who convinced Clement to transmit in writing to posterity those traditions that he had heard from the ancient presbyters (Eus. Hist. eccl., 4:26, 4; 6:13, 3. 9). Passages are preserved by some ancient writers and collected in Th. Zahna, Forschungen, S. 32–36. 3) “Canon of the Church or to the Judaizers” κανών ἐκκλησιαστικός ἡ πρòς τούς ἱουδα ΐ ζοντας, dedicated to Bishop Alexander of Jerusalem (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:13, 3; Hier. De vir. ill., 38) y Zahna 35–37. It is impossible to say which points of teaching and which direction of the Judaizers this work concerned. Maybe it is also in connection with the disputes about Easter. 4) “On Providence” - Περì προνοίας - is not mentioned by Eusebius; fragments were preserved by Maximus the Confessor and Anastasius Sinaite (see: Zahna, Forschungen, S. 39–44), from which we can conclude that the work consisted of no less than two books and contained philosophical definitions of Providence. Belonging to Clement is not indisputable. The following works are known only by title. a) “Conversations on fasting and slander” Διαλέξεις περì νηστείας καì περì καταλαλιάς, which is mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 6:13. 3), there may be a work like “Quis dives...” It is likely that Eusebius is talking here about two different works; at least Jerome reports Διαλέξεις as two independent works of Clement of Alexandria: between “De jejunio disceptatio” and “De obtrectatione liber unus” he puts “Quis dives salvetur?”; b) - “An exhortation to patience or to the newly baptized” - ὁ προτρεπτικός πρòς ὑπομονήν ἡ πρòς τούς νεωστì βεβαπτισμένους – mentioned by Eusebius (ibid.). c) An essay on the book of the prophet Amos - Σύγγραμμα εἰς τòν προφήτην Ἀμώς - mentioned by Palladius in Lavsaik, chapter 139. On some issues, Clement intended to compose special works, but it is not known whether he carried out his assumptions: a) Περì ἀναστάσεως (Paed., 1:6.47; 2:10.104); b) Περì προφητείας - to defend the inspired character of the Biblical books and to refute Montanism (Strom., 1:24. 158; 4:1. 2); c) Περì ψυχη ς – against the Basilidians and Marcionites (Strom., 2:20. 113; 3:3. 13). In the Pedagogue (Paed., 2:10. 94; cf.: 2:6. 52; 3:8. 41) Clement points to the previously published works λόγος περì ἐγκρατείας and γαμικòς λόγος, and in Quis dives (p. 26) – περì ἀρχω ν καì θεολογίας. The Sacra Parallela gives two passages from the 21st letter of Clement of Alexandria; but nothing at all is known about Clement’s letters. II. 2. Characteristics of Clement as a writer When reading the works of Clement of Alexandria, one is struck by his extensive acquaintance with the works of Greek philosophers, historians, and poets. Many quotations of all kinds make his works a source not only for the history of ancient philosophy, but also for chronology, archeology, poetry, and grammar; He alone saved quite a few poems of Greek poets from loss. Therefore, it is natural that Clement’s works attract the attention of more than just theologians. However, when a serious and thorough study of the works of ancient Christian literature in their sources began, a rather significant shadow was cast on Clement’s literary merits, and the matter was not without unfair and offensive extremes for Clement. He was called a hastily collecting and composing mosaic writer who did not have an independently developed view of the authors he used (I. Bernays). But more cautious critics consider such a judgment to be unfounded and greatly soften it in favor of Clement. There is no doubt that the unusually large number of quotations from ancient writers is explained by the fact that Clement did not always gain his knowledge about them at first hand, but often took the expressions and passages of the classics he needed from compendiums, florilegies, gnomologies and the like. Apparently, he copied passages from one book in several places more or less without changes (according to the study of P. Wendland, the works of the Stoic Musonius, the teacher of Epictetus, or notes of his lectures kept by a student). With this use, Clement sometimes reveals gullibility and a lack of critical instinct. But all this cannot undermine confidence in his independence in practical and didactic explanations, not to mention apologetic and polemical. He studied and read a lot; he was in the school of many Christian and non-Christian teachers. The reading of the real Plato is clear everywhere in his works; he also knew ancient Christian writing and demonstrates the thoroughness of his judgments in evaluating heretical works. Clement, however, was not a thinker in the strict sense of the word: he had rich gifts, but was not talent. He was, indeed, an educated man, mastered the sublime mood of Greek philosophy and lived in it; but does not reveal sharpness and strict consistency of thoughts. Clement has not developed a clear and integral worldview and with amazing elasticity is able to combine, apparently, the most heterogeneous elements. He was overwhelmed by the mass of ideas and material that he gleaned from reading and personal contact with teachers; he was unable to analyze and arrange it; hence he often falls into self-contradiction. This should have been reflected in the written presentation. He had no shortage of expressions - his own and others' - and he did not know how to control himself and limit himself in expressing his thoughts in writing. It was very difficult for him to firmly adhere to a definite plan and a predetermined path; the mass of information took away from him the free confidence of movement; he constantly loses the thread of reasoning in order to turn to related subjects and weave in various kinds of memories. This deficiency is noticeable not only in the Stromata, in which it is explained by the very nature and objectives of the work, but also in other works. The language of Clement's writings is smooth and rich in imagery. Photius calls Clement's style flowery, pompous and very pleasant (Bibl., cod. 110). Although Clement himself says that he has very little skill in the grace of Hellenic speech, that in the future he will attach little importance to this - in his opinion, smart and pleasant speech is only good for turning people away from the truth, while true wisdom is more concerned about flattering the ear less, and spreading more light in the soul, and a champion of truth should not care about the artificiality of style and careful composition of expressions, but about the most accurate expression possible his thoughts (Strom., 2: 1. 3) - nevertheless, Clement quite often reveals a fascinating eloquence, which at times (and the conclusion of the Protrepticus and especially the seventh book of the Stromatus) rises to poetic heights. If we add to this a high flight of thoughts, ardent devotion to his ideal and a deep understanding of the task set before himself, then it will become clear why Clement’s works have no parallel among ancient Christian literature. II. 3. Theological views of Clement The significance of Clement’s literary and theological activity is based on the fact that he was the first to quite consciously set himself the task of revealing and substantiating Christian teaching with the help of science. He saw the need for the Church - if She wanted to fulfill Her mission in modern humanity - to enter the fight against paganism with the weapons of modern literature and science. In these forms, he strives to create a Christian system of the highest order, which would not only satisfy scientific requirements, but would reveal to the believer the full content of his faith and would raise him from the realm of authority to the realm of knowledge and free confession. Here the kinship of his aspirations with the aspirations of the Gnostics clearly appears; but there was also a significant difference between them. Clement set himself the task of achieving this goal in the Church, in subordination to its authority, within the boundaries of Her canon and Church tradition, and thus, in essence, he fought against Gnosticism. Only he strives to defeat Gnosticism not by criticism and refutation, but by a complete system of Church gnosis itself. This explains Clement’s view of philosophy, outlines a solution to the question of the relationship between faith and knowledge, and determines the sources of his Theology. Clement in his works reveals a clear passion for Greek philosophy. It is only necessary to note that he was not an adherent of one particular school: “by philosophy,” he says, “I do not mean either the Stoic philosophy, or Plato, or the Epicurean, or the philosophy of Aristotle, and the eclectic philosophy - none of all their provisions concerning righteousness, knowledge and humanity” (Strom., 1: 7). His main teachers were Plato and Pythagoras, and after them Zeno and Aristotle. He excludes Epicurus and the Sophists. Philosophy, according to Clement, had extremely important providential significance. “Without a doubt, there is one path to the truth,” says Clement, “but streams flow into it - some on one side, others on the other, uniting in its bosom into a river that is already flowing into eternity.” In this sense, philosophy is also called a preliminary teaching, paving and smoothing the path to Christ (ibid.). Clement gives Greek philosophy almost the same significance as the Mosaic Law had for the Jews: “it was for the Hellenes the same guide as the law was for the Jews, and led them like children to Christ (Strom., 1:7; cf.: 6:159; 6:42.44; 1:28). The pagans knew the same God ἐθνικάς, the Jews - ἱουδαικω ς and Christians - πνευματικω ς (Strom., 6:41). Clement resolutely expresses his conviction in the Divine origin of philosophy. “To assert,” he says, “that it was not God who sent philosophy from above to our Earth, this, it seems to me, is tantamount to the assurance that God cannot know particulars and that He is not the Primary Source of all goods. Philosophy that disposes a person to virtue is not a fiend of hell. It remains to produce it only from God, whose sublime privilege is only to do good... Moreover, philosophy has never been the property of bad people. The most virtuous and most glorious people among the Hellenes were engaged in it. Here is new proof of its origin from Divine Providence. There was, therefore, deep wisdom in the fact that before the coming of the Lord, the law shone among the Jews, and philosophy among the Greeks” (Strom., 5:17). He does not agree with those who say that truth wandered into Hellenic philosophy as if by accident, and even then to an insignificant degree, or that it is a product of demons, and was inspired to the Hellenes by spirits of a lower order. “In our opinion,” says Clement, “although Hellenic philosophy does not contain the truth in all its greatness, although it does not provide the strength to fulfill the commandments of the Lord, nevertheless it clears the path leading to the truth, to the acceptance of the truly royal teaching, since to a certain extent it corrects and creates morals; he who believes in providence is disposed to accept the truth” (Strom., 1:16). However, Clement shares the view of the apologists that Greek philosophers borrowed from the Scriptures of the Old Testament. “And in philosophy,” he says, “as if stolen from heaven by a second Prometheus, there is contained the fire of some luminous truth. There are some traits of wisdom in it, some aspirations put in by a seemingly Divine hand. And yet, the Hellenic philosophers were thieves and robbers, because, having borrowed some parts of the truth from the Jewish prophets before the coming of the Savior, they not only do not admit it, but also appropriate them to themselves, as if these were teachings that really belonged to them. Meanwhile, they distorted some of the teachings, others with their characteristic sophistical dexterity they touched only in passing, and others they themselves invented” (Strom., 1:17). Thus, the Hellenic sages deserve the name of plagiarists for stealing the main principles from Moses and the prophets - and they ungratefully hid the source from which they borrowed. To this Clement adds the following: “Those of the Angels, to whom Heaven was assigned according to the division, some stooped to shameful pleasures, part of the Divine secrets and everything they knew; were revealed to women whose beauty they were captivated by, while others hid the treasure of these secrets or, better yet, preserved them until the time of the Coming of the Lord. From here arose the doctrine of providence and the discovery of Divine things. In addition, the ideas of the prophets had already reached the Hellenes through the prophets. When the Hellenic sages delved into the teaching of the prophets, they immediately comprehended the whole essence of the matter, immediately grasping the true meaning of the prophetic decrees; in places they were mistaken, due to their inability to penetrate behind the allegorical curtain of prophecies” (Strom., 5:1). Thus, the fallen angels and the women with whom they entered into communication were also a source of knowledge of truth for the Greeks, albeit a muddy one. But, not being able to clearly and definitely resolve the question of the origin of philosophy, Clement, as can be seen, nevertheless invariably elevates it to the Divine source and decisively affirms its Providential significance in the past history of the Greek people. For Clement, the more important question was whether philosophy had any meaning for Christians. It was self-evident that philosophical doctrines could not add anything to the light of Christian truth; Nevertheless, even in Christianity, philosophy has an important auxiliary value in the study of what lies in Christianity’s own sources. The divine education of the entire human race should serve as a model and rule for the Church education of individual members. “The so-called school sciences, compulsory for the free, are steps that facilitate the ascent through them to philosophy, which is their master. And just as they serve philosophy, so it itself is an assistant to the acquisition of true wisdom; wisdom is knowledge of divine and human things with their causes” (Strom., 1:5). “Just as farmers first irrigate the soil, and then sow it, so we irrigate their earthly things with what is good among the Hellenes, so that the soil can receive the spiritual seed scattered over it and so that it can nourish it” (ibid., 1:1). The methods of philosophy and dialectics discipline the spirit and guide it in its search for truth, in its aspirations for good, in its mission to spread good and truth (Strom., 1:20; 5:14; 6:17; 1:6.9). Thus defining the real meaning of philosophy, Clement at the same time defined his own task: through philosophy to deepen in faith, transform it into knowledge, revelation into Theology. Only while the pseudo-Gnostics, as Clement put it, seemed with the same intention to substitute their dreams in place of faith, Clement wanted faith to remain the foundation of all knowledge. He did not allow that the principles that she believed, the facts that she stated, could ever be eliminated. Under these conditions, according to Clement, the knowledge of Revelation will not be human knowledge, but will be Divine knowledge, regulated by the Church itself. Thus, by the very task of his literary and theological activity, Clement was led to a solution to the question of the relationship between faith and knowledge; and Clement in his main writings does not deal with a single subject with such love as with reflections on the difference and homogeneity of faith and knowledge. Clement, on the one hand, praises faith: it is “some internal, spiritual and mysterious good that is presented to the soul, which seeks God not through a long path of a special kind of philosophical research, but simply, without any special gatherings and preparations, recognizes His existence, speaks out for Him and surrounds God with glorification and honor as a person who really exists” (Strom., 7:10). “Faith is the perfection of teaching; That’s why Scripture says: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life.” Therefore, if, as a result of faith, life is characteristic of us, what else awaits us in the future but the inheritance of life in Heavenly form. Faith is not something insufficient; in its very essence it is something perfect and is characterized by completeness” (Paed., 1:6). Of course, this perfection of faith is relative: “we believe in our perfection, as far as it is possible in this life” (ibid.). On the other hand, Clement emphatically declares that “there is more to know than to believe” (Strom. “Knowledge is perfection, maturity, completeness of a person.” We can say with complete certainty that faith itself is improved through knowledge, for “only through knowledge will a believer achieve perfection.” Based on this faith and growing in the grace of God, as far as possible, one should try to acquire knowledge of God (Strom., 7:10). “A Gnostic is a true Christian” (ibid., 7:1), “to live gnostically” means to live a truly Christian life (ibid., 3:10). Faith is only the outward perception of Christ and His teachings in a literal sense, out of fear and submission to authority (Strom., 2:12; 7:12). On the contrary, the Gnostic lives in contemplation, internally perceives salvation and comprehends it (Strom., 6:10; 1:2). “The veneration given by the Gnostic to God consists in his vigilant concern for his own soul and in the fact that in all his activities he pursues the comprehension of God” (Strom., 7:1). The goal of the Gnostic should be not only knowledge, but also corresponding activity (Strom., 7:16). It is not the hope of reward that motivates him to a good life, but he does good for his own sake, out of love for God (Strom., 4:18, 22); he recognizes himself not as a slave, but as a child of God (Strom., 7:2). If a simple believer needs purification or small sacraments (μικρà μυστήρια) of the Church, then the Gnostic uses the great sacraments or contemplation (Protrept., 1; Strom., 5:11). The Gnostic lives not only for himself - with his life and his philosophy he influences others, helping and improving them (Strom., 6:14; 7:1). With his advice and intercession, he comes to the aid of sinners and is their mediator with God (Which rich man will be saved, 34 sq.; 41; Strom., 7:7). Thus, it is as if Clement distinguishes and contrasts two kinds of Christians, simply believers, uneducated, outwardly attached to the letter, fulfilling the law out of fear and for the sake of rewards, and Christians - Gnostics, who contemplate the Divine mysteries, intelligently enter into communication with God and serve Him with all their hearts. The Gnostic is thus superior to the mere believer. But Clement rejects such a division of people into classes (Paed., 1:31) and decisively emphasizes that simply believers, baptized, are therefore already perfect, since they all passed into the region of Light and became partakers of the Holy Spirit (Paed., 1:18, 37, 41-52), and that it is not necessary to understand that in the same Logos some are Gnostics, and others are psychics, but all have abandoned the carnal wishes are equal to pneumatics from the Lord (Paed., 1:6). And this view does not contradict what Clement says about the difference between Gnostics and believers. According to his teaching, faith is the foundation of all knowledge (Strom., 7:57), which gnosis can never destroy. Between faith and gnosis the difference is not in essence, but only in degree; Gnosis is a more perfect image of the concept of the same object, which is perceived by faith. Therefore, faith potentially contains gnosis, and since faith gives salvation, and gnosis combined with it can create only the highest level of salvation, faith receives primary significance and gnosis - secondary. Clement writes: “Faith should be considered the first step towards salvation” (Strom., 2:6, 31). “God can save a person without proof - through simple faith” (Strom., 5:1, 9). “Therefore faith is more important than knowledge” (Strom., 2:4-15). “Faith is as necessary to the Gnostic as he who dwells in this world needs breath to live” (Strom, 2:6, 31). Faith already contains gnosis in the embryo, and becoming a believer, at the same time begins to become a Gnostic (Strom., 6:17, 152). In faith itself, man already possesses a compendium of all Gnostic perfections (Strom., 7:2. 11). But this objective possession must also become subjective property, and this is achieved through gnosis. Faith perceives the truth, gnosis investigates and comprehends it (Strom., 7:12. 77). Faith is, so to speak, a shortened knowledge of what is necessary, and gnosis is a solid and lasting proof of what is accepted by faith (Strom., 7:10. 57). Simple faith is πίστις δοξαστικὴ, and gnosis with its penetration into the foundations is πίστις ἐπιστημονικὴ (Strom., 2:48); however, this scientific comprehension of the subject of faith also includes religious and moral perfection (Strom., 7:57). This means that just as there is no gnosis without faith, so there is no faith without gnosis (Strom., 5:1, 1). But faith remains the basis of gnosis (Strom., 7:10, 55); faith is the criterion of knowledge (Strom., 2:4, 15). The pseudo-Gnostics, who reject the foundation of faith, build their systems on straw, wood and hay (Strom., 5:4, 26); and true gnosis is gold, silver and precious stones, cultivated on the foundation of faith (Strom., 6:17, 152). Thus, Clement gave such a formulation to the solution to the question of the relationship between faith and knowledge, which became an axiom for Church science, and one can only regret that he himself did not always strictly follow the provisions he established, which is why he violates the proper and normal relationship between the main sources and factors of Church Theology. The sources of Clement’s theological views are: Church tradition (the teaching of the Church and the ancient elders), Holy Scripture and Greek philosophy, although, it should be noted, he does not have deliberate explanations about this. “Only he,” says Clement, “should be recognized as a true Gnostic who has grown old in the study of the Scriptures, who inviolably preserves the purity of the teachings that came to him from the Apostles and the Church, who lives a life ordered by God, in accordance with the Gospel, and in it finds justification for the teachings he contains. He ceases to be a man of God and faithful to the Lord who opposes Church Tradition and follows the opinions of human heresies (Strom., 7:16). And the initial pages of “Stromat” are intended to show that the entire work will be a presentation of tradition, a depiction of what Clement was honored to hear from the lips of his Christian teachers and, above all, from Panten, a memorial book for the author himself and for others, a cure against the forgetfulness of old age (Strom., 1: 1, 11-14). In the Seventh Book of Stromatus, Clement argues at length that Tradition is the foundation of the Christian Faith (7:16–17). The work about Easter, according to the author, was, in the interests of posterity, to present the traditions that Clement received orally from the elders (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:13, 9); the same goal was presented to Clement with the intention (not realized) to write the work “On Prophecy” (Strom., 6: 1, 2). But for all that, Clement was not a man of Tradition: in theory he is a brilliant defender of the traditional principle, but in practice he gives too much space to subjective judgments and impressions. Clement speaks no less decisively about the importance of Holy Scripture. “The Lord guides us through the Divine Scriptures.” “The beginning of our teaching is the Lord, who through the prophets, through the Gospel and through the blessed Apostles, guides our knowledge from beginning to end in many ways and in many ways.” “A man who is true to himself also believes in the Scriptures, in the word of the Lord; by the grace of the Lord, his influence is reflected on him beneficially and savingly: “Being the mother of truth, they (the Scriptures) give birth to us” and so on (Strom., 7:16). But another question is, which of the New Testament Scriptures did he consider normative, authoritative, equal in dignity with the Old Testament Scriptures, in other words, what volume of the New Testament canon did Clement accept? On the one hand, there is no doubt that Clement recognizes the outstanding significance of all the Scriptures of our New Testament and he does not reject any of them: for him, the four Gospels are authoritative, which act as a complete whole, the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, and, in all likelihood, the fourteen, in any case, the pastoral Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Acts of the Apostles and the seven conciliar Epistles. To these Epistles of the New Testament, to them alone and to no other works from Christian times, Clement attaches a specific meaning, dignity and evidentiary force: they are most often used to confirm the author’s reasoning and always with respectful predicates, are considered as an integral group, a certain class of Scriptures, contrasted with other works. But on the other hand, in Clement’s writings there are quite a few signs of instability and uncertainty in his view of the boundaries of the New Testament canon. He is inclined to include in the Holy Scriptures everything that enjoys any authority in the Church. In the Protrepticus, in addition to the Biblical books, he comments on the Epistle of Barnabas and the Apocalypse of Peter; Clement of Rome, the author of the Epistle to the Corinthians, is called ἀπόστολος (Strom., 6:17, 105); Hermas, the author of “The Shepherd,” is recognized as the blessed organ of Divine Revelation (Strom., 1:29, 181; 2:9, 43–44; 12, 55sq.); “The Teaching of the 12 Apostles” is revered as γραφή (Strom., 1:20, 100). Next to the canonical Gospels, he uses the Gospel of the Egyptians and the Gospel of the Hebrews, next to the canonical Acts of the Apostles - “The Sermon of Peter”, “The Tradition of Matthias” and so on. Divine inspiration is attributed to the Sibyl, the Egyptian prophets, even the Epicurean Metrodorus (Strom., 5:14, 138). Regarding the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, Clement argues that the Holy Books only serve as a reliable guide and source of truth when their understanding is established in accordance with the teachings of faith, and not according to arbitrary interpretation (Strom., 7:18). But at the same time, he himself mastered the principles of Philo’s exegesis and applies them with complete ease to the Old Testament, turning the facts of its stories into symbols; in relation to the New Testament, he usually shows more restraint, although he cannot always resist the temptation to give room for allegorism here. In the 6th book of Stromatus (15–16), Clement explains in detail the essence and necessity of allegorism. The use of both named sources was strongly influenced by Clement’s passion for Greek philosophy, especially the philosophy of Plato and the Stoics - the influence of philosophy explains the undoubted fact that Clement often deviates from Church teaching. The elements Divine and rational simultaneously left their own features in Clement’s system, and he often only places them one next to the other, without applying or reducing to the unity of what was borrowed from the two sources. And the reason for this can be seen not only in the fact that Clement was unable to combine the elements of Divine Revelation and human culture, but also in the characteristic features of his ministry: he was primarily a moralist, a teacher who wanted to educate his contemporaries, and therefore had to speak to them in a language familiar to them; his heart was closer to the interests of proselytism than to theological accuracy. He was a missionary who was sometimes carried away by missionary zeal. This zeal, the desire to be everything to everyone, dictated his method of preaching, instilled in him the skill of putting his Christian thoughts into expressions characteristic of the spirit of Greek culture. If he went beyond the mere use of terminology, if he tried to translate Christian concepts, then this flowed from his belief in the possibility of always discovering points of contact between them; he believed that human wisdom, no matter how imperfect, can always serve to express Divine thoughts. This naturally left its mark on all points of Clement’s theological views. In his doctrine of God, Clement was able to combine Plato's transcendental concept of God with the Christian faith in one God. In his teaching, God is real, concrete, primarily holy and good, who cares about people and wants their salvation (Strom., 2:2; 5:10; 7:12; 5:1; 6:17; Protrept., 10; Paed., 1:9; 2:10); but at the same time, according to Plato, He is so transcendental that it almost turns into abstraction: He is above the whole world, above every reason and thought itself, above the one and the monad - He is τη ς οὐσίας καì ὑπèρ αυςτὴν μονάδα and has no predicates (Paed., 1:8; Strom., 5:10; 5:11; 7:1). In his teaching about God, Clement dwells in particular detail on two attributes of the Divine, namely those that heretical dualism declared incompatible and which he attributed to two irreconcilable principles - righteousness and goodness. Clement teaches that God is both righteous and good: the same providential power is revealed both in goodness and in punishments. As the Just Judge, God distinguishes between opposites; but, being Just, this Judge is also good, like the true God, who is all and by whom all things, God and precisely the one God. God is good in Himself; He is just for our sake, and He is just because He is Good (Paed. 1:9). The One God is threefold in Persons (Strom., 5:14; Paed., 1:6, 123; 3:12, 131). The Second Person of the Holy Trinity is the Logos. According to Photius (Bibl., cod. 109) Clement admitted two beings of this name, one the Logos of the Father and the second, who was the Son, but of these neither one nor the other was incarnate; only “a certain power of God was incarnated, as if the outflow of the Logos itself,” therefore, the third Logos, emanating from the first. But perhaps Photius was led to this conclusion by those expressions of Clement in which he sought to establish a distinction between the Logos, as it is characteristic of the Father as the immanent Divine mind, and the personal Logos, Who is the Son of God. In the Stromata (7:2) Clement speaks of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity: “The most perfect and holiest, most unlimited, most sovereign, most royal and most beneficent being is the Son of God, closest in nature to the one Almighty.” He has the highest advantage over all other beings - to order everything and command everything in accordance with the will of the Father, to manage everything wisely, to demonstrate omnipotence in all His affairs, knowing neither fatigue nor exhaustion. “This is precisely the action of the Son of God, observing the secret laws of existence. He never leaves or leaves the central point of his providential vision. Indivisible, undivided into parts, having no need to be transferred from one place to another and at the same time constantly being everywhere, but at the same time nowhere in particular. He is wholly mind - wholly - light, wholly the Father's eye, sees everything, hears everything, knows everything, supports all physical forces with His omnipotence: such is the Son.” “All intellectual actions are attributed to Him: the Son is wisdom, knowledge, truth” (Strom., 4:24). The Logos communicates all knowledge in philosophy, in the law and the prophets, and perfectly in Christ. The Logos is born from eternity from the Father. This teaching is characteristic of the writers of the Alexandrian school and constitutes an important advantage over their apologists. This birth not only precedes creation: it has no beginning (ἀναρχος γενόμενος), for the Father is Father only on the condition that He has the Son. The Word came from the Father and became the author and immediate cause of creation; but this fact does not indicate two states in Him. Born eternally from the Father, the Logos is like Him, is truly God, like Him (Protrept., 10). His attributes are the same as those of the Father: the Father in the Son and vice versa; both are addressed in prayer; they are one God (Paed., 1:8; 1:7; Strom., 5:6; 7:12). Thus, in Clement, the abstract character of Plato’s Logos completely disappears, especially in those very numerous places where he depicts the Logos as the Teacher, the Lord, the ruler of Israel (Paed., 1:7), refers to Him the Epiphany to Abraham, Moses, calls the Teacher God (ὁ θεòς) and Lord (ὁ κύριος ). Despite the fact that Clement very energetically insists on the unity of the Father and the Son, features of subordinationism are found in his works. He says that the Father is πρεσβύτερος ἐν γενέσει, that the nature (φύσις) of the Son is closest to the nature of Him who alone is omnipotent, that the Son can be demonstrated and known, while the Father is neither knowable nor demonstrable (Strom., 7:1; 7:2). Even more: if you believe Photius, Clement considered the Son among creatures. And indeed, in the works of Clement there are expressions that are dubious in this regard (Strom., 5:14; 5:1. 7), which, however, can be explained in such a way that they do not violate the impression received from the entire teaching of Clement. In view of this, many do not allow subordination in Clement’s views, considering it proven that in this important point Clement’s thought was Orthodox. Clement does not give special explanations about the Holy Spirit that would not be in the Holy Scriptures. Clement calls the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the Father and the Son. The same portion belongs to him (Paed., 1:6; Which rich man will be saved?, 42). The Holy Spirit is everywhere: in particular, He dwells in righteous souls, sanctifying them with His presence, imparting to them His anointing (Paed., 2:8; Strom., 7:11). He comes into them through faith, inhabiting a limited creature, being Himself unlimited (Strom., 6:15). It is necessary to note one place in the Adumbrationes where he calls the Son and the Holy Spirit “primitivae virtutes ac primo creatae, immobilesexistentessecundum substantiam” (Adumbrationes, PG 9,735 sq). Logos is the direct Actor of creation. He is the instrument of the Father, of whom He is the image. He is the prototype of the world, α and ω. This Logos created everything, or, more correctly, God created everything through Him (Protrept., 10; Strom., 4:25). Clement's doctrine of creation is generally correct, despite some imitation of Plato or Philo, Clement wanted to find in Plato the creation ἐκ μή ὄντος (Strom., 5:14). Following Plato and Philo, he mastered the concept of a double world: κόσμος νοητòς and κόσμος αἰσθητòς and wants to find it in Revelation or in “barbarian philosophy” (ibid.). Creation is not a matter of necessity (Strom., 7:7). God creates by simple will: being follows His will alone (Protrept., 5). Clement understands creation in the precise sense of the word: neither spirit nor matter is eternal (Strom., 5:14). It seems that he did not even teach, as Origen later did, about the pre-existence of souls (Strom., 3:13; 4:26; cf., however: Which rich man will be saved? 33; Strom., 7:2). From the beginning, the Logos was and acted in the world, supporting its existence, communicating the truth through prophets and philosophers, being the principle not only of the existence of the world, but also of everything rational in it. In the doctrine of man, Clement is a trichotomist: man has two souls - carnal and sensual (σαρκικòν πνευ μα) and another - rational and ruling (λογιστικòν καì ἡγεμονικόν), which is not born with a body. Through the mediation of the carnal spirit, man feels, desires, is irritated, nourishes, develops; through it, a person acts in accordance with what is invented and decided by him in his soul and mind. The ruling power is characterized by freedom; in the deepest foundations of this ability lives the spirit of research, the spirit of order and legality, the desire for knowledge. Everything in a person turns out to be ordered in accordance with this one ability that dominates him - by it a person is determined in his life (Strom., 6:16). In its essence, neither the body was created evil, nor the soul good: sin is already our business, but it is a common and natural matter for everyone, the Logos is one without sin (Strom., 2:15; 4:26; Paed., 2:12). Clement never speaks clearly about original sin. He knows about the disobedience of his first parents and believes that their sin was that they, without waiting for the proper time, treacherously wished to enjoy the pleasures of marriage ahead of time (Strom., 3:14). He admits that Adam gave people an example, which they very quickly imitate; but he apparently denies imputing the sin of their ancestors to them; asserting that only acts committed by free choice are imputed (Strom., 2:15; 3:17; 3:14; Protrept., 20). To save people from sin, the Logos became incarnate. As He created the world, so He created His human nature, begat Himself when the Word became flesh (Strom., 5:3), and was born from the seed of David, from the Virgin; the incarnate word is Jesus Christ (Strom., 5:3. 14). The consequence of the incarnation is Divine and human existence in Christ: the Logos Himself appeared to people and in His incarnation He is God and man; He is ὁ ἄνθρωπος θεòς (Protrept., 1; Paed., 3:1, 1, 3). The Logos came down from Heaven and took on man and suffered what people must endure. He had body and soul and was entirely God in the form of man (What rich man will be saved?, 37; Paed., 1:2; Protrept., 10). Thus, Clement thought of the Incarnation in such a way that the Logos put on the man Jesus He created and dwelt in him. But at the same time, Clement everywhere presupposes the unity of the personality and precisely so that the Logos is the Personality revealed in man. Examples of communicatio idiomatum in the works of Clement are numerous. He suggests that the Hypostatic unity was also preserved during the three-day stay in the tomb (Protrept., 2; Paed., 1:5. 6; Protrept., 10). Photius accused Clement of docetism (Bibl., cod.109). But this accusation is only partly true. Clement strives in every possible way to avoid docetism and rejects it; he recognizes in Jesus Christ a real body, material blood, humanity subject to suffering (Strom., 3:17, 9, 7:17; 5:6; Paed., 1:2-6; 2:2, 3:1; Which rich man will be saved?, 37); but he still fails to completely free himself from a certain docetic shade in Christology: he thinks that His body was free from the natural needs of hunger and thirst, and His soul from sorrow and joy (ἀπαθής τὴν ψυχήν). He cites without refutation the Tradition, which represents the body of the Savior as intangible (Strom., 6:9; Paed., 1:2). Christ gave His life to death for us; He became the Atonement and Sacrifice for us and the propitiation for our sins; His Blood reconciles us to God; he defeated the devil and intercedes for us before God (What rich man will be saved?, 37; Paed., 3:12; Protrept., 10, 11; Strom., 5:11). But Clement primarily portrays Him as the great Teacher of the human race, leader and legislator, source of knowledge and at the same time immortality. After His appearance there is no need to visit Hellas or Athens. He made the whole world a place of wisdom or Hellas (Protrept., 2:12; Paed., 1:3; 1:6). But the teacher is at the same time a doctor: with knowledge He bestows immortality (Protrept., 12): the will of God is the knowledge of God, which is the communion of immortality. But when a student of truth enters into communication and morally pure treatment only with God, then he comes into contact with Divine dispassion, through this he is identified with God (Strom., 4:6). “The Logos became man, so that you too could learn from man, just as man once became God” (Protrept., 1, Strom., 4:23; 7:10; 17:4). Being God and man, the Lord helps man in everything: being God, He forgives sins; being a Man, He trains Him not to sin (Paed., 1:3). Jesus Christ calls everyone to the Salvation that He brought to people: “The Divine Logos knows those who do not obey Him. But since it is entirely up to us to obey or resist, and so that no one can excuse himself through ignorance, He calls all people equally, demanding from each what is within His power” (Strom., 2:6). A person must answer this call. Possessing free will, he can show obedience to the teachings of Christ and implement the Divine Commandments in his activities (Protrept., 2; Paed., 1:3). God gives Salvation, and man receives it; “Divine Providence, even preventing requests, distributes Its bounties by the action of Its will. On the other hand, God’s chosen one is not saved against His will: He has a soul capable of self-determination; he walks along the path of salvation, having chosen it himself by free decision - this is the reason why the Commandments were given to man, a creature freely determined by himself; This reason is so that he can freely decide his choice in the direction of good or in the direction of evil.” “Just as a doctor restores health to those who are restored to health, so God grants eternal salvation to those who contribute to knowledge and good deeds” (Strom., 7:7). The first movement of the human soul, responding to the call of the Logos, is faith: “the first step to salvation is faith” (Strom., 2:6). Clement often talks about it, but does not give an exact definition anywhere. He regards it as a free perception and preliminary assumption of what will be the subject of rational comprehension. After faith, fear, hope and repentance, combined with abstinence and patience, promote salvation; and they lead to love and knowledge (Strom., 2:6). So understood, faith is strength for salvation and strength for eternal life. But it should not be separated from the fulfillment of the Divine Commandments; and, if it is sufficient for salvation, then, however, it is only the beginning of the knowledge of God and Christian perfection (Strom., 2:12; 6; 6:14; Paed., 1:6). Faith itself points to Christian gnosis. But each individual Christian achieves salvation only in connection with the Church and Her activities. Clement - focusing on the problems of the internal, intellectual and moral side of the Christian - deals relatively little with the external side of the Church, Its hierarchical organization and ritual. Defining the essence of the Church, Clement calls Her (Strom., 7:5) the church of the Divine, a majestic sanctuary, erected not by the hands of artisans, and not decorated with the art of sorcerers, but arranged into a church by the will of God Himself. The Church is the Council of the Chosen. “The Earthly Church is the image of the Heavenly Church, therefore we pray that the will of God will be fulfilled on earth as it is fulfilled in heaven (Strom., 4:8). The Stoics say that there is no other city that is more worthy of its name than Heaven; the cities that exist here on Earth are not cities in the proper sense - they only bear the name of cities, but they lack reality. And rightly so: here is a truly beautiful city - all the people in it represent a host of virtuous people; there are whole masses of people in it and everyone is obedient to the law: this is the Church of the Logos. This city cannot be subject to siege, cannot be oppressed by some earthly tyrant: the Will of God reigns in it, taking place on earth as in heaven. The Church is governed by the Logos (Strom. 4:26; cf. Paed. 1:6). She is the Virgin Mother, feeding the believers with Her milk (Paed., 1:6). The righteous and true philosophers belong to the Church in the proper sense; they form the body of Christ, as a spiritual and sacred choir, while other Christians - who bear only the name of Christ - constitute only the flesh (Strom., 6:14; 7:14). Pious and righteous Gnostics, who fulfill the will of God and teach others the same, are the heirs of the Apostles, become true presbyters and deacons, even if they are not awarded the chair of the chairman. The hierarchy of the earthly Church with Her bishopric, priesthood and deaconry is only a prototype of the Angelic Glory and the Economy, various degrees in which are assigned, according to the promise of the Holy Scriptures, to those who, following in the footsteps of the holy Apostles, live in perfection and righteousness (Strom., 6:13). But this “spiritual Church” (πνευματική ἐκκλησία, Strom., 7:11) is historically thought of as the “Ancient Catholic Church” in contrast to the heresies that tear it apart. This is the Church in which the Apostolic Tradition is preserved. “There is only one true Church, the One to which the eldership rightfully belongs; her children include all the righteous, who have made a firm intention to remain so... Confessing the One, the Church by its very essence must be one, and dividing it into countless Churches, which the heretics do, is violence against it; it is indivisible already by the strength of the individuality of its nature. It is united in its substance, in its idea, in its principle, in its concept of its incomparable superiority. Yes, she - the Ancient Catholic Church - is one; all its members strive for mutual unity through the same faith” (Strom., 7:17). The people of God, in which the Logos manifests His activity, is, therefore, at the same time a society in which the Apostolic teaching is contained. Heretics who do not have this teaching do not have Logos and Salvation. A person becomes a member of the Church and a participant in Salvation through Baptism. Clement assimilates this sacrament to an extremely important meaning: in Baptism, all Salvation is immediately communicated to a person. “With rebirth,” he says, “we immediately achieve the perfection we strive for; for in Baptism we receive into our soul the light of the knowledge of God... Those who are baptized, we are enlightened, those who are enlightened, we are adopted, those who are adopted, we become perfect, and when we become perfect, we receive immortality... This act (Baptism) is called differently: grace, enlightenment, perfection, washing. It is called washing because in Baptism our sins are washed away; grace because in it we are freed from punishment for sins; enlightenment because in it we see the Heavenly Saving Light, we know God. We call perfection the absence of any shortcoming - but what is lacking in the one who knows God?.. With the help of the Holy Spirit, having washed in Baptism the eye of our spirit, obscured by fog and closed by the darkness of sin, after that we have it clean, healthy and bright. We know God only because (in Baptism) the Holy Spirit is poured out on us from heaven” (Paed., 1:6). But Clement was keenly aware that even after Baptism a person sins, that an attraction to evil remains in him - therefore he pays a lot of attention to the internal, psychological discipline of a person. On the issue of repentance, he joins the “Shepherd”: he allows for a second repentance, that is, repentance after Baptism. “To those who believe who fall into any sin, God, in His great mercy, grants secondary repentance, so that those who have fallen into sin again after being called, suppressed by embarrassment, and wishing to return to the good path, can once again bring unchangeable repentance... Continuous and one after another repentance for sins is no different from complete unbelief... Frequent repentance betrays only a condescending attitude towards past sins; and the tendency to new falls proves the lack of exercise in true repentance,” which proves faith by keeping from previous sins (Strom., 2:13). The advice and intercession of the Gnostics helps with this. Repentance consists in recognizing their sins, experiencing sorrow because of them, erasing them from the soul and asking for forgiveness from God, Who alone forgives sins. Purification is also helped by the punishments that God sends down to sinners (What rich man will be saved?, 39, 40). As for Clement's eschatology, first of all, it must be said that he teaches about the resurrection of the flesh. He intended to write a special work περì ἀναστάεως (Paed., 1:6, 47; 2:10, 104) - it is unknown whether he realized his intention. He admits that souls who have sinned after death are sanctified by mental fire, and that criminals will also be punished by fire (Strom., 7:6; 5:14). Apparently, he assumes the possibility of conversion after death, admitting that the soul is purified by afterlife punishments; claiming that God does not punish, but only corrects and leads to repentance, he seems not inclined to recognize the eternity of torment (Strom., 6:14; 7:2; 71:12). Those chosen will be accepted into one of three mansions, designated by the numbers 30, 60 and 100 in the parable of the sower. But only the Gnostic will be given what the eye has not seen and the ear has not heard, and what has not entered into the heart of man: He will enter the abode of God to contemplate Him in eternal and unchanging light (Strom., 4:18; 7:10. 11). Clement's student, his successor in the leadership of the Alexandrian Catechetical School and his successor in the development of scientific Church Theology was the famous Origen. He is the first Church writer about whose life and activities relatively accurate and detailed information has reached us. Everything that we know about Origen and what has survived from him we owe almost exclusively to Pamphilus and Eusebius. The first collected his works - these were mostly handwritten copies of Origen with his own notes (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:24. 3) - he copied some and compiled a catalog for them. Both together wrote an apologia for Origen in six books during the great persecution, when Pamphilus was in prison - the sixth book was added by Eusebius, and the others form mainly the work of Pamphilus. This apology exists only in fragments and in Rufinus's translation of the first book. The collection of letters of Origen, mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 6:36, 3), is lost. However, the surviving data is sufficient to form a clear picture of this remarkable teacher of the Alexandrian school and an outstanding Christian thinker; Eusebius dedicated most of the sixth book of his “Church History” to the memory of the great Theologian, whose life seemed remarkable to him from the very cradle (6:1, 2). The information presented here is entirely based on data borrowed from the letters of Origen and from the apology, and is supplied with rich chronological indications. Saint Gregory the Wonderworker, in his speech of gratitude to Origen, provides precious information about the methods of teaching him in Caesarea. Jerome (De vir. ill., 54, 62) and especially Photius (Bibl., cod. 118) show independent acquaintance with the apology of Pamphilus and Eusebius. Origen was born into the Christian family of the grammarian Leonidas. The place of birth is not indicated in the sources. That he was an Egyptian and that his homeland was Alexandria is a very probable assumption, which, however, cannot be firmly proven. The name Origen, rare in other places, indicating the god “Or” (Horus), could have been more common in Egypt. Origen's other name ἀδαμάντιος is usually considered as epitheton ornans, given later, but at a very early time; the basis for this is, first of all, the testimony of Photius (Bibl., cod.118) that Pamphilus and Eusebius, in their apology for the name “Adamantius,” saw the nickname and excused it in the sense of indicating the indestructibility of its argumentation; Epiphanius (Haer. 64, 1; cf.: 64, 73) and Jerome (Ep. 33, ad Paulam, p. 3) understood this name in the same way. But Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History (6:14) seems to speak clearly of Origen's double name: ριγένει ὄνομα ). Admirers of Origen could very naturally find in him an indication of the qualities of the adamantine power of his proofs. The year of Origen's birth is not indicated in the sources and is calculated based on data about the time of his death. According to the Apology of Pamphilus and reports from people who knew Origen, he died under Decius as a result of the torment suffered during the persecution (Photius, Bibl., cod. 118). This is also consistent with the statement of Eusebius in “Ecclesiastical History” (7:1), who, noting the change in government after the death of Decius, says: “at this time (ἐντούτω) Origen died, having lived seventy years without one year.” Usually, according to these indications, the year of Origen’s death is believed to be in the year 254 or 255; then his time of birth falls on the 185th or 186th year. Confirmation of this calculation is found in the message of Eusebius that at the time of the death of his father Origen was not fully seventeen years old (Hist. eccl., 6:2. 12). Leonidas died during the persecution of the North (ibid., 6:1), and this persecution took place in the tenth year of his reign (ibid., 6:2. 2). Severus became Emperor on April 13, 193, the tenth year of his reign will be the 202nd year, or, if counting from the beginning of the 194th year, the 203rd. And according to these data, the time of Origen’s birth falls on the 185th or 186th year. Origen by nature possessed rare spiritual gifts. He owes his initial education and especially his excellent upbringing to his father Leonid. Eusebius reports the following touching details about this: “Having studied the Divine Scripture as a child, Origen had already made a good start in the study of faith; he worked quite a bit on the Scriptures at a time when, in addition to school education (τ ῇ τω ν ἐγκυκλι ων ποαδεία), his father brought up in him caring and about knowing the word of God. For this, before any lesson in Hellenic lessons, he forced him to study lessons from the Holy Scriptures, that is, every day to memorize several passages from it and retell it from memory; This activity was by no means contrary to the desire of the boy; on the contrary, he indulged in it with the greatest zeal, so that he was not content with a simple and easy reading of the passages of Holy Scripture, but was looking for something more and even at that time embarked on deep contemplations and caused his father quite a bit of trouble, asking him what meaning was contained in the external expression of the Divinely inspired books. The father, although outwardly he reprimanded his son, inspiring him not to be inquisitive beyond his age and not to look for anything in Scripture other than the simple and obvious meaning, however, internally, he himself was very happy and the author of all good things - he offered the greatest thanks to God for the fact that He honored him to be the father of such a son. Often, standing next to the youth when he was sleeping, he opened his chest, reverently kissed it, like the sanctuary of the Spirit of God, and considered himself blessed in good fortune” (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:2. 7-11). In his youth, Origen also began to attend the Alexandrian Catechetical School, and listened there to the lessons of Panten and Clement (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:6). Meanwhile, in the year 202, a persecution of Christians broke out in Alexandria, the victim of which was Origen’s father, Leonidas. “Origen’s soul was possessed by such a strong desire for martyrdom that he himself went to meet dangers, impatiently hurried into the field of achievement and in some cases almost ran the risk of death. His mother first begged him, convinced him to spare his mother’s love, and then, seeing that the news of his father’s capture and imprisonment inflamed him with even greater jealousy and completely directed him towards martyrdom, she began to hide his clothes from him and thereby kept him at home” (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:2, 3-5). Then Origen sent his father a letter filled with the most touching exhortations for martyrdom, in which he appealed to his father: “See that because of us do not change your thoughts” (ibid., 6: 2, 6). Leonidas died a martyr. His property was confiscated, and his large family was left without any means. Origen was received and placed in her house by a rich and noble woman. Even earlier than this, she provided patronage to the heretic Paul from Antioch. Paul was known as a learned man and many not only heretics, but also Orthodox Christians flocked to him. Origen showed such zeal for the purity of Orthodox teaching that he never attended general prayer meetings at home and abhorred all heretical teaching. Apparently, he did not remain long in the unhealthy atmosphere of a rich and hospitable home. Having become acquainted with the Greek sciences under the guidance of his father, Origen studied them even more diligently after his death and acquired such a stock of knowledge in the field of grammatical sciences that soon after his death he himself began teaching them and obtaining funds to support himself and his family. During the persecution, the catechetical school in Alexandria was left without a leader. Clement left Alexandria, as Eusebius notes: “fearing persecution, everyone fled” (Eus.Hist. eccl., 6:3. 1). There was no one to take over the duties of the announcer. Then many who wanted to listen to instruction in the word of God began to turn to Origen. The first of them was Plutarch, who, together with other disciples, even during the persecution of Septimius Severus, adorned a praiseworthy life with the crown of martyrdom (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6: 3. 2; 4. 1). His brother Herakles came for Plutarch. This was in the year 203. Meanwhile, the persecution continued. Origen never ceased to show zeal for the faith: “he not only visited the martyrs in prison and accompanied them to court to hear the verdict, but after that he accompanied them to the place of execution, showing great courage and going to meet dangers.” By this he aroused the hostility of the pagan crowd. “When he boldly approached the martyrs and with perfect fearlessness admonished them with a kiss, the raging mob often nearly stoned him” (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:3.4). His fame increased from day to day. The number of his listeners constantly increased. The hostile crowd repeatedly tried to attack those gathering and Origen was forced to move from one house to another. The Alexandrian Bishop Demetrius appreciated the importance of the young teacher and entrusted him with the instruction of those who wished to do so in Christian teaching. Thus, he was officially recognized as the head of the Alexandria School. His life, as Eusebius noted, was an amazing example of true wisdom. “With him, as they say, his word did not diverge from his deeds, and what was in the mouth was in deed, and what was in deed was in the tongue.” In order to no longer be dependent on the support of others, Origen sold the lists of ancient works he had collected and studied with such love and was content with four ovols, which were paid to him daily by the person who bought the books from him - this was the usual wages of a day laborer (about 25 kopecks at the 1913 exchange rate - Ed.). Only with such undemandingness was it possible to live on these funds. But Origen remained poor and undemanding throughout his life. He was the strictest ascetic: he ate little, slept on the bare ground, devoting all day to study, did not give himself rest at night, but was completely immersed in prayer, meditation and the study of the Holy Scriptures. Most of all, he considered observance of the words of the Savior, which commanded him not to have two clothes or boots and not to be overwhelmed by worries about the future. Driven by jealousy that exceeded his age, he endured hunger and nakedness and reached the highest degree of poverty, so that he extremely amazed those around him. For many years he walked barefoot, without wearing any shoes. Some of his disciples asked him to use their property, but he did not want to relax the strict rules of life. With all this he “extremely upset and damaged his chest.” By example of a wise life, he aroused competition in his students (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:3). Among Origen's listeners there were women. Eusebius mentions Iraida, announced by him, who received Baptism in fire (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6: 4. 3). This circumstance, in connection with a general increased ascetic zeal, led him to such a step that “revealed in him an immature youthful mind, although it also served as a great proof of his faith and abstinence.” Taking literally the words of the Savior (Matthew 19:12) about eunuchs who castrate themselves for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, and fearing that the announcement of not only men, but also women would not give the pagans a reason for vile slander, he castrated himself. Although he tried to hide it from his students, his act became known and subsequently became a source of trouble for him. Bishop Demetrius of Alexandria also learned about this, but at that time he did not attach much importance to Origen’s act; according to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 6:8. 3), he was greatly surprised by Origen’s courage, approved of his zeal and sincere faith, encouraged and encouraged him to devote himself more zealously to the cause of the announcement. At the beginning of the reign of Septimius Severus' successor, Caracalla, Origen (about 211–212) undertook a journey to Rome, when Zephyrinus ruled the Roman Church; he wanted to “see the most ancient Roman Church” (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:14. 10). Here he struck up friendly relations with Hippolytus, who was revered in Rome as the most learned writer. Origen did not stay in Rome for long; Perhaps the reason for this was the lenient penitential discipline, which began to be practiced in the Roman Church already from the time of Zephyrinus and which could cause disappointment in the strict Alexandrian. Returning to Alexandria, Origen continued the work of the catechumen with all possible zeal, “yielding to the impulses and almost requests” of Bishop Demetrius - “to work tirelessly for the good of the brethren” (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:14, 11). But the demands that the school made on Origen grew so much over time that the strength of one person was no longer enough. From morning to evening, catechumens and baptized people crowded together - some wanted to receive initial instruction, others sought study in the explanation of the Holy Scriptures. Origen saw that under such conditions he had no opportunity for his own literary pursuits. Therefore, Origen chose an assistant in the person of Herakles, the brother of the martyr Plutarch - his first student, “a man who zealously studied Divine subjects, very knowledgeable in words and not alien to philosophy.” He entrusted him with teaching the first principles of those who were just beginning to study, and he himself began to teach the more advanced ones (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:15). Origen's scientific interests focused primarily on the Holy Scriptures. His studies of the Holy Scriptures prompted him to study the Hebrew language, as well as to acquire manuscripts of the Bible text in Hebrew and in translations. It is unknown who was Origen’s teacher in the Hebrew language; one can only assert that Blessed Jerome is wrong in his message that Origen owes his knowledge of the Hebrew language to his mother, whom he also considers Jewish (compare: Ep. 39, ad Paulam, 1). Origen's fame attracted heretics and lovers of Hellenic sciences to him, and especially philosophers who wanted to verify the wealth of his spiritual knowledge and learn from him not only Divine, but also external wisdom. “Origen introduced those of his listeners in whom good talents were noticeable into the circle of philosophical sciences, taught them geometry, arithmetic and other preliminary subjects, introduced them to various systems of philosophers and explained the works they wrote, making his own remark on each of them and revealing his views in such a way that even among the pagans he was known as a great philosopher. He introduced many simpler listeners to the encyclical sciences (ἐπì τà ἐγκύκλια γράμματα), saying that this knowledge would give them no small relief in understanding and explaining the Divine Scriptures” (Hist. eccl., 6:18). Hence, it became clear to him the need to investigate the teachings of heretics and the opinions of philosophers in order to satisfy the needs for a thorough philosophical education, and he listened to lessons “from teachers of philosophical sciences” (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:19. 13–14). Origen himself does not name this teacher; Porphyry - who personally knew Origen - testifies that he was a student of Ammonius, who converted from Christianity to paganism and became the greatest philosopher (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:19. 6-7), that is, a student of the famous Neoplatonist Ammonius Sacca. But Eusebius accuses Porphyry of lying: he says that Ammonius, the teacher of Origen, did not switch to pagan customs; having left a pious life, he preserved the purity and impeccability of Divine philosophy until the last minute of his life, as evidenced by the written works he left behind to this day, with which he gained fame among many (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:19. 9-10). With this remark, Eusebius gives rise to the question: did Porphyry mix up the Neoplatonic philosopher Ammonius with the Christian writer Ammonius, or did Eusebius make a mistake in denying Origen’s relationship to the pagan philosopher. Usually this question is resolved in favor of the correctness of Porfiry's message. Origen met Ambrose, whom he converted to the Orthodox Faith from the errors of the Gnostic Valentine (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:18. 1). Later, Ambrose concluded a somewhat formal agreement with Origen, by virtue of which Ambrose delivered all the necessary funds for Origen’s literary works, but in return the latter went to Ambrose’s disposal. All of Origen's later works, except for his sermons, are dedicated to Ambrose. Eusebius reports that Ambrose especially inclined Origen to explain the Holy Scriptures. He himself kept cursive writers, who took turns recording Origen’s thoughts, and the same number of scribes and female calligraphers prepared blank copies for distribution (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:18; 23). In the year 213–214, Origen's journey to Arabia falls, which he undertook at the request of the local prefect. The latter wrote a letter to Bishop Demetrius and the prefect of Alexandria, in which he asked them to send Origen to him for an interview as soon as possible. After staying there for a short time, Origen returned to Alexandria (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:19. 15). Meanwhile, indignation broke out in Alexandria, during which Caracalla, ridiculed by the people, gave the city to soldiers to plunder, expelled strangers from it, banned spectacles, closed societies of philosophers and opposed scientists. Ambrose, as an Antiochian, had to leave the city and moved to Caesarea in Palestine, where, apparently, he remained for a long time. This was in the summer of 215. Origen also left Alexandria and, not hoping to find a safe refuge in Egypt, retired to Palestine, perhaps together with Ambrose and established his residence in Caesarea (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:19. 16). Here he renewed old relations with the Bishop of Jerusalem Alexander, a former student of Panten and Clement, and started new ones with the Bishop of Caesarea Theoctistus. “They received him with great honor and entrusted him with preaching and expounding the Holy Scriptures publicly in the Church, despite the fact that he had not yet been ordained a presbyter. Obviously, Palestine did not see anything unusual or reprehensible in this. The Bishop of Alexandria Demetrius looked at it differently, having learned about the honor given to Origen in Palestine. In his letter - probably addressed to Bishops Alexander and Theoctistus - he expressed displeasure, declaring that it had never been heard, and even now is not the custom, for lay people to preach in the presence of bishops. In response to this, Alexander and Theoctistus pointed to the example of the holy bishops, who, as soon as they found people capable of benefiting the brethren, invited them to preach to the people (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:19. 17). Since, after the end of the rebellion, Origen was needed in the Alexandrian school, Demetrius, through specially sent deacons, demanded his return to Alexandria. Origen returned (in 216?) and resumed his previous studies. We do not have exact information about Origen’s activities in the next ten years. One might think that at this time he devoted himself entirely to his studies at school and literary works. Ambrose, who placed all the necessary means at Origen's disposal, constantly encouraged him to undertake new work. Under such conditions, Origen at this time developed a wide literary activity and began the scientific interpretation of Holy Scripture, starting with commentaries on the Gospel of John. Around the year 230, Origen, equipped with a letter of recommendation from Bishop Demetrius (Hier. De vir. ill., 54), was supposed to go to Greece. Eusebius speaks vaguely about the nature of this mission: “out of necessity concerning the affairs of the Church” (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:23. 4), Jerome defines its purpose in an interview with heretics (Hier. De vir. ill., 54). Origen went through Palestine and was cordially received in Caesarea by his friends - bishops Alexander and Theoctistus. Probably bearing in mind the troubles that arose during Origen's previous visit to Caesarea for granting him, as a layman, the right to preach in the Church, bishops Alexander and Theoctistus considered it best to ordain him to the rank of presbyter (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:23. 4). In their action, they apparently did not assume anything non-canonical - but Dimitri looked at this matter differently. On Origen's return from Greece, he brought him to justice. Eusebius explains Demetrius’s attitude towards Origen with envy: “seeing,” he says, “that Origen was unusually successful, that everyone was extolling him as a great and glorious man, he (Demetrius) began to feel something human... Not knowing any guilt behind him, he began to blame him for the long-standing sin of his youth and dared to add to his accusation those who ordained him as a presbyter” (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:8, 4–5). Jerome in one place (Epist. 33, ad Paulam, 4) expresses himself in the same sense; but in a later message (Hier. De vir. ill., 54) he highlights the dedication of Origen, which is contrary to the Church rules. The latter explanation has more signs of historical authenticity. Bishop Demetrius is recognized as an energetic administrator and organizer of the Alexandrian Church, who elevated the importance of the Bishop of Alexandria. We don’t know exactly what Dmitry’s reforms actually expressed, but their general nature undoubtedly made him sensitive to intrusions into the area of ​​his rights. Demetrius also saw such a violation of the prerogatives of the bishop of Alexandria in the dedication without his knowledge of Origen, who was subject to his jurisdiction and, perhaps, as a διδάσκαλος, who had some relation to the clergy. But when the question was raised about Origen’s guilt in this regard, Demetrius naturally remembered Origen’s self-castration, which, according to Church canons, deprived him of the right to initiation into hierarchical degrees. Added to this were accusations of wrongdoing, which, apparently, were of decisive importance in the case of Origen and made his name controversial for centuries. In 231, Demetrius convened a council of Egyptian bishops and Alexandrian presbyters, at which it was decided to remove Origen from teaching, along with the prohibition of further stay in Alexandria; the second council, in the year 231 or 232, consisting of several Egyptian bishops, declared his ordination to the presbyter invalid and made known this to the other Churches through a district Epistle (Photius, Bibl., cod.118). Origen left Alexandria for Caesarea in Palestine, where he settled, protected by his friends. The definition of the Council of Alexandria was recognized in Rome and in other Churches with the exception of Phenicia, Palestine, Arabia and Achaia. But the Alexandrian enemies did not leave him alone even after he was condemned and expelled from Alexandria: Origen speaks (In John 6:2. 1) about the works directed against him from Alexandria, calling them not Gospel, since they released all the forces of evil against him. Origen justified himself against all his accusations in the Epistle to his Alexandrian friends (Hieron. Adv. Ruf., 2, 18; Rufin. Deadulter, libr. Orig., 25). Origen's place in the Alexandrian school was taken by his student and assistant Herakles. Soon after the council, Demetrius died and Herakles was elevated to the See of Alexandria. In connection with this change, Origen had hope for the possibility of rehabilitation, and he ventured to return to Alexandria, but soon saw the unfoundedness of his hopes: for unchurch teachings, Herakle excommunicated Origen from the Church and expelled him from Alexandria (O. Bardenhewer. Gesch. der altkirchl. Literatur. Bd. 2 Freiburgi. Br, 1903, S. 80). In Caesarea, Origen founded the Theological School, which soon reached its highest development and became the new center of Christian Science. He made new students and friends here. - Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, sometimes called him to his regions, and sometimes he himself went to him in Palestine and lived with him to improve his knowledge of Divine objects. The Bishop of Jerusalem Alexander and the Bishop of Caesarea Theoktist listened to him, and “he alone, as a teacher, was entrusted with the explanation of the Divine Scripture and everything related to Church teachings” (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:27). Listeners flocked to him not only from the Palestinian inhabitants, but “countless numbers of students, leaving their homeland, came from distant regions; among them were especially famous: Theodore, later Neocaesarea Bishop Gregory the Wonderworker, and his brother Alexander” (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:30). St. Gregory provides detailed information about the conduct of business at the Caesarea school, teaching methods and successes in his farewell speech to Origen. It shows not only that the students had reverent respect for their teacher, but it also shows how versatile the teaching was. Origen put dialectics, physics, ethics, metaphysics as the foundation, and on it, as the crown of the building, Theology (see above for this in the general description of the Alexandrian school). Soon after his relocation to Caesarea, Origen had to take a trip to Antioch: Mammea, the mother of the Emperor, having heard a lot about Origen, wanted to personally verify the thoroughness of the information that had reached her about him, listen to his teachings about Divine objects, and invited Origen to her place in Antioch, sending honorary guards to protect him. Origen stayed there for some time, “showed before her many experiments in the power of Divine teaching for the glory of the Lord and then hurried to his usual studies” (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:21, 3). On February 18, 235, Alexander Severus and his mother were killed. His successor, Maximinus the Thracian, launched a persecution against Christians, which was mainly directed against the primates of the Churches, as the main disseminators of the Gospel (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:28). The Edict of Maximinus also affected Caesarea. The elders of the Caesarea Church, Ambrose and Protoctitus, were captured; the first became a confessor, and the second was martyred. Origen himself allegedly went to Caesarea in Cappadocia, where he hid in the house of the Christian virgin Juliana for two years. This news goes back to Palladius (Hist. Laus, 147), the source of which is unknown and the correctness of which is subject to great doubt. In general, little is known about the last 20 years of Origen’s life. Apparently, they were filled with intense literary activity, which was interrupted only by travel (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:22). In addition, Origen preached daily. It is not known in what year and on what occasion he traveled to Athens (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:32.2); his stay in Athens, apparently, was long, since here he completed the interpretation of the prophet Ezekiel, began and completed the interpretation of the Song of Songs to the fifth book. On the way there or back, he visited his friend Ambrose in Nicodemus (Orig.Epist. ad Iui. Afric., 1:15-16). Another journey to Arabia was caused by the monarchian heresy of Beryllus, bishop of Vostra of Arabia, who preached the Adoptian doctrine, which cannot be more accurately determined from the message of Eusebius (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:33. 1). There were many disputes about it, which, however, did not lead to the desired results. “Among others,” Origen was invited, who first of all tried to find out the views of Beryl, then established their heretical nature and, finally, with his evidence, “put him on the path of truth and returned him to his former sound way of thinking” (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:33. 3). This dispute took place until the year 244; his acts, known to Eusebius, have not survived. Around the same time, Origen’s accusations of unorthodoxy fell, which forced him to write defensive Epistles to the Roman Bishop Fabian (236–250) and to many other bishops (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:36. 4). From whom these accusations came and what points of doctrine they concerned, we do not know. After a successful competition with Beryl, they began to turn to Origen more often for help in the fight against misconceptions that arose. In Arabia a doctrine arose according to which the human soul dies and is destroyed along with the body and, after the resurrection of the body, will come to life again with it. On this occasion, a considerable council was convened, to which Origen was also invited. He carried out his mission so successfully that those who went astray abandoned their former thoughts (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:37). In the year 250, the persecution of Decius began. Bishop Alexander of Jerusalem was brought for Christ to Caesarea at the trial seat of the proconsul, another time he became famous for his confession, was thrown into prison and died in chains. This time, Origen did not escape suffering: he was imprisoned, subjected to corporal punishment, in prison iron chains were placed around his neck, his legs were stretched for many days “to the fourth degree on a wooden instrument of execution”; with courage he endured the threat of being burned (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:39). Origen received freedom, but the cruel tortures were too much for the 69-year-old man, strong in spirit but weak in body, and he soon died, probably in Caesarea, as Eusebius testified to this in his apology (Photius, Bibl., cod. 118); he was buried there. In contrast to this, Jerome already reports (Hier. De vir. ill., 54) that Origen died in Tire, and Epiphanius (Demens, etpond., 18) gives the clearly incorrect information that Origen lived in Tire for twenty-eight years. In any case, it is remarkable that even in the Middle Ages, in Tyre, the memory of the great scientist was alive. At present, it is not possible to trace how this legend arose, and whether the body of the martyr was subsequently transferred to Tire. III. 1. Literary and scientific activity of Origen Origen's literary fertility remains almost unparalleled, even if we consider Epiphanius's report (Haer. 64, 63) that he wrote 6,000 books to be an exaggeration. Jerome, filled with reverent amazement at the enormous amount of what Origen wrote, exclaims: “Who among us can read as much as he wrote” (Ep. 84, ad Pamm.)? Such extensive literary activity was not an expression of his love for writing; he looked upon the duties of teacher and writer as a godly calling to instruct the faithful, to repel attacks on the Christian religion and to justify the Holy Scriptures. His friend and patron Ambrose constantly asked orally and in writing and encouraged him to write and publish his works. Many of his works were the product of the moment and were dictated to cursive writers or, like later sermons, were written down by others. Some works were even published against the will of Origen. The fate of Origen’s literary heritage was fatally affected by those attitudes towards the author himself, which, since the time of the Bishop of Alexandria, Demetrius, had invariably created around his name an atmosphere of suspicion regarding the Church trustworthiness of his views, which turned into real hostility, merciless towards him as a real heretic. As a result, only a small part of Origen’s works has reached our time, and of these, only a smaller half has been preserved in the original, most of it in Latin translations, of which Rufinus’s translation often represents a paraphrase or extract, not free from arbitrary changes, dogmatically suspicious passages. And while translations have survived in numerous copies, the works preserved in Greek, with the exception of books against Celsus, have a very meager handwritten tradition. As an important textual-critical manual, we must recognize the Philocalia, this exegetical Reader compiled by Gregory the Theologian and Basil the Great and representing selections from the works of Origen, made with great taste and deep understanding and arranged in a system divided into 27 chapters. At present it is not possible to even list what was written by Origen. Eusebius in his “Ecclesiastical History” (6:32) notes: “However, why should we in the present case make a detailed list of the works of Origen, when this requires an exclusive occupation? Yes, we have already made such a list in an essay about the life of the contemporary Hieromartyr Pamphilus. Speaking there about Pamphilus' zeal for the Divine Scripture, we compiled a table of works from which Pamphilus compiled his library. From this table, anyone who wants can learn in the best way about all the works of Origen that have come down to us.” It is difficult to judge whether Pamphilus collected all of Origen’s works in his library and therefore whether Eusebius’s list was complete. Unfortunately, the biography of Pamphilus has not survived. The list of Jerome that has come down to us by chance, compiled, presumably, on the basis of the list of Eusebius, can only serve as an incomplete and not entirely reliable replacement for it. Jerome's list was placed by him in a letter to his student Paula (Er. 33), which was preserved only in fragments. Jerome wanted to prove that the two most prolific pagan writers, the Latin Terence Barro and the Greek Didymus, a grammarian from Alexandria, were far surpassed and left in the shadows by the Christian Origen, and in support of this he cited a list of his works. The manuscript tradition of this list is rather unsatisfactory (the newest critical edition of it, based on four manuscripts, was made by E. Klostermann in Sitzungsberichte der K. preuss. Akad. der Wiss. zu Berlin. 1897, S. 855–870: Die Schriften des Origenes in Hieronymus Briefe an Paula). It is assumed (E. Klostermann, A. Harnack, E. Preuschen) that Jerome in his list - compiled according to Eusebius's list - not only translated Eusebius's list, but, according to his custom, remade it. Jerome's list contains about 800 works by Origen; but it undoubtedly has significant gaps, which either were made by Jerome himself, or depend on the faulty manuscripts. This list is supplemented by indications in other works of Jerome himself, in Eusebius, Rufinus and others. Further material is provided by Bible lists, which borrow the biblical text from the works of Origen and, as a result, point to these works. In this regard, the Greek manuscript of the 10th century found on Mount Athos is remarkable, but its original is a manuscript of the 6th century, containing the Acts of the Holy Apostles, and the Council Epistles and the Apostle Paul (Fr. vonder Goltz. Eine textkrische Arbeit des 10 bzw. 6 Jahrhunderts, hrsg. nach einem Codex des Athosklosters Lawra. Leipzig, 1899). Pamphilus was of outstanding importance in the preservation and dissemination of Origen's works: it is not without reason that everything that is currently known from Origen's works owes its existence to Pamphilus' library. a) Textual critical works. A significant part of Origen's literary and scientific works consists of biblical criticism and exegesis; in this area his importance is extremely important, and he rightly received the title of father and leader in the explanation of the Holy Scriptures early on. In the field of textual criticism, he made a name for himself with his colossal work on the critical treatment of the text of the LXX. He set himself the task of clearly demonstrating the relationship of the LXX translation in Church use to the original text of the Old Testament and thereby creating a solid basis for scientific exegesis and especially for polemics with the Jews, who reproached Christians for often not knowing the true Biblical text (Orig., Ep. ad Iui. Afric., 5; Comm. in Matt., 15:14). This work was completed over more than 30 years. As a result, exaples appeared - Ἑ ξαπλ ᾶ (that is, βιβλία), a six-fold text of the Old Testament, located in six columns: 1) – Hebrew text in Hebrew script, 2) – The same Hebrew text in Greek transcription, 3) – Aquila’s translation, distinguished by its literal fidelity to the main text and therefore placed next to it, For individual books, in the seventh column a currently unknown translation was placed, discovered by Origen himself, and for the Psalms there were further columns with sixth and seventh translations (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:16; Hieron. Comm. in Tit ad. 3, 9). Thus, Origen’s work for some books took the form of octaple and even enneaple. In the latter, by the way, he finds his explanation of why the translation of LXX was placed by him in the fifth column; for ease of comparison, it should have occupied the middle of the manuscript. To facilitate the use of a comparative table of the texts used, Origen himself, in the fifth column, drew attention to the deviations of the LXX translation from the original text and marked them with the usual critical signs among Alexandrian grammarians - asterisk * and ovel (όβελός) ÷. Origen himself speaks about this work of his (Comm. In Matth., 15:14) as follows: “with God’s help, I could eliminate the differences in the manuscripts of the Old Testament, using other translations as a scale. What seemed doubtful in the LXX due to differences in manuscripts, I reviewed from other translations and retained what was in agreement with them. What I did not find in the Hebrew, I marked out, since I did not dare to completely cross it out. I added other things, and precisely with an asterisk, so that it would be clear what the LXX does not have and what we added from other translations according to the Hebrew text. Whoever wants to, let him attach importance to this, and whoever is tempted by this, let him refrain from accepting it as he pleases.” This means that Origen marked with ovel all words, sentences or sections in the LXX translation that are not in the original Hebrew text (so to speak, subject to exclusion); The asterisk indicates those places that were included in the text of the LXX from other translations, mainly from Theodotion’s translation. Finally, where the LXX text shows instability or seems corrupted, Origen either simply changed it in accordance with the Hebrew text, without any indication of this, or, after reading the LXX, marked with an oval, he inserted parallels corresponding to the Hebrew text from another translation with an asterisk. Eusebius reports (Hist. eccl., 6:16. 4; cf.: Epiph. Demens, etpond., 19) that Origen published separate translations of Aquila, Simachus, Theodotion and LXX in tetrapla; they probably represent only a copy of the last four columns of the exaplo. This huge undertaking was begun by Origen in Alexandria, and completed more than ten years later after being forced to leave there. When Origen wrote his letter to Julius Africanus around the year 240, work on comparing the texts was still ongoing (Er. ad Iui. Afric., 5); but when, after the year 244, he wrote a commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, it was already completed (Comm. In Matt. 15:14). Epiphanius (Demens, etpond., 18), whose message, however, cannot be considered reliable, says that Origen began this work in Alexandria and after 28 years finished it in Tire; therefore, he began it around 217–218. Tetraples could only be prepared after the completion of the exaplo. In carrying out this gigantic work, Origen pursued a strictly apologetic goal - to defend the translation of the LXX from the reproaches of Jews and heretics that its text suffers from significant shortcomings and is interpolated, and to show that the translation of the LXX has something superfluous in comparison with the Hebrew text and what is missing in it. He did not pursue direct textual-critical goals: he sought to establish the original form of the LXX translation, make a choice between variants, highlight later additions, determine the merit and applicability of the LXX text and its accuracy and reliability in comparison with the Hebrew text, and finally, on the basis of comparison with other translations, find out the difficult parts of the text. But, having completed the task he had set himself, Origen actually made possible the critical use of the Old Testament by all means available at that time, and created for scholars of the Holy Scriptures a critical manual of the greatest importance - a kind of lexicon for exegetes. And it was not his fault if subsequent times failed to do anything with his work and left it neglected. Exapla and tetrapla remained in Caesarea Palestine for a long time. Jerome in Commentarioli in Psalmos notes that he himself read in the Caesarea library “vetustum Origenis hexaplum psalterium, quod i psius manu fuerat emendatum” (Morin. Anecdota Maredsolana. 3, 1. Mareds., 1895, p. 12). Only around the year 600, the exaples perished along with the huge and valuable library, the foundation of which was laid by Pamphilus. Pamphilus himself and Eusebius took measures to distribute the text corrected by Origen, a review of exaplo. But reproducing the entire work in all its parts was extremely difficult and very expensive: a complete copy of the exapla was of enormous value, even if it were written on papyrus and not on parchment. Therefore, the fifth column, the translation of the LXX, was usually (but not exclusively) rewritten, sometimes with critical marks, sometimes without them. In 616-617, the fifth column was translated by the Jacobite bishop Paul of Tell (in Mesopotamia) into Syriac, preserving the critical marks and with such care and literalness that clearly reflect the original. This translation has been preserved for the most part, while only fragments of the original remained, which were collected and published by the Benedictine Montfaucon (B. de Montfaucons, Hexaplorum Origenis quae supersunt. Paris, 1713. 2 vol.) and the Englishman Field (F. Field. Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt. Oxonii, 1867–1875. 2 vol.; compare: Migne, PG. 15–16). As for the remaining columns of the exaples, few and insignificant remains have survived from them. Recently, important fragments of the exaplo for the text of the Psalter have been discovered, which are important for some illumination of the fate of the exaplo. In 1895, G. Morin published the psalms - the scholia of Jerome, Commentarioli in Psalmos (Anecdota Maredsolana, 3:1), to which he added his own “index lectionum quae ex Hexaplis ab Hieronymo proferuntur”; this edition provided some new information about the text of the psalms in the exapla. Meanwhile Giov. Mercat opened the manuscript - the palimpsest Ambrosiana, the lower text of which, dating back to the 10th century, contains parts of the Psalter; two psalms are preserved here - the 29th and 45th in their entirety, and parts of nine other psalms in five columns of exaples, the Hebrew text in Greek transcription and translations of Aquila, Symmachus, LXX and Theodotion. S. Taylor, in a Hebrew-Greek palimpsest found in Cairo, discovered and published (in 1900) several verses of the 21st Psalm in four columns: the Hebrew text written in Greek letters, and translations of Aquila, Symmachus and LXX. These findings are important in that they destroy the prevailing belief that only a fifth column of exaplos was spreading; it turns out that all or almost all the columns of their individual parts, at least the Psalter, existed longer than previously thought. In the New Testament text, Origen also felt the shortcomings of the manuscript tradition. In his last works, he complains about this and argues that the manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew do not agree with each other in many respects, either due to the frivolity of copyists, or due to the negligence of proofreaders, or due to the arbitrariness of those who, when correcting, allow additions or deletions (Comm. in Matt. 15:14). He often points out the difference in the text of the lists in his exegetical works. These remarks in connection with Origen's colossal work on the Old Testament text led some earlier scholars to the conclusion that he had undertaken a revision or review of the New Testament text as well. Confirmation of this view was found in Jerome's reference to the "exemplaria Adamantii" (Comm. in Matt. 24:36; Comm. In Gal. ad 3, 1). But there is no positive news about this kind of work by Origen in relation to the New Testament text. The tasks that he pursued in his works on the Old Testament text did not find application to the text of the New Testament, and purely textual-critical interests were alien to him. Origen even paid little attention to the accuracy of New Testament quotations. But there is no doubt that after his death, not only the text of his exapla was distributed, but also the exemplaria Adamantii of the New Testament text, that is, the copies of the New Testament that he had at hand or copies from them: his fame as an exegete served as the best guarantee of the correctness of the text used and explained by him. Already Pamphilus and Eusebius prepared copies of the New Testament, which originated from copies of Origen or contained the text of his exegetical works. Their example was imitated later. But at present it is impossible to restore the actual New Testament text of Origen on the basis of comments: the text of the quotations reveals extreme diversity, the reason for which is that the scribes themselves inserted quotations, while Origen himself, when dictating, gave only a general designation of biblical passages. As the already noted Athonite manuscript of the 10th century shows (traced back to the manuscript of the 6th century), the readings of Origen were collected from his commentaries and thus constituted the “text of Origen” (Fr. vonder Goltz. Eine textkrische Arbeit des 10 bzw. 6 Jahrhunderts, hrsg. nach einem Codex des Athosklosters Lawra. Leipzig, 1899, S. 7 ff.). b) Biblical and exegetical works of Origen. Origen was the first significant exegete, who had a strong influence on all subsequent ancient church exegetes, traces of which can be seen even before the times of humanism (Erasmus). His numerous exegetical works fall into three groups in form and presentation: scholia, homily and commentaries. 1) Scholia (σχόλια, σημειώσεις) - imitation of the works of the Alexandrian grammarians in relation to the ancient classics - present brief exegetical remarks explaining words and places of the biblical text that are difficult to understand. 2) Homilies (ὁμιλίαι) - Liturgical words or sermons to the baptized and unbaptized, for which the topics were borrowed for the most part from the daily readings, sometimes chosen at the special request of the listeners or the primate. 3) In the proper sense, commentaries (τόμοι) are detailed interpretations of entire books; in contrast to the popular presentation in homilies, the commentaries pursued scientific interests, intending to convey to more knowledgeable Christians a deep understanding of the Holy Scriptures and through philosophical and theological excursions the hidden truths in it were revealed. According to Jerome (Er. 33, ad Paulam), Origen wrote scholia on the books: Exodus, Leviticus, Psalms (1–15), the prophet Isaiah, Ecclesiastes and partly on the Gospel of John. But this listing is not complete, since Jerome himself in other places speaks of the scholia on the Gospel of Matthew (Comm. in Math. prol.) and on the Epistle to the Galatians (Comm. in Gal. prol.); in addition, Rufinus knew the scholia for the book of Numbers, and in the Athonite manuscript of the 10th century (Fr. Goltz. Eine textkritische... S. 87 f., 98) there is an indication of the scholia for the book of Genesis. None of these works have survived in their original form. There is no doubt that many of the explanations that are given under the name of Origen in the catenas and other collections represent the remnants of Origen's scholia: the glossatorian appearance of many fragments in the catena is excellently consistent with the character that is adopted by Origen's scholia. But proving the identity of these fragments with scholia is an extremely difficult task. Here, first of all, it is necessary to establish which fragments can be recognized as truly belonging to Origen, and then to trace these genuine fragments to the original sources and determine whether they belong to scholia, homily, commentaries, or to some other works of Origen. Homilies were pronounced on almost all books of Holy Scripture, since Origen preached very often in the later part of his life. Not all of them are written works of Origen in the proper sense - many of them were written down by others: having reached the age of 60, Origen allowed his conversations in Divine Assemblies to be recorded (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:36. 1). It is likely that Origen himself did not later take part in the publication of these records, since otherwise it is difficult to explain the numerous shortcomings in style. The presentation in homilies is more accessible than in scientific commentaries, however, they also make quite high demands on the listeners: the speaker included an analysis of the differences in the textual tradition, reported on previous experiences in interpreting various passages, and so on. In general, in the homilies, Origen pursues the goals of edifying the entire community and in the construction and method of presentation he proceeds from the conviction that holy and lofty truths should not be revealed to everyone and that the Divine secrets cannot be presented scientifically and exhaustively to everyone. Therefore, Origen paid main attention to the practical explanation of the text; he follows it sentence by sentence - hence the absence of a real plan in homilies, and thoughts are connected only by the unity of the text being analyzed. In those places where the text presents little data for edification (as, for example, the books of Numbers and Leviticus), he tries to obtain edifying conclusions through allegorical interpretation, but where the text provided him with enough material, as in the books of the prophets, he was only rarely forced to look for a deeper meaning. In general, typology and allegory dominate in homilies, and the theory of the threefold meaning of Holy Scripture is used very often. Origen did not strive to present artistic rhetorical works in his homilies; their style was simple without any artificial decoration. Homilies have been preserved better than scholia, but mostly in Latin translation. Known: for the book of Genesis (17 homilies), Exodus (13), Leviticus (16), Numbers (28), Joshua (26), Judges (9), I Samuel (2), Psalter - for Psalm 36 (5), 37 (2) and 38 (2), Song of Songs (2), Isaiah (9), Jeremiah (7 in Greek, 12 in Latin and Greek and 2 in Latin), Ezekiel (14), Luke (39). Everything else is lost. Of the surviving homilies, the conversation on I Samuel 28:14 about the Witch of Endor was especially famous in ancient times - “Then Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he fell face down on the ground and bowed down.” – The idea presented in it, that it was not a shadow that appeared to the sorceress, but Samuel himself, met with strong objections. Among others, the reality of Samuel's appearance was refuted by Eustathius of Antioch, who, in his work, preserved for us the full text of Origen's homily. Origen's homilies were often imitated in the Greek and Latin Church. As the first examples of correctly delivered liturgical sermons, they also have literary and historical significance. Unlike homilies, commentaries are intended to provide a scientific explanation of the Holy Scriptures using all the means of contemporary exegesis. At the same time, Origen strictly distinguishes everywhere between the random and low-value historical significance of the places being explained, and the deep truth hidden in them, which is eternal and imperishable, therefore his last goal has always been the desire to obtain precisely this truth. However, he does not neglect the philological explanation; in numerous excursions, in order to establish the correct meaning of words, he compares related places, carefully collects historical, geographical, even archaeological and similar material. In his commentary on the Gospel of John, he constantly draws attention to the interpretation of the Valentinian Herakleon and briefly talks about his glosses, and also refutes the views of the Gnostics. Apparently, all of Origen's commentaries were conceived very broadly, so that some of them were not completed, and some did not even emerge from the first chapters of the corresponding Biblical books. Unfortunately, only sad remnants of Origen's comments survive; We do not have any of them in full form. At present, the following remains of Origen’s comments: 1) from the commentary on the book of Genesis, which consisted of 12 books (the first 8 were written in Alexandria, the last in Caesarea), only fragments have been preserved, mainly in Philocalia. 2) Of the 46 books of commentaries on the Psalms, only a few fragments have survived. 3) From the small commentary on the Song of Songs, Philokalia gives a small excerpt; from a large commentary (in 10 books) excerpt Book 2 is preserved in the Philocalia and a number of fragments in the catenas on the Song of Songs. In addition to these Greek passages, the Prologue of the commentary, the first three books and part of the Fourth (up to 2.15) have been found in a free Latin translation by Rufinus. Jerome considered this commentary to be Origen's best work: “Origenes cum in caeteris libris omnes vicerit, in Cantico Cantirorum ipse se vicit” (Prol. expos. Cant.Cant.sec. Orig.). 4) From the commentaries on the prophetic books, insignificant fragments of interpretations on the book of the prophet Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Hosea have been preserved. 5) The commentary on the Gospel of Matthew was written in 25 books. In addition to small fragments in the Philocalia and catenae, books 10–17 of it have been preserved in the original Greek (Matthew 13:36–22:33), as well as an even larger part in the Latin translation or revision. The latter begins with 12:9~Original Greek, that is, with Matt. 16:13, but for that he brings the interpretation to Matt. 27:63. The translator into Latin is unknown. But the surviving parts of the commentary on the Gospel of Matthew require deliberate research in view of the fact that in the Greek text they give the impression of outlines or revisions with abbreviations: they lack prefaces and conclusions in separate books, which is usually the case with Origen; the interpretation itself is limited to the most important; the presentation is concise. The Latin translation often deviates significantly from the Greek text, since it often seems as if it was based on a different original. 6) From the commentary on the Gospel of John, which was especially large in volume, several books have survived, namely: 1, 2, 6, 10, 13, 19 (not complete), 20, 28, 32; from other books - small fragments. Book 32 breaks off at John. 13:33; but one can think that there were further books, since Origen himself, in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, refers to his interpretation of the 19th chapter of the Gospel of John (Comm. in Matt., 133). The extensiveness of the comments on the Gospel of John is explained, on the one hand, by Origen’s special love for this Holy book, as ἀπαρχὴ τω ν εὐαγγελίων, and, on the other hand, by polemical excursions against the Valentinian Herakleon. 7) The commentary on the Epistle to the Romans survives only in fragments preserved in the Philocalia, in Basil the Great's catenae and in the Codex Athos. In addition, the free Latin revision of Rufinus, who had already complained about the corruption and gaps in the Greek text, has been preserved. 8) Small fragments have survived from commentaries on the Epistles of the Apostle Paul to the Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Titus, Philemon and Hebrews. Origen, apparently, did not comment on the Council Epistles and the Apocalypse, although he expressed his intention to explain the latter. c) Apologetic and polemical works of Origen. Origen tirelessly defended Church teaching against pagans and heretics. According to Eusebius and Theodoret, he wrote a refutation of all heresies, which is why the Philosophumena of Hippolytus was originally attributed to him. Of these works, the most remarkable is the great work directed against Celsus. The author himself calls his work, consisting of 8 books, like this: ριγένους τόμος ἀ ’. β '. γ ’ κτλ., later it was mostly called: κατà Κέλσου, contra Celsum. It is preserved in its entirety in the Greek text. Quite numerous manuscripts of this work, as far as is known, go back to one thing - the Vatican Codex of the 13th century. Large passages are also preserved in the Philocalia. It is directed against the work of the pagan philosopher Celsus Λόγος ἀληθής, written around the year 178. For more than half a century the latter remained unchallenged by Christians. And Origen himself took on this work reluctantly, only yielding to the insistence of his friend Ambrose, who encouraged him to refute the accusations and slander brought against Christianity. Origen himself held the view that false witnesses against Jesus are constantly coming forward, and as long as evil dwells in people, accusations against Him will be raised incessantly. But He is silent even now and does not respond with words, but rather defends itself with the life of His true disciples, which speaks loudly (Prooem., 2). The most convincing consideration for Origen was that among those who are considered believers, there are many who are shaken and led into error by the work of Celsus; but if, in a defensive work, the assertions of Celsus are overthrown, and truth is assisted in victory, then they will be strengthened in faith (ibid., 4). The apologist did not lose sight of those who are still alien to faith in Christ (6). According to Eusebius, Origen wrote books against Celsus during the reign of Philip the Arabian (244-249), when he was more than sixty years old. More specifically, the origin of this work is attributed (K. Neumann. Derrömische Staatund die allgemeine Kirche bis auf Diokletian I. Leipzig, 1890, S. 265 ff.) to the year 248 and the reason for it is the thousand-year anniversary of the Roman state: the increased well-being of paganism must be countered by an exhaustive apology for Christianity. Why was the form of refutation of a pagan work written around 178 chosen for such an apology in 248? In explanation of this, it is suggested that the anniversary provided an occasion to again put into circulation the work of Celsus, which contained the glorification of the pagan state religion (O. Bardenhewer. Geschichte der altkirchl. Literatur. Bd. 2 Freiburgi. Br., 1903, S. 128). Origen tried to conscientiously fulfill Ambrose's request and did not miss anything significant in the pagan's polemics, and if he released unimportant parts, such as long quotations and repetitions from Celsus, he usually clearly stipulated this. Origen's original plan was this: he wanted to first make for himself extracts from the work and at the same time make preliminary sketches of his objections, in order to then process them according to certain points of view and in a system. Using this method, he made extracts from the Introduction of Celsus's work and sketched out answers (1: 1-27), but then came to the idea, due to lack of time, to immediately give a detailed refutation of individual passages of Celsus. But he left the work he had done unchanged at the beginning of his work, although it no longer fit the new plan; In view of this, he considered it necessary to write another Preface, in which, noting the purpose of the entire work, he points out the change in method and asks for an apology for this. In the future (from 1:28) he follows his opponent step by step, breaks down his arguments, refutes his attacks. For the most part, he first cites the words of Celsus himself and then gives his objections. Thanks to this method, almost the entire work of Celsus has been preserved in Origen's work, about three-quarters of it in the original text. But for this, Origen had to completely abandon his own arrangement of the material, and most closely adhere to its division in Celsus. From here, according to the plan of the “True Word,” Origen’s Apology, except for the Introduction (1:1–27), is divided into four parts: 1) Refutation of the objections to Christianity made by Celsus on the basis of the Jewish missionary faith and put into the mouth of a Jew (1:26-2, 79); 2) Analysis of Celsus’s own refutations and ridicule of the messianic idea of ​​Judaism and his objections to the historical foundations of Christianity (3–5). 3) Defense of certain provisions of the Christian doctrine, which were attacked by Celsus (6–7:61), and 4) Refutation of Celsus's defense of the pagan state religion (7:62–8:71). Origen brought all his learning to the service of the apology of Christianity. He refutes Celsus with equal weapons and equal tactics. Rarely can he be found wrong; he never allows deceit in understanding the thoughts of his opponent in order to make it easier for himself to refute him. The tone of the apology is distinguished by a dignified calmness, due to the consciousness of the possession of a victorious truth and the spiritual superiority of the author himself. Origen combines in his work everything said in the previous apologies of Justin, Athenagoras, Theophilus and others. Some objections are refuted very briefly. Christian teaching is justified speculatively. He reveres Hellenic philosophy very highly, but for him it is only a preparatory step to the knowledge of the highest truth of Christianity, in the future victory of which he is firmly convinced. Origen's writings against heretics, or, more correctly, the transcripts of oral conversations with heretics, have been lost. From such conversations, various sources point to the following: 1) Questions (and conversations) to Beryl of Bostria - Σητήσεις ( καì διαλέξεις ) πρòς Βηρύλλου (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:33, 3; Hier. De vir. ill., 60). 2) In the fragment of the Epistle to the Friends of Alexandria (Epist. ad quosdam caros suos Alexandriani) preserved by Rufinus (Deadulter, libr. Orig.), Origen testifies that he had (probably in Athens) a dispute with a heretic, the protocols of which were subsequently distorted by his opponent: quae voluit addidit, et quae voluit abstulit et quod ei visum est permutavit. Based on the message of Jerome, borrowed from the same letter (Hier. Adv. Rufin, 2:18), apparently, one can think that this is the story of “dialogus Origenis et Candidi Valentinianae haereseos defensoris” (ibid., 2:19) or “dialogus adversus Candidum Valentiniam”. We do not have any information about Candida. The dispute between him and Origen revolved around the problem of the origin of the Son from the Father and the question whether the devil could be saved (Jerome, Adv. Rufin. 2:19). 3) Dialogue with Agnomon (?) Vass - Διάλογος πρòς τòν Ἀγνόμονα [or αγνόμονα Βάσσφ, in which Origen cites one place from the story of Susanna according to the Greek text of the book Daniel, known from the correspondence between Origen and Julius Africanus (Jul. Afric. Epist. Ad Orig., 1; Origenis, Epist. Ad Afric., 2). Agnomon could be another name for Vass, but it could also be a common noun - τòν ἀγνώμονα, slow-witted Vass. The reason and subject of the dispute is unknown. In addition, Epiphanius heard that Origen refuted the Manichaeans (Adv. haer., 66:21); Theodoret mentions (Haeret, fab. comp., 1:2) the writings of Origen against Menander, or his disciples, against Basilides and Isidore (1:4), against Hermogenes (1:19), Encratites (1:21), Marcionites (1:25), Nazarenes (2:2), Elkesaites (2:7), Nicolaitans (3:1). Finally, Pamphilus (Apologiapro Orig., praef. and 1) and Epiphanius (Adv. haer., 64:5) refer to the writings of Origen against heretics, without further defining them. But probably, for the most part, this indication should be attributed to individual polemical passages in various works of Origen that do not have a specifically anti-heretical character. d) Dogmatic works of Origen. The main and most important dogmatic work of Origen is περì ἀρχων - “On Principles,” that is, about the fundamental truths of the Christian doctrine. The origin of this work is probably in connection with the activities of Origen at the School of Alexandria, but if it was used here, it was only at the highest level, since the work presupposes a good preliminary philosophical education in its readers. The work consists of an Introduction and four books. In the Introduction, Origen indicates the plan and nature of the work. The foundation and source of all truth is the word of Christ and the Apostles. But since many of those who recognize themselves as believers in Christ disagree not only in the smallest and most insignificant, but also in the great and the greatest, it is necessary first of all to establish an exact boundary and a definite rule by which one can learn the teaching of Christ and the Apostles. Origen defines this criterion of truth in this way: “we must preserve the Church teaching, handed down from the Apostles through the order of succession and remaining in the Churches even to this day. One must believe only that truth which in no way deviates from the Church’s Apostolic Tradition” (De prine., praef., 2). But at the same time, it is also necessary to know that the Apostles, preaching the faith of Christ, about some subjects - exactly what they recognized as necessary - very clearly revealed to everyone, even to those who seemed relatively little active in the search for Divine knowledge; They left the foundation of their teaching to be found only by those who could deserve the highest gifts of the Spirit, and especially by those who were honored to receive from the Holy Spirit Himself the grace of word, wisdom and reason. About some objects the Apostles only said that they exist, but how or why? - they kept silent, of course, in such a way that the most zealous and loving of their successors could have an exercise and thus show the fruit of their minds (ibid., 3). In the same way, the teaching of the Church leaves a whole series of questions unanswered: many things are said quite definitely, but others are not mentioned at all, and others are not clearly and definitively decided (ibid., 5-10). On the basis of the normative teaching of the Apostles and the Church, it is necessary to create a comprehensive and complete edifice of the Christian doctrine: “whoever wants to build one organic whole on the basis of all this, it is enough to use these as elements and foundations in order, on the basis of clear and necessary provisions about each subject, to investigate what it really is, and to form a single organism from examples and provisions that he either finds in the Holy Scriptures or receives through correct inference” (ibid., 10). Thus, Origen sets himself the task of presenting a system of Christian truth, revealing and justifying the simple provisions of the Apostolic sermon and filling in the gaps in Church teaching with the help of correct conclusions regarding positive teaching. In the first book, Origen reveals the doctrine of God, His unity and spirituality, about God the Word and the Holy Spirit, about rational beings, about the world of spirits and the fall of spirits. The second book sets forth the doctrine of the visible world, its origin and preservation by God, about Revelation in the Old Testament, about the Incarnation and the essence of Christ, about the Holy Spirit and His activity, about the soul, the Resurrection, Judgment and promises. The third book is devoted to revealing the doctrine of human free will and its relationship to grace, the struggle between good and evil and the ultimate triumph of good. The fourth book talks about the Inspiration of Holy Scripture and the methods of interpreting it. In conclusion, Origen gives a brief outline of the whole truth. The very interpretation of individual issues for the most part proceeds in this order: first, individual provisions of the doctrine are briefly outlined, then they are covered in detail and defended in a philosophical and speculative way, and in the end a positive justification is given from the Holy Scriptures. The philosophical moment has predominant importance. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 6:24. 3), the work “On the Beginnings” was written by Origen “before his departure from Alexandria,” therefore, before the year 231. Some researchers (for example, Preuschen in RE 3 XIV, 480, following S. Fr. Schnitzer, Origenes über die Grundlehren der Glaubenswissenschaft. Stuttgart, 1835) prove that it was written between 212 and 215; but it is more likely that its origin dates back to the author’s more mature years, that is, before the year 230. Origen's work "On the Elements" was very important. It was the first attempt to present Christianity as an integral system. And Origen himself looked at his work as an experience and repeatedly expressed that others might be able to give better answers than he. Nevertheless, no one before Origen had dared to do anything like this and no one could do as he did. Without a doubt, Origen was guided by the intention of contrasting Church science with Gnosticism. And in some of the most important points, precisely in the teaching about the being of God, about the creation of the world, about the Divine-human personality of Christ, about human free will, he victoriously revealed the inconsistency of Gnostic dualism, emanatism and docetism. At the same time, he gave a system of Christian religious philosophy, which could be opposed to pagan systems. However, in this particular work, Origen held such views (the eternity or beginninglessness of the world, the pre-temporal existence of human souls, the final restoration of everything, including fallen spirits, and so on), which caused temptation in Church circles. Therefore, among the works of Origen, none of them caused such heated attacks as περì ἀρχάν. Pamphilus says that the books “On the Beginnings,” “quamplurima a calumniatoribus incusantur,” “maxime ab accusatoribus arquuntur” (Apol. pro Orig., praef. and 3). Jerome found in them more bad than good, plus mali, quam boni (Ep.85 ad Paulam, 3; compare: Ep.124). It is also believed that this work prompted the Bishop of Alexandria, Demetrius, to speak out against Origen. This circumstance was fatal for the text of the work περì ἀρχδν. In the original it has not reached us in its entirety. Only fragments have survived: two large fragments of the work, namely the beginning of the third and the beginning of the fourth book, are included in the Philocalia (chapters 1 and 21); brief quotations are also found in Justinian's edict against Origen in 543. Origen's admirer Rufinus of Aquileia decided to translate Origen's work into Latin, which he did in 397. But at the same time, he set himself a secondary goal - to justify Origen, whom he considered completely Orthodox, before the Western world. Rufinus considers those passages that aroused a suspicious attitude towards the Alexandrian teacher as inauthentic additions made by heretics; therefore, in his translation, according to his own considerations, he made changes to the text, eliminated contradictions, explained dark passages and weakened dogmatically suspicious ones, and, moreover, made insertions from other works of Origen - Rufinus himself speaks about this in his Preface to the translation. Therefore, this translation cannot replace the original. Jerome (see Er. 83–85), at the request of his friend Pammachius, contrasted Rufinus's translation with his own translation, which, according to him, was distinguished by its literal fidelity to the original text. Unfortunately, this translation shared the fate of the original: only a few passages from it have survived in the Epistle of Jerome to Avitus. Given this state of affairs, it is impossible to give definite answers to many of the questions that Origen’s work “On Elements” raises. In Alexandria, during the reign of Alexander Severus (222–235), Origen, according to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 6:24, 3), wrote ten books entitled “Stromata” (τούς ἐπιγεγραμμένους Στρωματει ς , ὅ νταςτòν ἀριθμόν δέκα ). Only minor fragments have survived from it (Migne. PG.11:99–108), recently supplemented by several scholia on I Corinthians, Romans, and James from the Athonite manuscript. From these remains it is difficult to even judge the content of the work. In this regard, Jerome’s remark seems valuable that Origen in the Stromata compared Christian teaching with the views of philosophers and tried to substantiate all the dogmas of our religion from Plato, Aristotle, Numerius and Cornutus (Er. 70, ad Magnum, 4; cf. Ep. 84, ad Pamm., 3). Perhaps the Stromatians included the extracts mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 6:18. 3) from pagan philosophers and critical remarks to them. Jerome places the "decimum Stromatum Librum" among the exegetical works of Origen. According to him, in the Ninth Book we were talking about a passage from Daniel (4:5~ff.) (Comm. in Dan. ad 4:5), in the Tenth Book - about seventy weeks: Dan. 9:24 ~v. (Comm. in Dan. ad 9:24) as well as “De Susannae et Belis fabulis” (ibid., ad 13:1). A significant part of the tenth book contained scholia on the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Galatians (Comm. In Gal., prol.; cf.: ibid., ad 5:13). These instructions of Jerome are confirmed in quotations from the Stromata in the Athos manuscript. Here four quotations from the fourth book of the Stromatus all refer to the first Epistle to the Corinthians; two quotations from the third book of the Stromatus explain the passage from the Epistle to the Romans. Origen himself points once to the explanation of a passage from the Gospel of Matthew given in the third book of Stromatus (Comm. In Iohn., 13:45). Thus, in the Stromata a significant place was devoted to scholia; but one can think that in their character these scholia differed from exegetical scholia in the proper sense, as well as from homilies and commentaries: they, without a doubt, had a dogmatic-philosophical imprint. In the essay “On the Beginnings,” meaning to talk about the Resurrection, Origen writes: “we have discussed this subject in detail in other books we have written about the Resurrection - there we expressed our view on this subject” (2:10, 1). Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 6:24, 2) reports that in his interpretation of the Lamentations of Jeremiah, Origen mentions books about the Resurrection - two in number. Jerome, in listing the works of Origen, calls “De resurrectione libros II” and adds “et alios de resurrectione dialogos II.” Jerome preserved the message of Theophilus of Alexandria that the dialogues were dedicated by Origen to his friend and patron Ambrose (Er. 92, 4; cf. Er. 96, 16). Later, “libri II” and “dialogi II” were combined into one work, divided into four books, so that Jerome could already talk about the four books of Origen “De resurrectione” (Contra Ioh. Hierosol., 25). “Libri II,” as can be seen from the message of Eusebius, was written in Alexandria before the essay “On the Beginnings” and the commentary on “Lamentations of Jeremiah”; therefore, until the year 230; The time of origin of the dialogues is unknown. Only fragments of these works have been preserved in Pamphilus (Apol. Pro Orig., 7), Methodius of Olympus (De resurrectione) and Jerome (Contra Iohan. Hierosol., 25–26). The work of Methodius of Olympus “On the Resurrection” is caused precisely by the content of Origen’s treatises and was written with the aim of refuting his views. d) Practical ascetic works of Origen. Those conditions that so unfavorably affected the fate of Origen’s exegetical and dogmatic works did not have an impact on his practical-ascetic creations: although they are not completely free from Origen’s original judgments, nevertheless, their themes provided little reason for a clear expression of the theological features in his teaching. Therefore, two practical ascetic works - “On Prayer” and “Exhortation to Martyrdom” were preserved entirely in the Greek text. They testify to the deep religious mood of the author and for later generations they served as a source of edification. although it is not listed in Jerome's list of Origen's works, its authenticity is not in doubt. The work was written as a result of the written request of Ambrose and his wife (or sister) Tatiana (De orat., 5:6) - its conclusion is addressed to them. It falls into two parts, of which in the first (1–17) the author talks about the meaning, benefit, necessity, power and effect of prayer. Angels, Christ, saints pray with us and for us. To the objection that prayer cannot make any change in the plan of Divine world government, Origen responds by explaining that God, in accordance with His omniscience, accepted into this plan both the factor of human freedom and all the good that He wanted to give through prayers. Against the objection that God Himself knows our needs and that from eternity He has invariably predetermined the fate of each of us, Origen speaks in great detail about the purpose, necessity and benefit of prayer. With particular force he points to the fact, confirmed by the Holy Scriptures and daily experience, that the elevation of the heart to God, the presentation of oneself in His presence, the God-fearing mood in themselves produce a sanctifying influence on all human activity. The content, nature and method of prayer are determined by the model given by the Lord Himself, and the second part (18-30) of the work is devoted to an explanation of the Lord's Prayer, and based on the features of the text in Matthew (6:9-13) and Luke (11:2-4), Origen is inclined to recognize two different prayers, very similar in their verbal expression. The explanation of the Lord's Prayer is distinguished by originality and deep thoughts. In conclusion (31–32), Origen returns to the explanations of the first part, supplementing them, and with references to Holy Scripture confirms his instructions about the mood, position of the person praying, time and place of prayer. General prayer in the Church and turning to the east are preferably recommended. Prayer must constantly contain four parts: doxology (δοξολογία), thanksgiving (εὐχαριστία), confession of sins (ἐξομολόγησις) and petition (αἴτησις); the prayer should begin and end with a doxology in honor of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Despite the exegetical thoroughness and the abundance of the philosophical element, the work is filled with edifying thoughts in an original form and is imbued with a spirit of genuine piety; it is rightly called “the pearl between all the works of the Alexandrian” (G. Kruger. Gesch. der altchristl. Litterat. S. 124). The work was written after the year 231, since it assumes that a commentary on the book of Genesis (23) had already been compiled, and could be in the 233rd (234th) year. The intention expressed at the end of the work (chapter 34) to further explain the Lord's Prayer in a more beautiful, sublime and clear way was not realized by Origen. Εἰς μαρτόριον προτρεπτικός (that is, λόγος) - “Exhortation to martyrdom” - among the ancient witnesses it is simply called “On martyrdom”, demartyrio: Pamph., Apol. pro Orig., 8; Περì μαρτυρίου (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:28; cf.: Hier. De vir. ill., 56). The reason for compiling this work was the persecution of Maximin the Thracian, which broke out in the year 235 and affected the circle of Origen’s acquaintances. It is addressed to Ambrose and Protoctitus, elders of the Church of Caesarea in Palestine. Both of them were captured and imprisoned. Origen convinces us that firmness in suffering is the duty of a true Christian. The martyr glorifies God with his death and achieves eternal glory: the suffering of martyrdom is awarded an indescribable reward and it itself is an expiatory means for one’s own and, perhaps, other people’s sins; in general, the work is an animated hymn to martyrdom. It was written hastily, which is reflected in the external side of the work - it lacks strict consistency in the arrangement of thoughts, but it is rich in edifying, strongly expressed thoughts and warmed with a warm feeling. Origen maintained extensive correspondence with various individuals. His letters were collected into collections. Eusebius mentions one of these collections, in which there were more than a hundred letters (Hist. eccl., 6:36. 3). In the listing of Origen's works there is an indication of “Epistolarum eius ad diversos libri IX”; two other collections are also named here - a collection of Origen’s letters: “Aliarum epistolarum libri II”, and a collection of letters to Origen and about Origen: “Excerpta Origenis et diversarum ad eum epistolarum libri II; epistolae synodorum super sausa Origenis in libro secundo.” But of all Origen’s letters, only two have survived in their entirety. a) “Epistle to Julius Africanus”, Ἑ πιστολὴ πρòς Ἀφρικανòν - caused by critical doubts that Julius Africanus expressed in a letter to Origen regarding the story of Susanna in the book of the prophet Daniel (13: 1–64) according to the LXX translation, to which Origen made reference in one conversation. Julius Africanus pointed out that this story, as well as the one set out in the next chapter - about the god Bel and the dragon, is not in the Hebrew text of the book of the prophet Daniel, and that neither on philological nor on factual grounds this section can be the original component of the book, and cannot be considered canonical. Origen, in a detailed response with very rich scientific argumentation, defends the authenticity and canonical dignity of both narratives, as well as the prayers of Azariah and the songs of the three youths. All these parts appear not only in the text of LXX, but also in Theodotion, and throughout the entire Church of Christ they enjoy constant recognition. The Church has determined the scope of the Old Testament canon and offers believers the authentic book of Daniel. A Jewish original of the story of Susanna is not excluded, but the passage may have been omitted by the Jews due to its content. Origen did not find any historical contradictions with the prevailing relations during the Babylonian exile; prophetic Revelations are of various kinds, and philological difficulties do not matter. The letter was written during Origen's short stay in Nicomedia with Ambrose around 240. b) “Epistle to Gregory the Wonderworker”, πρòς Γρηγόρων ἐπιστολή - written around 238 to Origen’s former student Gregory, later Bishop of Neocaesarea, who “according to his talents promised to be a capable lawyer and an outstanding philosopher.” Origen urges Gregory to remain faithful to his Christian calling and to value the philosophical sciences only as a propaedeutic (προπαιδεύματα) to Biblical-Theological studies, just as the humanities serve as a preparation for philosophy. Secular sciences, depending on their use, can bring both benefit and harm. Just as the Israelites, when leaving Egypt, took with them treasures and clothing to use them to make church vessels and sanctuary decorations, so secular sciences can serve to build and decorate the house of God. But often they also lead to abuse, just as the Israelites’ stay in Egypt also had a harmful side, leading to sin and idolatry, when they applied the learned art to the construction of golden calves. Out of his fatherly love for Gregory, Origen exhorts him to continue reading and studying the Holy Scriptures, the understanding of which requires prayer according to the word of the Lord, “Ask and it will be given to you.” Only fragments of Origen's other letters survive. The loss of Origen's complete letters undoubtedly deprives us of one of the most valuable sources for Church history of the third century, as well as for the history of the life of Origen himself. In concluding the review of Origen's literary works, it is necessary to mention some works about which it is difficult to make any definite judgment. a) Jerome, in the preface to his work “Liber interpretationis hebraieorum nominum,” states that Philo of Alexandria compiled an etymological lexicon of Hebrew proper names of the Old Testament and that Origen supplemented this work with an explanation of the proper names of the New Testament. The named work of Jerome represents the Latin adaptation of the works of both Alexandrians. But neither Eusebius nor the enumeration of Origen’s works mention such a work of his. b) Victor of Capua (in Scholia veterum Patrum), Anatoly of Alexandria (in: De ratione paschali) report that Origen wrote an essay “On Easter”, in which he provided material for calculating the time of Easter celebration. Both writers cite excerpts from this work, which has not survived in its entirety. III. 3. Basic provisions of Origen’s Theological System The East hardly knew a greater theologian who would have had such a profound influence on subsequent Christian thinkers than Origen. Standing at the height of education of his time, possessing multifaceted and thorough knowledge, endowed with a truly scientific sense, he reached the highest peaks of human speculation, truthful and sincere, courageous in spirit, always looking straight into the face of the difficulties encountered and never shying away from them, knowing the extent of doubt and not imposing his opinion on issues open to free research. Capable of synthesis, he was indeed the first great professor, the first great preacher, the first great writer on spiritual subjects, the first great commentator, the first great dogmatist that the Church had (Ch. Bigg. The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, Oxford, 1886, p. 115). He knew well all the philosophical systems of antiquity and used them; but he himself was neither original nor creator in philosophy. Origen shared with Clement not only the main philosophical direction in the understanding of religion, but to a certain extent also the assumption that Christianity and Hellenism agree with each other on the main points. But unlike Clement, Origen was a methodologically researching scientist. On the one hand, he understood both the philosophical and biblical foundations of Christian Science more deeply than Clement; on the other hand, he reveals, to an incomparably greater degree than is observed in Clement, sensitivity to Church teaching and a desire for the Church correctness of his theology. Origen more accurately and clearly represents the difficulties that had to be encountered on the path of combining the Hellenic and Christian worldviews. But he strictly strove to overcome them, in which he was helped by his most sincere and deep conviction in the internal unity of ancient idealism and the Christian religion. Therefore, he was precisely able to perceive and process the results of Greek idealistic philosophy, as well as to assimilate, develop and combine into a system everything that had been developed by Christian Science before him. A significant drawback of all scientific theological works of the period preceding Origen was not only the absence of a Theological system, but also the seeming absence of a clear consciousness of its necessity. Only those points of Church teaching that needed to be advanced or defended were revealed; therefore, Theology has always had a partial, fragmentary character. The synthesis of Church teaching was represented only by symbols, in which believers found in a compressed form everything that they should believe in; outside of these formulas, simple and popular, there were only Gnostic systems. Even Clement, who introduced philosophical principles into the discussion of the very content of Christian teaching, does not reveal an awareness of the need to group individual elements of the teaching into a harmonious system. Origen was the first among Christian thinkers to put forward the idea of ​​theological synthesis and implement it, creating on the basis of the Holy Scriptures and Church tradition a philosophical and theological system that embraces the entire content of the Church faith, established the basic principles of the Church scientific Theology and took a decisive step towards the “churchization” of classical science. He resolved the great problem that was persistently presented to Christian thinkers before him, and towards the solution of which significant steps were taken, preparing the ground for the case of Origen. Clement did especially much to develop those essential foundations on which his student Origen became the father of Theological Science in the proper sense of the word and at the same time the founder of that Theology, which reached its development in the 4th and 5th centuries. Origen took advantage of the advice of previous theologians to comprehend the content of Christianity and philosophically substantiate it and give the development of Christian Theology an independent meaning, independent of polemical goals. Greek religious philosophy and, in general, the forms and methods of modern science were supposed to serve not only as a means to refute paganism, Gnosticism and heretical movements within the Church itself, but at the same time as a means to create a scientific Christian religious teaching, a scientific system that would not contradict the Church’s faith, but would rely on it, clarify and elevate it into the spiritual realm. On the unchanging basis of the rule of faith there must be a construction: the organic whole of Christian gnosis - partly through the study of the Holy Scriptures, partly through logical conclusions (De princip., praef., 10), and thus a system must be created that would embrace the beginnings of all existence and all the mysteries of the world and solve them from the Christian-ecclesiastical point of view. Thus, Origen achieved, at least in appearance, a reconciliation of science with the Christian faith, a higher culture with the Gospel on the basis of Church teaching. In his work περì ἀρχω ν, he gave the first experience of a systematic presentation of Theology as a science, where it is clear: he correctly established the principles of scientific Theology, which for him are determined by three points: a) Recognition of Holy Scripture as the source of Church Theology, b) Inviolable observance of Church teaching and the unconditional obligation to conform to it and c) Free development of theological speculation on this basis The Holy Scriptures for Origen were the primary source of revealed truth; he revered it, studied it tirelessly and strived with all his might to penetrate into its true meaning. He does not express a single position without trying to substantiate it on the Holy Scriptures. Numerous quotations from Scripture are not explained by Origen’s vanity, but correspond to the high importance that he assimilated to the Holy Scriptures. The interpretation of Holy Scripture for him was the beginning and the end of theology. He believed that the task of Theology was to comprehend spiritual Christianity on the basis of the Holy Scriptures, and to elevate faith to the level of knowledge and contemplation; this is achieved through the allegorical method of interpreting Holy Scripture, which makes it possible to know the highest Revelation of God and at the same time combine the data of Church teaching with the conclusions of ancient philosophy. Origen was the first to elevate the traditions of the widespread and, one might say, already granted citizenship rights in Christian literature, to the allegorical-mystical method of explaining the Holy Scriptures into a scientific system (De princip., 6:11~sq.). Scripture has a threefold meaning. According to the composition of the person himself: somatic or literal, mental or moral, pneumatic or spiritual. A simple believer, says Origen, should be edified, as it were, by the flesh of Scripture: this is what we call the most accessible meaning - someone who is somewhat perfect should be edified, as it were, by his soul, and an even more perfect one should be edified by the spiritual law, which contains in itself the shadow of future blessings. Somatically-historically; meaning must be sought everywhere first of all. But there are passages of Scripture that do not have a physical meaning - in them one must look only for the soul and the Spirit: this must be said regarding such passages, the literal understanding of which leads to ideas that contradict the essence of God, morality, the laws of nature or reason. Such passages are found not only in the Old Testament, but also in the New. These temptations, stumbling blocks and inconsistencies, are intended to encourage a deeper study of Scripture. Lest anyone think that Origen completely denies the historical understanding of Holy Scripture, he decisively declares: in some narratives we recognize historical truth (4:19). Mental meaning is of a moral nature; Especially in the Old Testament, most of the stories have a moral content, which is easy to determine by removing history as a cover - in some places you can stop there. The pneumatic sense - some passages have only this sense - leads to fundamental ideas, which, once achieved, are clear with immediate evidence and, so to speak, completely pass into the spirit of the theologian, because through their mediation he ultimately achieves contemplation. If a Gnostic rises to this level, then he can already reject all the leaders who brought him to this height. He is internally connected with the Logos and from this connection he draws everything he needs. The psychic and pneumatic sense are not always easily distinguished from one another: however, from the general considerations of Origen and the examples he gives, it can be concluded that the psychic or moral sense is applied to the relations of the private and individual soul to God and to the moral law, while the pneumatic sense has a wider scope and is applied to the sacraments of the Universal Church and its history, to the future world and to heaven. How did Origen justify this allegorism? First of all, the practical impossibility of understanding literally some of the narrations of Holy Scripture, then the authority and example of the Apostle Paul (De princip., 4:13). But he had a more general basis for this, namely, his idealism, due to which he sees the real and eternal only in the idea; everything related to the temporal and material has no meaning for Origen. Hence all visible nature is essentially a symbol of the invisible world, and each individual is an image of an idea or supersensible fact (In Cant. Cantic. lib. III, vers. 9; In Levit, hom. 5:1). Just as man is created in the image of God, so every being is, as it were, an image of a higher reality. The crowd, unable to comprehend these realities, must accept symbols that do not directly bring it into relation with these realities; but it is characteristic of the perfect Christian to pass through these images and go to the secrets that they cover (I. Tixeront, Histoirededogmes. I, 282-283). As you can see, the idea is very lofty, but extremely dangerous, since it allowed, under the pretext of a deeper meaning, to eliminate the letter of Scripture, to preserve or sacrifice, at will, the historical part. And only in the New Testament canon and Church tradition did Origen have a corrective that gave him the opportunity not only to condemn the excesses of Gnostic exegesis, but even to at least partially avoid them. Further, Origen decisively asserts that we must preserve the Church teaching, handed down from the Apostles through the order of succession and remaining in the Churches even to this day, and that only that truth must be believed that in no way deviates from the Church and Apostolic tradition (De princip., praef., 2). The limits set for speculation by the Holy Scriptures and Church teaching are of absolute importance for Origen and should not be crossed. But Origen’s activity belongs to a time when the dogmas had not yet been precisely defined and formulated by the Church, and although the main points of Church teaching were quite clear, a definite decision had not yet been given in relation to others, hardly unimportant. Origen was clearly aware of this state of affairs and in the introduction to his work “On the Principles” he presented a remarkable attempt to indicate the truths that the holy Apostles clearly revealed to everyone, in contrast to those about which the Apostles only said that they exist, but how and why? - they remained silent. Among questions that are not fully addressed, Origen mentions the following: Is the Holy Spirit begotten or unbegotten? Should He be considered the Son or not? Does the soul come from the seed, so that its essence is contained in the bodily seeds itself, or does it have some other beginning, and this very beginning is born or unborn, or perhaps the soul enters the body from the outside? About the devil and his angels - what are they and how do they exist? What happened before this world and what will happen after it? Are God and spirits ἀσ ώ ματα and in what sense? In the field of subjects of the latter kind, where neither Holy Scripture nor the Church gives an absolutely binding definition, Origen considered it completely legitimate to follow the free process of his own thoughts, under the supreme control of the sources and authorities of Church teaching. But for such a sublime thinker, imprinted with an outstanding individuality, inspired by an ardent enthusiasm for the truth and a steady desire to express it in terms of modern culture, it was difficult to always comply with the established limits of research, under the conditions in which he developed the Theological-philosophical system of Church teaching. Origen, who correctly established the principles of theological science, himself did not actually remain a traditionalist faithful to Scripture: his extensive philosophical education determined him to a higher degree than the Holy Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church. Although Origen rarely quotes pagan authors in his works - with the exception of his essay against Celsus - a thorough acquaintance with the works and thoughts of pagan philosophers is everywhere revealed very clearly, and Origen’s entire system shows the serious influence of philosophical elements on it - his dogma, especially the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, represents, as it were, two orders of ideas - Church-traditional and philosophical. Revolving in areas of questions of extreme importance and difficulty, Origen came to some conclusions that could not be reconciled with the general Church consciousness. Origen himself exhorts in theological work to begin with the heavenly and, gradually moving from it, to end with the material or evil spirits (In Ioh. 10:18. 106). This is how his περì ἀρχω ν is essentially constructed, at the head of which is an exposition of the doctrine of God. The beginning of all things is God, the eternal, pure, completely simple, unchangeable Spirit. Everything that exists exists only as a product of the One, and is good to the extent that it has its essence from the One, Who is perfection and goodness. He is above the essence (ἐπέκεινα οὐσίας); He is μονàς and, so to speak, ἐνàς. As the One, He is opposed to many, but order in many ways points to the One. As a truly existing one, He is opposed to a ghostly and disappearing being, which does not have its own principle in itself. God, as an absolutely immaterial, spiritual, is opposed to the spiritual, which is associated with the material. As free from all materiality, He is not limited by space and time. Accordingly, He is incomprehensible, invaluable, dispassionate and all-content. But on the other hand, this principle of the world is thought of as personal. Traditional concepts of God as the Creator, Almighty and Ruler of the world introduce a more living feature into the abstract philosophical idea of ​​God, and, despite the extreme abstraction in defining the essence of God, Origen affirms self-consciousness and will in Him. It is undeniable that in this respect he clearly differs from the Greek philosophers. At the same time, Origen tries to eliminate all anthropomorphic features from his teaching about God; thus, the heart of God is His spiritual power: anger is not an affect, but a revelation of His power towards the ungodly. Origen explains in particular detail - like Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian - against the Marcionites the properties of the goodness and righteousness of God; grace and righteousness are not two opposite properties in God, but identical: God rewards in righteousness and punishes in goodness (Contra Ceis., 2:20). Since the mind of man is to some extent akin to God and serves as a mental image of Him, therefore it is he who can know something about the nature of the Divine, especially if he is pure and detached from bodily matter (De princip., 1: 1, 7). From the perfect goodness of God and omnipotence for Origen it follows that God reveals Himself, communicates; and since He is unchangeable, He always reveals Himself; therefore, the eternal, that is, beginningless communication of perfection to other beings is a postulate of the concept of God. Thus, God, containing in the most perfect unity all the fullness of His definitions, by His very being presupposes the existence of the Word - the Son, in whom He reveals Himself. The Son is the Mediator between the absolute God and the finite world, Who, on the one hand, in separate, complete certainty, reveals in Himself to the world each of the properties of the Father and, on the other hand, by His very being brings into being everything that exists. This mediation was necessary because God, as an unchangeable unity, could not be the foundation of a creation disintegrating into plurality. Therefore, the Word must be considered as a creative principle penetrating the world of the rational. Everything that exists has received its reality through this ever-governing creative principle. Since God eternally reveals Himself, the Mediator of Revelation must also be eternal. It forms a bridge between ἀγένητος and γενητà. Only through Him can the incomprehensible and incorporeal God be known, since He is the visible image of this mind. Logos - the Son, being the perfect image of God, is His wisdom, a reflection of His perfection and glory; therefore there is nothing corporeal in Him. He is truly God, and immutability belongs to Him, that is, He can never lose His Divine essence and can neither add to it nor take away from it; although it should be noted that in Him this immutability is not independent: He is perfect, as a reflection of the perfection of the Father. The Son is God not by virtue of external communion (κατì μετουσίαν), as if He, in addition to the Divinity, also has an independent essence, but the Divinity constitutes His essence (κατ ’ οὐσίαν ἐστì θέος). From this it follows that the Son possesses the essence of God the Father and therefore is ὁμοούσιος τω @ πατρì. Origen also uses the term ὀμοούσως (In: Epist. Ad Hebr., fragm.: Migne. PG 14, 1308) in the sense of the identity οὐσία or φύσις, which exists between steam and water, ray and light, children and parents. But if the Son is one with the Father, then He, however, is not an impersonal force, but actually personally existing, a special Hypostasis. It should not be accepted with monarchians that the Father and the Son are not different numerically, and are one not only in essence, but also in subject, differing only in conception, and not in Hypostasis. Origen, on the contrary, teaches that the Father and the Son are two Hypostases, but there is one God. The Son, therefore, really distinct from the Father, is not created, but begotten; The Son was not born through separation from the Father, as some think. After all, if the Son is the separation (prolatio) of the Father - separation means such a birth as usually happens in animals or in people, then both the produced (qui prolatus est) and the one who produced (qui protulit) must necessarily be a body. We do not say as the heretics think - we do not say that some part of the Father's substance was converted into the Son, or that the Son was created by the Father from non-existent things, that is, apart from the essence (extra substantiam) of the Father, so that there was once (a time) when (the Son) was not; but, having removed all thought from the invisible and incorporeal and the corporeal, we say that “the Word and Wisdom were born without any bodily suffering, as the desire to come from thought” (De princip., 4:28). Decisively eliminating from the concept of the birth of the Son the slightest hint of the sensual nature of this act and the division of the Father’s being into parts, Origen at the same time tries to prevent the thought of applying temporal conditions to it. The Son was always with God and there was no time when He was not (De princip., 1, 2, 9). To say that there was once (a time) when the Son did not exist means, in fact, to assert that there was once a time when there was no truth, when there was no wisdom, when there was no life, since in all this the essence of God the Father is perfectly conceived. But this is not enough: Origen teaches that the birth of the Son is not only eternal, but also uninterrupted (De princip., 1, 2, 4), that the Son is not just γεννητòς, but ἀεì γεννητο. The Son is born eternally and this act is always and eternally performed (InIerem., 9:4). “Being” for the Son means “being born” and, thus, it cannot be said of the Son that He was “born”: He is eternally born of the Father. Consequently, the Son is coeternal with the Father: the Son is the radiance of eternal light, and light necessarily always shines (In Ep.ad Rom., 1:5). How the birth of the Son from the Father takes place, Origen does not find it possible to say anything about this: “the birth of the Son is something exceptional and worthy of God; for him no comparison can be found, not only in things, but also in thought and in the mind, so that human thought cannot understand how the unbegotten God becomes the Father of the only begotten Son” (De princip., 1, 2, 4). But affirming the doctrine of the unity of the essence of the Divine Hypostases and their equality in expressions characteristic of the Orthodox Theologians of a later era, Origen expresses another series of thoughts that limit those outlined and cites and justifies such relationships of the Divine Persons that give his Theology a suborbital character, although it must be said that his point of view absolutely excluded the Arian teaching. The Son, without a doubt, is one being with the Father, but possesses him less fully than the Father: the Divine essence in Him is, as it were, weakened, reduced, because it is communicated. The Son is God, but only as the image of the Father: he is neither ὁ θεός, nor αὐτόθεος, but simply θεός, δεύτερος θεός. All Divine properties are inherent in Him in a different form than the Father, and the Son in Divinity is not what the Father is: He is not αὐτοαγαθόν, ἀπλω ς ἀγαθός, ἀπαράλλακτως ἀγαθός, but only εἰκ ὼ ν ἀγαθότητος. As a special Hypostasis, which in God has its own πρω τον αἴτιον, the Son is αἴτνατόν. As the completeness of ideas, as containing in Himself all the forms that must be realized, the Son is not absolutely simple, like the Father. He is the first step in the transition from the one to the many, and His being, as the bearer of the world idea, is in an internal relationship to the world. In His activity He is the Father’s υ περέτης, fulfilling His commands; but it extends only to rational beings (ἐπìμόνατàλογικά). In a word, He is God, but lower than the Father: θεόν κατà τòν τω ν ὃ λων θεόν καìπατέρα. Even prayers should not be addressed to Him in the proper and absolute sense: they are addressed to Him because He is God, but so that He, as the High Priest, brings them to the Father. This hesitation of Origen between the most energetic affirmation of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father and the indicated sharp limitations becomes understandable if we pay attention to the connection of Origen’s thoughts: from the point of view of man, the Word is exalted: both God and we recognize the Divine, revealed in Christ, as a revelation of the Divinity; but from the point of view of God, the Son is a Hypostasis determined by Him and subordinate to Him. Following the rule of faith, Origen places the Holy Spirit next to the Father and the Son: “The apostles,” he says, “told that in relation to honor and dignity the Holy Spirit participates in the Father and the Son” (De princip. praed., 4). This is preached with complete clarity in the Churches, as well as the fact that it was this Spirit who inspired each of the saints - both the Apostles and the Prophets - that one and the same, and not a different Spirit, was in the ancients and in those who were inspired at the Coming of Christ (ibid.). But the data of Holy Scripture and Tradition did not make it possible to clearly discern whether the Holy Spirit was born or not, but either consider Him the Son of God or not (ibid.). Origen himself affirms the Divinity of the Holy Spirit and considers Him to be the third Hypostasis of the Divine Essence and, accordingly, speaks of Him by analogy with the Son, although philosophically he does not clarify the internal necessity and meaning of this Hypostasis in the Trinity. The Holy Spirit came into existence through the Son and relates to the Son as the Son relates to the Father, that is, He is subordinate to the Son. “However,” says Origen, “we have not yet reached a single saying in Holy Scripture where the Holy Spirit is called a creature” (De princip., 1, 3. 3). The range of activity of the Holy Spirit is much more limited than the activity of the Son. Origen says: “The Son is less than the Father, because He is Second from the Father; The Holy Spirit is lower than the Son and dwells in the saints. In this order, the power of the Father is greater than the power of the Son and the Holy Spirit; the power of the Son, in turn, is greater than the power of the Holy Spirit, and, consequently, the power of the Holy Spirit is greater than the power of other beings called saints.” “God and the Father, containing everything, influences every being, imparting to each being from His own being, for He is the existent. Less than the Father is the Son, whose activity extends only to rational beings, for He is second from the Father. Even less is the Holy Spirit, who acts only on the saints” (De princip., 1, 3, 5), that is, on the Church. The activity of the Holy Spirit is to make beings who are not holy by nature holy through His communion (De princip., 1, 3, 8). If the Son is God's wisdom, then the Spirit is His holiness (Inepist. Ad Rom. 8:12); if the Father gives existence to everything, the Son gives rationality, then the Spirit gives holiness (De princip., 1, 3, 8). One of the characteristic features of Origen's teaching is his affirmation of creation from eternity. He came to this through the following considerations: “Just as no one can be a father if there is no son, and no one can be a master without possession, without a slave, so God cannot be called omnipotent if there are no beings over whom He would exercise power; and therefore for the Revelation of Divine omnipotence everything must exist. If anyone thinks that there were ever centuries or stretches of time, or anything else of the same kind, when what was created was not yet created, then, without a doubt, he will show that in those centuries or stretches of time God was not omnipotent, and only became omnipotent later, when beings appeared over whom he could rule; and this in turn would mean that God experienced some improvement and moved from a worse state to a better one, since being omnipotent for Him is undoubtedly better than not being so” (De princip., 1, 2, 10). Thus, the eternity of Divine omnipotence, in connection with the immutability of God, seems to Origen incompatible with the assumption of a time when nothing existed except God - the object of actual omnipotence must really, and not just ideally, exist from eternity. Creation is after God only in the causal sense, but not in the temporal sense. Primordial and, so to speak, co-eternal with God is the world of spirits; but these spirits are not entirely pure, since they are clothed in some kind of body - ethereal and subtle - in general, Origen, outside the Holy Trinity, does not recognize the existence of spirits that are absolutely free from all matter and body. These spirits are all created with equal abilities and gifts, since their initial communication with the Logos excludes any difference. All of them are endowed with moral freedom, inseparable from existence, with a completely equal opportunity to choose between good and evil. But they were given different tasks, and the course of their development was determined accordingly: they themselves had to become the culprits of their condition, and the measure of their free self-improvement made the difference between them. Not all of them remained equally faithful to God. Thus, their fall occurred, which is actually the cause of the actual existence of the universe. The spiritual world, depending on the degree of distance from God, received different materiality. The highest spirits became Angels, the Heavenly Powers with their rank, as degrees and functions corresponding to their merits; others, clothed in luminous matter, became the sun, moon and stars, others, still cooled as a result of moving away from God, became human souls (ψυχή from ψύχω - to cool) - coarser material bodies were necessary for their existence, others, finally, decisively falling away from God, became demons and received indescribably vile bodies, although invisible, but very dark. Consequently, people stand between angels and demons - both try to attract them to themselves. The moral struggle that a person endures within himself is made difficult by demons and made easier by angels. According to Origen's theory, it turned out that the world of spirits is eternal and infinite, while Church teaching speaks of the beginning and end of the world. Reconciling the resulting contradiction, Origen accepts the eternal world process, in which the sensory worlds, successively replacing each other, constitute separate stages. Thus, the world is eternal in the totality of all worlds, united by the identity of their constituent substances, but temporary in the individuality of each of them. In this eternal spiritual process of development, the material world has no essential significance: it owes its emergence only to the falling away of spirits from God. God created it out of nothing to educate fallen spirits. This is how Origen resolves the question of the origin of the material world and the evil in it, a question that occupied such a significant place in Gnostic systems. The material world is brought into existence by disorder in the higher finite world, by the falling away of spirits from unity with God. Evil was introduced into the world by the free will of created beings. The present world is a court, and world history is becoming a world court. Depending on what someone was like in pre-peaceful existence, the place and conditions of birth are indicated to him. From this it is clear that there is endless diversity in the world - it depends on this or that use of freedom. But God shows by this both His righteousness and His goodness: everyone is rewarded according to their deserts; Creatures who have sinned are doomed to suffer in the world; their earthly life is deserved by them and is a moral and physical necessity; they suffer because they themselves have personally sinned, they just don’t remember it, but their punishment is completely deserved. These basic views about the origin of the world order were naturally reflected in the anthropology and Christology of Origen. The history of mankind in the great world history represents only a part, and man does not occupy a central position in the system of the universe; but in its history the same principles of Divine salvation are realized as in the whole world process. In his doctrine of man, Origen is a trichotomist: the main component of man is the rational soul, which has fallen from the higher world; through the animal soul it is united with the body. This composition of a person determines the constant struggle within him. If a person wins this struggle, then he achieves Godlikeness - he indelibly bears the image of God in an indestructible, rational and therefore immortal spirit, cooled to a spiritual state. From Origen’s teaching on the origin of the world and man it clearly follows that all people are sinners, since their souls sinned even in pre-worldly existence; sin grounds the entire earthly existence of man. Therefore, even a child would be sinful if he lived even just one day. But if sinful defilement is universal, then it must at the same time be stated as a universal fact that man follows his evil inclinations and daily allows evil to happen: Rom. 1:1). Under the influence of lust, bad examples and the demon, sin takes root, multiplies and takes over everything in a person. Human suffering on earth serves not only as a punishment for sins, but also as a means to Salvation. The mediator of Salvation and Redemption is the Word-Christ, the great King of the world, who heals some, enlightens others, and strikes others with earthly sorrows. But, in addition to the constant revelations in the history of mankind, He appeared on earth as a man in an extraordinary way. His human soul was created from the beginning together with other spirits, and its fate was decided in pre-peaceful existence: among all the created finite spirits, only the soul of Jesus inseparably and inseparably abided in the Word of God and, perceiving Him with its whole being, became one spirit with Him. Having first united with God the Word by free choice, the soul of Jesus converted this unity through a long habit of goodness into the second nature and, as a result of continuous and fiery unity with the Word of God, acquired immutability and became incapable of sin. To save us, the Word united with the soul and through the soul (De princip., 2:6. 3) united with the body, but with a beautiful and perfect body, since every soul has a body, which it deserves and which is in accordance with the task set before it; it was pure and holy and created by God. In this way the soul could perceive the Word, and the body could perceive the soul - through this it became possible that θεάνθρωπος (deus-homo) was born. The soul that enters the body created in the Virgin Mary brings with it the Word of God. But if the Son of God constitutes the content of this soul, then it is clear that it, together with the body with which it stands in close connection, is rightly called the Son of God, the power of God, Christ and God's Wisdom, and, conversely, the Son of God is called Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, and it is said that the Son of God died, and he who is to come in the glory of His Father with the holy Angels is called the Son of Man (ibid.). Thus, “The Son of God, desiring for the salvation of the human race to appear to people and to communicate among people, took on not only a human body, as some think, but also a soul - in nature, of course, similar to our souls, but in disposition and virtue similar to Himself - such a soul that could unswervingly fulfill all the desires and orders of the Word and Wisdom” (De princip., 4:31). Jesus was born of a virgin; His birth was real. He accepted our weaknesses, our infirmities: Jesus Christ is and remains truly human in the Incarnation. On the other hand, the Word has not changed, has not lost anything of what It was (τῇ οὐσί ᾳ μένων λόγος) (Contra Celsum 4:15). It follows that in Christ there are two natures: Divine and human, that He is God and man (In Ioh. 10:6. 24), in Him there is Divine and human ὑπόστασις (In Ioh. 32:16. 192), and each of the natures retains its own peculiarity - “In Christ the nature of His Divinity is a different matter, because He is the only begotten Son God, and another thing is human nature, which He took on in the last time according to the economy” (De princip., 1: 2. 1). But the word of God became one (ἐν) with the soul and body of Jesus (Contra Celsum 1:66). Trying to define this unity more precisely, Origen compares it with the combination of iron and fire in red-hot iron. Between both natures there is not only κοινωνία, but ἐνωσις and ἀνάκρασις, so that body and soul become involved in the Divine and are deified, εἰς θεòν μεταβεβληκεναι (Contra Celsum 3:41; De princip., 2:5. 6). Origen conceives this connection as spiritual, mystical, and “deification” does not have a physical nature. In a number of places, Origen speaks of the supernatural physical properties of the body of Jesus: if He was born as is narrated in the Gospel, then His body must have more Divine in It than other bodies. This especially applies to the body of Jesus Christ after His Resurrection. When Jesus suffered and died, His soul preached in hell. Then He was resurrected bodily. After the Resurrection, His body had such properties that it represented something akin to the previous sensory composition and the state of the soul freed from the body (Contra Celsum 2:62), therefore it was even invisible. Now begins the process of deification of the body of Jesus: rose from the dead and deified the assumed human nature (In Matt., 33). This process glorifies and elevates human nature, which through this becomes one with the Word; the body seems to completely disappear and plunge into the Divine: Tuno homotuit, nunch omo esse cessavit. Like the Divine, the body becomes omnipresent: He (Jesus) Himself is everywhere and permeates everything, and we should no longer imagine Him in the humiliation that He accepted for our sake, that is, in the limitation that He had in our body on Earth, being among people, we should not think that He is confined in any one place (In Luc. hom. 19; In Jerem. hom. 15:6, In Ioh. 32:17; Deprincip., 2:11. 6). However, these expressions do not exclude the continued existence of humanity in Christ: it is exalted and glorified, the man Jesus, after the Resurrection, receives power over heaven and earth, since He is united with the Divinity of the Word. He became one with the Son of God, although the human mind is not able to understand the method of this union (Inepist. ad Rom. 1:6). Origen considers the work of Jesus Christ on Earth comprehensively and in his comments he had the opportunity to highlight all its results. Jesus Christ is our Lawgiver, the Moses of the New Law: He appeared as a righteous teacher, a physician of sinners, a model of perfection, the imitation of which leads to participation in the Divine life. But especially He appeared as our Redeemer and Sacrifice for our sins. In this regard, Origen's answer to the question of who received the ransom for humanity is interesting. Origen considers the death of Christ from the point of view of a ransom from the power of the devil and demons, a reconciling sacrifice made to God and the cleansing of people from sins, their intercession with the Father. Through sin, people were betrayed to the devil, became his slaves, his property. To redeem us, Jesus Christ gave the devil His life, His soul, as λύτρον. The devil agreed to this exchange, but was deceived, since he could not keep the pure soul of Christ, and, however, for the ransom he had to free the man (In Matt. 16:8). Thus, human souls, even those in hell, became free from the power of the devil and his demons. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is universal: not only do all men - to the end of the world - find their Savior in Him, but His power extends beyond the boundaries of this earth to all sentient beings, whatever they may be, who need the Atonement (In Ioh. 1:40; In Matt. 16:8; De princip., 3:5, 6; Contra Celsum 6:17). It is up to man's freedom to take advantage of the Atonement accomplished by Jesus Christ. Origen insists with greater energy on the existence of this freedom and makes it responsible even for our present situation. Sin did not suppress her; a person either goes freely to God or perishes. We cannot accomplish good deeds without the help of God - grace, on the contrary, is a necessary principle - but everything depends on us, just as everything depends on it: God and man together accomplish salvation. Origen formulated this thought as follows: “on the one hand, we should not think that what is in our will can be accomplished without the help of God, on the other hand, we should not think that what is in the hand of God can be accomplished without our activity, zeal and disposition. It is our will to desire and do anything, but we must remember that the very possibility of wanting or acting is given to us by God” (De princip., 3:1. 22). The eschatological teaching of Origen caused the most temptation and indignation against the Alexandrian theologian. It should be noted that this section of his system has come to us in an extremely confused form, as a result of the corrections made by Rufinus in the work “On the Elements.” In essential terms, this teaching of Origen can apparently be presented as follows. If at the beginning souls existed purely in spiritual form, then the goal of the entire world process should be seen in the restoration of the original existence. The world is thus made the stage on which the drama of spiritual Redemption unfolds. Through the worlds, which follow one another in eternal succession, spirits are given the opportunity to return to pure life, a spiritual Paradise in which evil is destroyed. And this world process is so arranged by God that all its individual acts are closely connected with each other in order to achieve this goal. This process takes place indefinitely. As a result of the earthly life of the human soul, a certain improvement may result, the correction of a previously acquired vice; but there may also be a deeper fall. For further improvement, souls are again sent into material bodies. So there are worlds after worlds. After each world, partial improvement is achieved, the fruits of which are sometimes destroyed by subsequent falls of spirits, so that a new world becomes a necessity - this is the justification for the endless change of worlds. In particular, the righteous, after their death, clothed in subtle spiritual corporeality, go to Paradise - that is, a place that is located somewhere on Earth - and receive purification in fiery Baptism. Everyone undergoes this Baptism, but not everyone suffers equally, and if there were someone who had nothing for the Atonement and was perfect, he would go through it without suffering. Thus, the baptized righteous ascend from sphere to sphere, becoming increasingly purified and comprehending all the mysteries that the earthly world has given them, learning the Divine mysteries, until they are united with Christ. And all human souls will follow this path. The wicked will suffer the torment of fire. But this fire is not sensual, lit by someone else or existing before them. Everyone has his own fire with which he is punished; sins serve as matter, food for this fire: the soul collects many evil deeds and an abundance of sins; at the proper time, this entire assembly is inflamed for punishment and kindled for torment. Conscience itself will persecute and beat itself with its own pricks and will itself become its own accuser and witness (De princip., 2:10, 4). But will this torment last forever? Origen teaches about ἀποκατάστασις, the final restoration of all rational creatures in unity with God. Without a doubt, not everyone will enjoy the same honor - in the Father's house there are different mansions - but everyone will enter there. God punishes only to correct. The process of correction will be long, for some immeasurably long; but the devil will someday repent and cleanse himself. The last enemy - death - will be destroyed, the body will be spiritualized, the material world will be transformed, and the great moment will come when the Son, in the person of the world raised by Him, will submit to Him who has subjected everything to Him, so that God may be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28). This is the conclusion of Origen's system, imbued with a deep belief in the final triumph of good. Origen irresistibly influenced his followers with the direction of his Theology, and put the stamp of his genius on that direction of theological thought, which is known as the Alexandrian Theological School. He established in it the distinctive features of his Theology: the idealistic imprint, the predominance of speculation and mysticism, here always outweighs the moment of the ineffable, supersensible and mysterious - hence the preference for Platonic philosophy. In the explanation of the Holy Scriptures, the allegorical-mystical method was widely used, already in Origen himself it was not alien to extremes, but among his followers it led to harmful hobbies. The influence of the great personality of Origen spread the Alexandrian influence not only in Alexandria, but, one might say, throughout the entire Greek East; Even the West did not remain free from it. At the same time, Origen’s Theology is subject to the common fate of the systems of thinkers of the first rank: it produced a wide and deep impact, but his followers could not accommodate the greatest thing in it - the attraction to an integral religious worldview; what was combined in a living unity in Origen’s system was torn out of connection and considered separately, as independent; individual provisions were assimilated and, in new combinations, acquired an unusual meaning. This explains that Origen became a controversial figure. His theological teaching was referred to by people of opposing dogmatic views (Saint Athanasius and the Cappadocians found in Origen arguments for ὁμοούσιος, and the Eusebians found arguments in favor of subordinationism), rejected some parts of his teaching, holding others, and quite sincerely did not comprehend the contradictions into which they fell, from the point of view Origen's whole system. However, Origen’s open recognition of the sources and authorities of Church doctrine, anti-heretical polemics, undoubted merits for Church science in the field of textual criticism, sermons and edifying works, the strong impression of a bright personality, selflessly and disinterestedly devoted to the search for truth and not revealing even a shadow of heretical persistence in his special judgments, a virtuous life - all this paralyzed the meaning of the verdicts of the Councils of Alexandria even during Origen’s lifetime and revealed to him and his theological views the influence on wide Church circles. But the preponderance of philosophical elements in his Theology and the accompanying material errors in the Theological teaching aroused the natural need to “church” Origen himself, which is why, already before the beginning of the 4th century, significantly important amendments were made to his system. Part II. North African writers I. 1. Information about the life of Tertullian Little information has been preserved about Tertullian's life. The investigator must base himself almost exclusively on his own works, which furnish material chiefly for determining the inner development of this remarkable personality; but there are not enough facts or dates to depict the external circumstances of his life. There is especially a lot of uncertainty in the chronology, since very few lasting results have been achieved in establishing the time of writing of his works. Even the time of Tertullian's birth and death is unknown. Blessed Jerome claims that he was especially famous during the reign of Septimius Severus and Caracalla (De vir. ill., 53). This indication is consistent with the indirect evidence of Tertullian himself: almost all the chronological data in his works relate to the time of these two Emperors. Since Tertullian published most of his works one after another around the year 200, being then in all the strength and maturity of his talent, his birth time is usually believed to be around the year 160. Tertullian (Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus) was the son of a Roman officer (Hier. De vir. ill., 53: “patre centurione proconsulari”), that is, apparently, the commander of one of the detachments of the third legion, which were at the disposal of the proconsul of Africa. Tertullian's works show that Carthage was both his homeland and the place of all his life and activities. He visited Rome only for a short time (De cultu femin. 1:7). In general, he knew Africa well - and not only the Christian society and the persecution of it, but also the country, its cities, monuments, customs, and so on. He loves his homeland, is proud of its past glory and present prosperity; admires ancient Carthage, willingly names its heroes and especially heroines. In his native city he received a broad and thorough education, as evidenced by his works (compare Jerome Ep. 70, ad Magnum). Numerous quotes and indications in them make it clear that he read and knew Greek and Latin poets, philosophers and historians; He also possessed information in medical sciences. He seemed to be striving to compile in his memory all the science of his time, which was greatly facilitated by his knowledge of the Greek language. But what should be noted in particular about Tertullian is his wide awareness of legal sciences - he seems to be imbued with a legal spirit - which is why they raise the question of whether he was a lawyer. Eusebius calls Tertullian an accurate expert on Roman laws (Hist. eccl., 2:2. 4), and was fluent in Greek. Having become a Christian, Tertullian devoted all his activities and all his talent to the service of the Church. Among the civil wars that followed the death of Commodus, persecution of Christians arose with renewed vigor in Africa. It was at this time that Tertullian’s Christian activity began. First of all, he turns against the pagans: extremely boldly he throws two accusatory speeches in the face of the magistrate of Carthage and society. He demands a reconsideration of the cause of Christianity, disputes point after point of accusation and slander, proves the absurdity of the general prejudice against Christians, and reveals the illegality of the proceedings against them. He even goes on the offensive, turning all their accusations against the pagans, ridiculing their myths and the contradictions in them, the pagan cult. Excited by the struggle and success, he then attacks other enemies of the Church - Jews and heretics, with whom he fought throughout his life. Having become a presbyter, he devotes himself to the instruction of the faithful through speeches and treatises of all kinds, speaks out against abuses, and resolves problems of morality and discipline. He pursues all his opponents with murderous irony. It seems surprising and incomprehensible that Tertullian, despite such energetic activity in defending Christianity against the pagans, amid the bloody and systematic persecutions that afflicted the African Church, was never brought to trial: neither he himself nor any of the Church historians say anything about this. He wasn't hiding. In the year 197, when the dungeons of Carthage were crowded with Christians and many of the believers were executed, Tertullian chose this very moment to discredit everything that was dear to the pagans, to mock their gods and laws, to condemn what everyone regarded as the greatest proof of political trustworthiness - the sacrifice on the altars of the Emperors. He was not a person who was able to renounce the authorship of those works in which there was no mercy either for his superiors or for society. From the external enemies of the Church, Tertullian turned against it itself, in fact against its primates. He essentially reproached them for being too reasonable, for being wary of exaggeration in everything, for not pushing believers into inappropriate manifestations, for not sacrificing everything for a lofty ideal, for bringing Christianity closer to the earth in order to better root it. Tertullian belonged to the category of those people who, in pursuing the idea that has mastered them, do not stop at extreme conclusions. Accustomed to speaking freely on all issues, he quietly came to challenge the authority of bishops and clergy, to defend the right of every believer to have his own opinion and conform his behavior to it. All this bore fruit when Tertullian became acquainted with Montanism, which set as its task the fight against the secularization of the Church. By the end of the 2nd century, Montanism had penetrated Africa, caused controversy within the Carthaginian Church and little by little led to a sharp division into two parties. Tertullian was carried away by the strict moral demands of the Montanists and saw in them the true successors of the leading Christians. It is difficult to explain his transition to Montanism only by his temperament; The solution to this question is rather that the "new law" of traditional Christianity seemed to Tertullian insufficient in the field of morality, and that the Paraclete provides a complement to it. The "rule of faith" should remain fixed and unchangeable, and the Paraclete should add to it, according to the needs of the time, a new discipline. According to Blessed Jerome (De vir. ill., 53), Tertullian joined Montanism when he reached the middle of his life. In his In his works he has been an adherent of the new teaching since 207 (Adv. Marc. 1, 29). Tertullian finally separated from the Church no earlier than 213. Jerome says that the reason for secession was the envy and insults of the Roman clergy. But there is no indication of this in Tertullian’s own works; meanwhile, he would hardly have kept silent if this were so. Restless in spirit, tireless fighter, incorrigible debater, Tertullian ended with a break with the whole world: he did not find peace in Montanism either; at least in it he founded his sect or party of Tertullianists, which had its basilica in Rome - the party continued to exist until the days of Augustine (De haeres. 86). Since the fall to Montanism, Tertullian has not ceased to attack the Catholic Church. Sources do not provide any information about the last years of Tertullian’s life. His last polemical works were written around 220. Since that time, traces of him have been lost. Jerome very carefully reports the tradition that Tertullian lived to a very old age (De vir. ill., 53: fertur vixisse usque ad decrepitam aetatem). I. 2. Tertullian's literary activity Tertullian was an unusually prolific writer. A remarkable feature of his life - that every step he took forward marked a break with the past - affected Tertullian as a writer. Possessing a broad education and outstanding knowledge in the field of history, philosophy and jurisprudence, after converting to Christianity, he began to treat any aesthetic culture with contempt and especially quite often and energetically expressed his hatred of secular science. However, in his literary activity he used the acquired knowledge for the multifaceted literary struggle that he waged throughout his life. Tertullian is recognized as the most original and individual writer of the pre-Nicene era, since hardly any other writer was able to put the indelible stamp of his “I” on his works. His keen mind, deep, always excited feeling and living imagination give his works an exceptional, unique character. They are distinguished by an amazing wealth of thoughts, and Vikenty Lyrinsky is not far from the truth in his judgment about Tertullian that he has “quot paene verba tot sententiae sunt” (Commonit., 24). Particularly remarkable is his ability to formulate dogmatic and moral truths concisely and precisely, and Latin Theology in this respect owes much to his genius. The style of Tertullian's works fully reflects the character of their author. If the sphere of his life was struggle - struggle with others and struggle with himself, then all his surviving works serve as a true reflection of this struggle: everywhere he is a strong opponent, full of fiery eloquence, ponderous logic, which often seems to mock common sense, and caustic satire; his despotic dialectic always blinds, although quite often it does not withstand the touch of calm criticism. He often goes much further in his conclusions than his evidence allows. With his irony, he upsets and provokes controversy more than he convinces and reconciles. He is the enemy of any compromises. Tertullian's expressions are short and energetic. He has no instinct for the Greco-Roman perfection of external form and is averse to it: he writes rough and not classically, often dark and incomprehensible. He loves to use popular expressions and does not stop at forming new words, thus replenishing the Latin vocabulary. Since he was the first to write about dogmatic subjects in Latin, he had to create theological terminology for this, and for Western Christianity he is the actual creator of its language. The text of Tertullian's works - with the exception of the Apologetics, preserved in numerous and partly ancient manuscripts - is attested very unsatisfactorily. A number of works (Adnationes, Scorpiace, De testimonio animae, De spectaculis, De idololatria, Deanima and De oratione) have come down to us only in one Codex Agobardinus (Parisiensis) of the 9th century, and for the text of De baptismo, De pudicitia and Deieiunio there is currently no manuscript certificate at all. Often spoiled, and in Ad nationes with omissions, the text of Tertullian’s works, due to the particular darkness of the speech, presents a wide field for learned guesses. The chronology of individual works of Tertullian, written between 195 and 218, cannot be established precisely, since there are no undoubted points of support for this. One can only determine with certainty which of them were written in the Orthodox-Catholic or Montanist periods of the author’s life. Those works that contain references to Montanus and the prophetesses Maximilla and Priscilla, then excessive severity in Church fasts, the rejection of second marriage as adultery and debauchery, the limitation of the Church’s power to forgive sins and the statement that mortal sins - apostasy from the faith, murder and adultery cannot be forgiven by the Church, and finally, calling the Orthodox psychics and more are recognized as Montanistic. All works of Tertullian can be divided into three groups: a) Alogetic-polemical, written in refutation of paganism and Judaism and in defense of Christianity; b) Dogmatic-polemical, written in refutation of heresy in general and individual heretics in particular; c) Practical-ascetic, devoted to various issues of Christian morality and Church discipline. a) Apologetic works of Tertullian. Among the apologetic works, the most outstanding are: 1) “Apologeticus,” which in most manuscripts has the title Apologeticum, and by Blessed Jerome is called Apologeticus (Ep. 70, ad Magnum, 5). It was written in 197 in Carthage and addressed to “the representatives of the Roman power, presiding in an open and high place, almost at the very top of the state,” that is, to the rulers of the Roman provinces. The work was written on the model of the Greek apologies and using the apology of Minucius Felix, but the material was processed independently and originally: Tertullian gave the defense of Christianity a legal and political formulation. According to the author's intention, his Apology should replace the open defense of the truth, which is forbidden to Christians. The Apology is divided into 50 chapters. In the Introduction (1-6) Tertullian says that the Christian religion has only one desire, that it should not be judged without knowing; the attitude of the Roman Government towards Christianity is based on ignorance of it and is a mockery of the laws. All criminals are allowed protection, but Christians are condemned for their name alone. While other citizens, realizing their guilt, are punished, Christians, when they renounce what they really are, go unpunished. From this alone it is clear that they are innocent. To justify and excuse this injustice, they can refer to laws that prohibit Christianity; but laws are made by people who are capable of making mistakes - bad laws must be changed, since at all times people have changed and abolished laws. The apology itself falls into two main parts. In the first of them (7–27), Tertullian first briefly rejects the accusations of Christians in secret crimes (occulta facinora) - killing children, eating them and incest during Divine services, pointing out that no one caught Christians committing these crimes and that these crimes are unnatural and completely contradict the way of life and thought of Christians, their religious and moral teachings. The pagans themselves commit such deeds and attribute them to Christians (7-9). He dwells in more detail on accusing Christians of obvious crimes and, above all, of insulting the state religion with their atheism (crimen sacrilegii, laesae Romanae religionis, laesae divinitatis). The Roman gods, by their origin and life, are simple people, not gods, and they could not become gods from people. The Romans themselves show that they do not recognize them as gods: this is evidenced by the dependence of the gods on the will of the Senate, the careless handling of their images - using them for household needs, selling them at auction, pagan rituals, paying for entrance to temples, depicting gods in poetic and philosophical works, in folk spectacles, debauchery in temples, robbing them. Christians worship the one true God. They do not honor either the donkey’s head or the Sun, but the Creator of the world, whose existence even the soul of a pagan involuntarily confirms, for everyone says: great is God, good is God, and what God gives; the soul testifies of Him as a Judge when it says: God sees, I commit to God, God rewards me. “Oh, evidence of the soul, Christian by nature!” (O testimonium animae naturaliter christianae), exclaims Tertullian (17). The knowledge of this True God is given in the Holy Books, announced through the prophets, whose teaching is not hidden, since under Ptolemy Philadelphus the holy books of the Jews were translated into Greek. The greatest authority for these books comes from their extreme antiquity. The prophets foretold the Coming of Christ, the Son of God, Who is the Lord and Teacher of Christian teaching, the enlightener and leader of the human race. Pagans revere demons, whose activities are aimed at the destruction of people. But the demons themselves deny that they are gods and claim that there is no other God but the one revered by Christians. If there really are no gods, then there is no religion, and if there is no religion, then Christians are not guilty of insulting religion. In vain, as proof of the existence and power of the gods, they refer to the prosperity of the kingdom - Rome owes this to wars, conquests of cities and victories; after all, those whose kingdoms fell to the power of Rome were not without religions when they lost their kingdoms. In the second part (28–45), Tertullian refutes the accusation of insulting an even more sacred majesty - the Imperial Majesty (crimen laesae majestatis). He proves that Christians are not enemies of the Emperor and the state and fulfill their duties towards them. If they do not make sacrifices to the genius of Caesar, then they are acting wisely. They do not call the Emperor a god, but they pray for him to the eternal God, the living God, whose favor the Emperors themselves desire. By their obedience they pay him due veneration, as the first ruler after God. At the same time, Tertullian exposes the falsehood and hypocrisy of the veneration of the Emperor by the pagans, who do this out of fear and, for the same reason, would rather break the oath of all the gods than of the Emperor alone (28–35). Christians and not public enemies. They prove their loyalty even under the most cruel and unjust oppression to which they are subjected. No one has heard of Christians, who are considered a crowd of conspirators, taking revenge for this. If they wanted to come out openly, then they would not lack in number and strength, since existing since yesterday, they filled all places with themselves: cities, islands, fortresses, municipalities, meeting places, camps, tribes, palaces, the Senate, the forum; and if they decided to leave the Empire, then there would be a stop in state affairs, and they would be left with more enemies than citizens. But Christians don't do this. They cannot be considered a political faction, because they are completely alien to political life. Their meetings consist of good, pious, chaste people. They help the poor and show such love for each other that the pagans themselves say (albeit reproachfully): look how they love each other, how they are ready to even die for each other. Christians are unfairly considered to be the culprits of the social disasters befalling the kingdom. These disasters are brought on by the pagans themselves, since they despise God and worship statues. Christians are accused of being useless for commercial matters - but Christians live in peace, buy everything for their needs, do housework, trade, work for the common use. Only brothel keepers, pimps, adulterers, murderers, and so on can complain about the uselessness of Christians, not without reason. There are no criminals among Christians - they have chastity and strict morals. In conclusion (46–50), Tertullian, pointing out the injustice of the persecution of Christians, puts forward the absolute sublimity of Christianity, as a revealed religion, above all human philosophy; Christians are superior to philosophers in self-sacrifice and firmness. “Your injustice,” says Tertullian, “proves our innocence... But none of your refined cruelty brings you success: it rather endears you to our sect. The more you destroy us, the more we multiply: the blood of Christians is the seed.” This excellent apology was probably translated into Greek early in the third century; the translation was known to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 2:2, 5 sq.; 2:5, 4; 3:20; 3:33, 3; 5:5. 6 sq.), but was soon lost. 2) The second apology - “Two Books to the Nations” (Ad nations libri duo) was written before “Apologetics”, probably in the same year 197, shortly before its final processing, and repeatedly points to it. In its content and in the nature of the evidence, especially in the First Book, this apology has a strong resemblance to the Apologetic, only presented more popularly and in a harsher tone; in addition, the entire formulation of the resolution of issues is not legal, but rhetorical and philosophical. In the first book (20 chapters) - of an apologetic nature, the author defends Christians from accusations of moral crimes and non-respect for the gods, presenting here a parallel review of the first 16 and last chapters of Apologetics, with deviations in some points of view and in details, as well as in the style and manner of expression. Also in this work, Tertullian proves that the crimes attributed to Christians were committed by the pagans themselves. In the Second Polemical Book (Chapter 17), the author sharply attacks paganism, proving the insignificance of pagan belief in gods and the vacuity of the ideas about gods of philosophers and poets. Tertullian's main source for this book was Terence Barron's Libri rerum divinarum, following which he distinguishes between physical, mythical and national Deities. 3) “On the Testimony of the Soul” (De testimonio animae) is a short (6 chapters), but meaningful, written with great enthusiasm treatise, which is a disclosure of the idea expressed in “Apologetics” (17) that a simple, uncorrupted, untouched by worldly culture human soul gives evidence in favor of Christianity, because the soul is Christian by nature. Since the testimony of pagan philosophers, poets and other teachers of pagan science and wisdom did not lead to the acceptance of the Christian religion, Tertullian calls for a new witness, who is better known than any literature, more effective than any teaching, more widespread than any book - the human soul, simple, rude, uneducated, ignorant, and turns to its inner God-consciousness. She testifies to the existence of one God when she exclaims with complete freedom: “Whatever God gives, if God pleases, God will bless you, God sees everything, I hand it over to God, God rewards, God will be the Judge between us.” She testifies to the existence of demons when she calls the name of Satan, with every disgust, with every contempt, with every curse. The soul also testifies to its own immortality by its fear of death and Judgment and various expressions, namely: he is gone, peace be upon him and the like. The more true these testimonies of the soul are, the simpler they are; the simpler they are, the more general they are; the more general they are, the more natural they are; the more natural they are, the more Divine they are. What is surprising if the soul, having come from God, knows the One from whom it came? She, despite the execution of her opponent, remembers both her Creator, and His goodness and commandments, and her end, and her enemy himself. Therefore, her testimony must be taken with confidence. 4) “To Scapula” (Ad Scapulam) – a short (5 chapters) Epistle written in the fall (after August 14) of the year 212. Scapula was proconsul of the African Province and lived in Carthage; he persecuted Christians with extreme cruelty. It is to him that Tertullian turns with his apology, proving that Christians worship one God, and by human right and natural power everyone can worship what he wants, and it is contrary to the concept of religion to force religion: “nec religionis est cogere religionem.” He briefly denies the Christians' accusations of crime, saying that they are not the Emperor's enemies, but that they honor him and pray for him. Tertullian reminds Scapula that the persecutors of Christians suffered divine punishment and points to the tragic end of some of them, as well as recent terrible signs of the wrath of God, which should serve as a warning to Scapula. He presents to Scapula the example of other governors who did not use such exquisite tortures. In conclusion, he fearlessly tells the proconsul: “Your cruelty is your glory... This sect (of Christians) will not be destroyed. You should know that then it increases more when, apparently, it is destroyed. For in everyone who sees such patience, bewilderment is aroused, and everyone is inflamed with the desire to find out what the matter is, and when he recognizes the truth, he himself will immediately follow it.” 5) “Against the Jews” (Adversus Iudaeos) in 14 chapters. The reason for writing this work, as its beginning shows, was a dispute between a Christian and a Jewish proselyte. It is directed against the claims of the “chosen people” and proves that the grace of God, which Israel lost through its own fault, passed on to the Gentiles. The Mosaic law had only a temporary meaning, and now the Old Testament, the ancient law of retribution, the ancient circumcision, gave way to a new one, the law of love. Messianic prophecies and types were fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. In the second part (chapters 9–13), where the doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ is revealed on the basis of Old Testament prophecies, the actual extracts made by an unknown person from the Third Book “Against Marcion” (13, 18, 20, 23) are given; however, it also contains passages that are not in the work against Marcion, but which, in terms of language and style, can be recognized as belonging to Tertullian. Therefore, it is assumed that Tertullian did not finish his writings against the Jews, and the last chapters have authorship of a later origin. As for the first chapters (1–8), their attribution to Tertullian is confirmed both by a quotation from Jerome (Comm. In Dan. ad 9:24~sgg.), and by internal features characteristic of Tertullian. This work was written in the pre-montanist period of the author’s life and, perhaps, very early. b) Dogmatic-polemic works. 1) Among the dogmatic-polemical works of Tertullian, the oldest, most significant and outstanding in originality in the construction of evidence is the book “On the challenge of heretics” (De praescriptione haereticorum) in 44 chapters. It was written at a time when Tertullian still belonged to the Orthodox Church, and, in any case, earlier than the works he wrote specifically against individual heretics, since at the end of this work he declares: “now our general reasoning against all heresies is completed... Subsequently, if the mercy of God allows us, we will respond specifically to some heretics” (44). Therefore, it is believed that it was written before the year 207 or even around the year 200. The term “praescriptio” used in the title is taken from Roman law, where it denoted a formal objection by the defendant in a civil case against the plaintiff, by virtue of which the judge; if he recognized the application as valid and legal, he refused the claim without examining the case on its merits. Roman law included fraud, violence, and prescription as valid and legitimate objections. With this title, Tertullian shows that he intends to fight the heretics (of course, the Gnostics) with weapons borrowed from jurisprudence, and from a legal point of view to object to their innovations, their claims to the possession of sacred books and revealed truth, in order to thereby reject the analysis on the merits of those accusations that heretics bring against the Orthodox Church. In a long Introduction (1–14), Tertullian explains the origin and nature of heresy. One should not be surprised that there are heresies, for it was predicted that they would exist, nor that they overthrow the faith of some, for they exist for this purpose, so that faith, having had a test, would also have proof; and in vain they are tempted by the fact that heresies have such great power. There had to be heresies so that people worthy of praise would be revealed, both those who stood firm during the torment, and those who did not deviate into heresy. Heresies got their origin from philosophy. Protecting us from them, the Apostle commands us to beware of philosophy. What do Athens and Jerusalem, the Academy and the Church, the heretic and the Christian have in common? We have no need for curiosity after Christ Jesus, nor do we need research after the Gospel. Heretics refer to the words of the Lord: seek and you will find (Matthew 7:7; Luke 11:9). But this only matters for those who do not possess the truth: the search for the one and true teaching cannot be unlimited - you must search for it until you find it, and you must believe in it when you find it, and then you must do nothing more than keep what you believe in. You seek in order to find, and you find in order to believe - by faith you stopped seeking and finding. Least of all should one seek truth from heretics: they are still seeking truth, therefore, they do not have it; and since they do not yet have it, they have not yet believed; and since they have not yet believed, they are not Christians. Free inquiry finds its limit in the rule of faith (regula fidei); to know nothing more than the rule of faith means to know everything. In chapters 15–19, Tertullian establishes the theme of the dispute with the heretics. They use Scripture as their justification, and with this they really tire the strong, catch the weak and arouse doubts in them. But they must be deprived of this most powerful position, they must not be allowed to reason about Scripture, but they must decide to whom the possession of Scripture belongs, so that no one is allowed to it to whom it in any way belongs. Competing with heretics in the Holy Scriptures will not bring any benefit: they do not accept some books of the Holy Scriptures, and those that do accept are distorted by their insertions and editions in accordance with their teaching; if they are accepted, they are not accepted in their entirety, and this is also distorted. Therefore, to resolve the issue, it is necessary to apply other methods and formulate the topic as follows: who owns the faith itself, the property of which is the Holy Scripture? From whom, through whom, when and by whom was the Christian teaching communicated? For it is obvious that where the true teaching and the true Christian faith are, there is the true Scripture and the true interpretation and all the true Christian Tradition. The first challenge against heretics is praescriptio veritatis, or proof that only the Catholic Church has the truth because it preserves the teaching handed down by Christ and the Apostles (20-29). Only the Churches founded by the Apostles and descended from them preserve the truly Apostolic Tradition: all of them are considered Apostolic as descendants of the Apostolic Churches; although there are many Churches, yet that Apostolic, original one, from which they all originate, is one - they are all in this respect original and Apostolic, since they all constitute one. Every teaching that is in agreement with those Apostolic Churches, the mothers and ancestors of the faith, must be considered true, since it, without a doubt, contains what the Church received from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, Christ from God. On the contrary, any teaching that contradicts the true teaching of the Churches and Apostles of Christ and God must be considered false. That the teaching set forth in the “Rule of Faith” contains the Apostolic Tradition, this is proven by communication with the Apostolic Churches and the absence of differences in teaching. "This is evidence of the truth." The objections of the Gnostics that the Apostles did not know the fullness of the sermon or did not communicate the entire content of the faith to everyone, or, finally, that the Churches, through their own fault, did not accept what they preached, Tertullian rejects as contrary to reason and history: Christ His teaching, and it was precisely His entire teaching that He communicated to the Apostles, and the Apostles transmitted this teaching to the Churches they founded. There is no secret Apostolic teaching, as the Gnostics falsely claim. But if we assume that all the Churches were mistaken, is it likely that so many great Churches were mistaken in the same faith? The false teaching of the Churches would have different results. But the fact that a large number of people have the same teaching is not a delusion, but a Tradition. If the teaching of heresy were true, it would turn out that before its appearance a false Gospel was preached. But how did heresies appear before true teaching? This leads Tertullian to explore the question of the time of the appearance of heretics, or to the second challenge - praescriptio principalitatem veritatis (31 - 36), that is, that the Catholic teaching is ancient than heresy. Regarding each heresy, the time of its later origin can be accurately determined, since the founders of each are known. The parable of the sower teaches that the good seed was sown by God before the devil was allowed to sow the bad seed of the tares. But if any heresies dare to attribute themselves to the times of the Apostles, then they can be told: indicate the founders of your churches, reveal the succession of your bishops, coming in succession from any of the Apostles or Apostolic men. The Apostolic Churches, like Smyrna, Rome and others, prove their origin in this way. The teaching of the Catholic Church appeared no later; on the contrary, it preceded all teachings, and this is evidence of truth, which has primacy everywhere. It is nowhere refuted by the Apostles - on the contrary, it is defended by them, and this is an indicator of legal ownership. To confirm this, Tertullian invites you to go around the Apostolic Churches - there the very pulpits of the Apostles still stand in their places, their authentic Epistles are read there, their voice is heard, so to speak, and their images are seen. Whoever is closest to Achaia has Corinth; whoever is not far from Macedonia has Philippi; whoever can go to Asia has Ephesus, and whoever has Italy as a neighbor has Rome, from where the authority of teaching comes to Carthage. From this follows the third challenge - praescriptio proprietatis (37-40): if everything is as Tertullian proved, then the truth is awarded to the Orthodox, since they keep the Rule of Faith that the Church received from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, Christ from God; and in this case, the position is sound that heretics should not be allowed to appeal to the Holy Scriptures, since without Scripture it has been proven that they have no relation to the Scriptures: if they are heretics, then they cannot be Christians, since they did not receive from Christ the teaching that they followed by choice, which is why they received the name of heretics. As non-Christians, they receive no ownership of the Christian Scriptures. The Church will rightly ask them: who are you? when and where did you come from? What are you doing in my possession when you are not mine? The property belongs to the Church, She has owned it for a long time, owned it before, has a faithful deed of transfer from those very people to whom the property belonged. She is the heir of the Apostles; she owns it as they determined in their will, as they entrusted to the faith. They disinherited the heretics and rejected them as strangers, as enemies; the teaching of heretics deviates from the Apostolic. And where there is a difference in teaching, there is a distortion of the Scriptures and their interpretations. But any damage is of later origin. Some of the heretics pervert Scripture by hand, that is, they spoil the text in manuscripts, while others pervert its meaning by interpretation. But the Catholic Church possesses the complete and intact Scripture and explains it correctly. The primary culprit of heretical errors is the devil, who has the role of perverting the truth, who imitates even the Divine sacraments in the mysteries of idols. In conclusion, Tertullian puts forward another objection to the heretics - their way of life: there is no stability in their behavior, there is no discipline in their religious life, they lack missionary zeal, the fear of God. Having different teachings, they are united only in a common struggle with the truth. Heresies evade on many points even their founders; very many do not even have churches, without a mother, without a fatherland, . without faith, they wander like exiles with their emptiness. But whoever does not remain faithful to unity is subject to Divine Judgment. The conclusion is that, on the basis of credible, legitimate and necessary objections, heretics must be denied the right to invoke the Holy Scriptures. The publications contain further (45–53) chapters of this work - about heresies from Dositheus and Simon Magus to Praxeus; but they undoubtedly belong to another author, who copied the work of Hippolytus: “Syntagma against all heresies.” Tertullian’s work “De praescriptione haereticorum”, written in a well-crafted language, according to a general plan with a consistent development of the theme, is important for its classical defense of the principle of tradition and authority: in this work he developed and scientifically and legally substantiated the positions expressed by Saint Irenaeus. 2) At the end of the treatise “On the Recusal of Heretics,” Tertullian promises to write specifically against individual heretics. What stands out among these works is the refutation of the most serious opponent of Catholic Christianity - Marcion. Tertullian spent many years processing the work directed against him and published it only in the Third - final - edition in the form of five books against Marcion (Adversus Marcionem). The first book of this third edition was written in the 15th year of Septimius Severus, that is, in the years 207–208; the other four are separated from it by certain intervals that cannot be precisely determined, but they hardly extended for many years. Marcion spread his errors in Rome and in his book Antitheses he argued that there is an irreconcilable contradiction between the God of the Old and New Testaments. The harsh Creator of the world is a different God than the good God, who revealed himself in the face of Jesus Christ and took on a ghostly body in order to abolish the Law, and not to fulfill it. Tertullian subjects the contradictions of the Antithesis to witty criticism. In the first book, the author sets out the doctrine of the unity of God and His properties, proving that a good God who would not at the same time be the Creator of the World does not exist. The second book reveals the teaching that the Creator of the World is the one true God, possessing all the properties with which the Marcionites endow their good God, as well as about the image of God in man, about the origin of sin, which has its basis in the abuse of human freedom, and about the human image of Christ. The third book aims to prove the identity of Christ who appeared on earth and what was predicted in the Old Testament. This refutation of Marcion's Theology and Christology in the fourth and fifth books is followed by the elimination of the imaginary contradictions that Marcion wanted to find between the Law and the Gospel, and the criticism of Marcion's New Testament canon: Marcion, in order to harmonize with his teaching, accepted only the Gospel of Luke and the ten Epistles of the Apostle Paul. Five books against Marcion are the most extensive and very successful polemical work of Tertullian and generally the best written against Gnosticism: he explains with great thoroughness, learning and eloquence all the issues that were raised by Marcion’s complex system. 3) “Against Hermogenes” (Adversus Hermogenem) was written shortly after the composition of “De praescriptione haerticorum” (the beginning of the 1st chapter) and is directed against the painter and philosopher Hermogenes, who spread his dualistic teaching in Carthage and argued that the world was created from eternal, uncreated and unoriginate matter. He tried to establish his teaching on the authority of Holy Scripture. Tertullian in the first section (1–18) develops philosophical and religious grounds against the provisions of Hermogenes; then (19-34) he proves the insufficiency of the arguments of the Holy Scripture he puts forward and, finally (35-45), he seeks to present the statements of the heretic ad absurdum. In contrast, Tertullian proves the creation of the World out of nothing. In this work, Tertullian may have used the work of Theophilus of Antioch against Hermogenes. 4) “Against the Valentinians” (Adversus valentinianos) was written after the work “Against Hermogenes,” as can be seen from its 16th chapter, and clearly reveals Tertullian’s commitment to Montanism; it is directed against the Gnostic sect of Valentinus, is based on the messages of Irenaeus (“Against Heresies” 1) and is not actually a refutation of the Valentinian system, but a caustic ridicule of its teaching about the aeons and the pride of the adherents of Valentinus, and nowhere does the author reveal a desire to go deeper into the train of thought of his opponents. It is not known whether Tertullian, as he assumed (36), wrote a scientific criticism of Valentinus’ system - no news of such a work has survived. 5) “A remedy against the sting of scorpions” (Scorpiace or adversus gnosticos scorpiacum) - a small work (in 15 chapters) directed against the scorpions of the Church, that is, the Gnostics who want to poison believers with their poison, arguing that during persecution one can not only run away, but even outwardly renounce the faith, if only internally they remain believers. Based on the Old and New Testaments, Tertullian vigorously argues that firmness in the profession of faith is the duty of Christians and that martyrdom has moral value and significance. – The work was published after the Second Book against Marcion (5). The state of affairs he assumes corresponds to the time of persecution under Scapula, which is why its composition can be dated back to the year 213. 6) “On the Flesh of Christ” (De came Christi) was written against the docetism of the Gnostics (Marcion, Apelles, Valentinus, Alexander), who recognized the true and actual Incarnation of the heavenly Christ as impossible. Tertullian thoroughly refutes this error (1-16) and then proves (17-24) on the basis of Holy Scripture (all chapters 25) that Christ actually had a human body and was born of the Virgin Mary without the participation of a husband. To refute heretics, Tertullian uses his favorite method of proof - recusal: Marcion is neither a prophet and an Apostle, nor an Apostolic disciple and a Christian, otherwise he would have to accept the Church tradition about the incarnation of Christ; instead he argues against the truth. Without the perception of the flesh, Christ would not truly save us. In general, in this work Tertullian deeply captures the doctrine of the Incarnation and defends it with great animation, so that on this issue Tertullian’s treatise “On the Flesh of Christ” has an important dogmatic significance. 7) “On the Resurrection of the Flesh” (De resurrectione carnis) - an extensive work (63 chapters) is devoted to the issue dealt with by apologists (Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus) and Irenaeus, and is directed against the Gnostics. From their point of view, they denied both the Resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of the flesh in general. Tertullian provides evidence in defense of this important truth, first of all, like Athenagoras, from considerations of reason (chapters 3–17: the body is the image of God, the organ of the soul, participates with it in grace and salvation, and with it must receive reward and punishment); then (18–51) he explains in detail the passages from the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments related to this issue; finally, it depicts the properties of the resurrected body and especially persistently emphasizes the substantial identity of the resurrected body with the present, earthly one. 8) “Against Praxeus” (Adversus Praxean) - written between 208-218, that is, after the transition to Montanism - in the 31st chapter he defends the trinity of persons in God against the patripassian monarchianism of Praxeus. In the Introduction, Tertullian gives some information about the personality of Praxeus: he was a confessor from Phrygia and an opponent of the Montanists - he especially acted against them in Rome under Bishop Victor. Praxeus developed the doctrine of the incarnation and suffering of the Father and spread his heresy at the end of the 2nd century in Rome and Carthage. But Tertullian refutes such a phase of patripassian monarchism, in which it probably existed under Callistus, that is, after the year 217. Tertullian's treatise against Praxeus can be considered the last of his anti-heretic works - it was composed, in any case, long after his break with the Church (Chapter 2). Tertullian blames patripassianism for the fact that Praxeus did two works of Satan in Rome: he expelled prophecy (fought against Montanism) and introduced heresy, put the Paraclete to flight and crucified the Father (Paracletum fugavit et Patrem crucifixit). Against heretical error, Tertullian reveals the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity - the substantial unity and trinity of persons in God, for which he provides evidence from the Holy Scriptures and from reason. However, when defending the doctrine of the difference between the persons of the Father and the Son, Tertullian did not avoid a certain amount of subordinationism, although in some triadological expressions and turns he approaches the creed of the Council of Nicaea. 9) “On Baptism” (“De baptismo”) - a work written between 198 and 206, after the author’s transition to Montanism and caused by the doubts that were aroused in Carthage by a certain Quintilla, belonging to the sect of Gaia, who disputed the necessity and beneficial effects of Baptism, especially on the grounds that washing with water seems to be a completely insignificant act. Tertullian objects that God's acts are simple in their manner of execution and yet powerful in their effects (2). Then he says that water in the Old Testament and New Testament institutions has a symbolic-typical meaning of purification, and its use is imitated even in the pagan mysteries (3-5). Next he speaks about the essence, necessity, method of performing, the actions of Baptism and the anointing associated with it (6-8) about the Baptism of John (10-11), about Baptism by blood, as a replacement for water Baptism - both of them - water and blood Baptism came from the wound of the pierced side of Christ - about the Baptism of children, about the baptism of heretics, which he considers of no importance, about the festive times of Baptism and about preparation for it (17–20) – The work was written by Tertullian before he fell into Montanism. As the first special treatise on Baptism, it is important and instructive in dogmatic and practical terms. 10) “On the Soul” - “Deanima” (58 chapters) - a study about the essence of the soul, its properties and powers (4–22), about the origin of the soul (23–35), about the development of the soul, especially about its relationship to evil (36–49), about the fate of the soul after death. In the Introduction (1–4), Tertullian talks about philosophical theories regarding the soul and argues that only Christianity can answer all questions about it. The work is directed not only against idealistic and materialistic philosophers and against the Gnostics who were influenced by the former, but even mainly against doctors and natural scientists, who are often mentioned. When refuting them, Tertullian used as a source the four-volume work of the Greek scientist physician Soranus, an older contemporary of Galen - from which he makes extracts. Tertullian distinguishes between natural and supernatural powers of the soul; the faculty of knowledge and will belongs to the natural essence of the soul, and the moral distinction must be derived from free will. He attributes to the soul a certain corporeality, by which he means corpus in the Stoic sense, that is, its reality and substantiality: it is a substance in a certain form of being - he fears that it will be nothing if it is not a certain essence (corpus): nihil enim, sinoncorpus (7). On the question of the origin of the soul, Tertullian preaches traducianism, the crudest form of generationism. Soul and body arise together - the soul through the vital warmth that comes from the souls of the parents, the animating principle of bodies (27). At conception, both substances arise and immediately the union of both begins, and at the same time the life of the child, while their separation means death. Tertullian tries to provide evidence for this from Holy Scripture, philosophy and the history of creation. This origin explains the transfer of original sin as a hereditary sin to descendants. By hereditary sin the natural powers of man are weakened, but not destroyed. Tertullian refutes the Pythagorean doctrine of the transmigration of souls and Plato's view of the pre-existence of souls. The final eschatological section reveals the doctrine of the state of the soul at the time of death and after it, namely the presence of souls in the underworld (infernus). This work was written during the Montanist period. It belongs to the outstanding treatises of Tertullian and is distinguished by knowledge of the matter and good development of the topic. c) Moral and practical works of Tertullian. The direction of Tertullian's activities was predominantly practical, a significant part of which was devoted to issues of Christian morality and Church discipline. They reveal, on the one hand, the author’s lofty view of the nature of Christian life, and, on the other, the extreme rigorism with which he judges the imaginary weakness of the Church’s penitential discipline. Some of the works of this kind were written in the pre-montanist period, others in the montanist period, which is clearly expressed in their content. The first include: 1) “To the Martyrs” - Admartyres (6 chapters) - a short work written in the year 197, around the time of Apologetics - aims to console and encourage Christians imprisoned during persecution for their confession of faith. The author exhorts them to endure suffering with patience and steadfastness. Martyrdom will free them from the prison of this world and lead them into the abode of joy. Like soldiers, Christians must fight more courageously - after a short struggle they receive unfading Heavenly Crowns. If the body is weak, then the spirit must be strong in order to withstand the struggle for the highest goods, which the pagans adhered to for the sake of vain glory. 2) “On Prayer” – De oratione (29 chapters) – contains in the first part (1–8) a brief explanation of the Lord’s Prayer, about which the author says that it contains the entire content of the Lord’s teaching: it is an abbreviation of the entire Gospel. Then (9–29) he sets out detailed instructions about the requirements and method of performing true prayer: about the mood of the heart and composure of the spirit, about external actions - raising hands, covering girls, kissing the world, kneeling, days of standing, standing during prayer on Sunday, three times of prayer during the day. At the end, he speaks with great enthusiasm about the meaning of prayer: prayer is a defense of faith and a shield against enemies. All angels, every creature prays. Herds of cattle and forest animals kneel, leaving their shelters; With the onset of morning, birds direct their flight to the sky: instead of hands, they stretch out their wings in the form of a cross and chirp something similar to a prayer. The Lord Himself prayed. 3) “On Patience” - De patientia (16 chapters) - a work especially characteristic of Tertullian, who, due to his hot temperament, was always consumed by the flames of impatience and, according to his own consciousness, could not provide a good example. But he acts like a sick person who constantly praises his health without having it, and wants to gain some consolation for himself by talking about such a good thing, which, unfortunately, he does not have in himself (1). Patience is inseparable from duties to God. Philosophers glorified it as the supreme virtue, although they did not know true patience. This is Christian virtue: it is the imitation of God, who commands the sun to illuminate the good and the evil and patiently endures the ingratitude and crimes of the nations - the imitation of the Divine Redeemer, who was the embodiment of Divine patience, manifested on earth among people who felt it, so to speak, in the face of Jesus Christ. Impatience comes from the devil and is extremely destructive. Christian patience is a true proof of Divine love. Without patience there is no obedience, no faith, no virtue. Tertullian points to Isaiah, Stephen, and Job as further examples of patience. 4) “On Repentance” - Depaenitentia (12 chapters) - is divided into two parts, of which in the first (1-6) Tertullian speaks about repentance in general, its essence and its necessity especially for the catechumens, who should not think that they can continue to sin, since in Baptism they receive remission of sins. In the second part (7–12) he talks about the possibility and methods of confession of sins, second repentance for those who have received Baptism and fallen into serious sins (murder, idolatry, carnal sins). Tertullian begins with great reluctance to talk about the reality of the second repentance: he is afraid that, while pointing out the path of repentance, the path to sin will not be opened; Lest anyone think that one is allowed to sin under the pretext that one can repent later, one cannot base the insolence and insolence of a person on the mercy and goodness of God. On the other hand, he urges not to despair when the need for a second repentance arises: avoid a new fall, but do not move away from the second repentance, beware of being exposed to danger again, but do not turn away from the helping hand that wants to save you another time. Tertullian strongly rebels against those who, out of shame, put off repentance and are afraid of sincere confession of sins, as well as against those who do not begin to repent, fearing the bodily exhaustion of careless and ugly clothes, deprivation of pleasures, coarse hair shirts, and fasting. It is necessary to think about the fire of hell, which can be extinguished by confession: the thought of the greatness of the execution will make healing bearable. 5) “On Spectacles” – De spectaculis (30 chapters). In this produced: Tertullian answers the question whether Christians can attend pagan spectacles. The answer is definitely negative, first of all, because the origin of the spectacles, their staging, names, places, the very method of presentation are closely connected with idolatry: and since Christians have renounced idolatry, they are by no means allowed to be present at such events that are inseparable from idolatry (2-13). Consideration of the nature and content of spectacles leads Tertullian to the conclusion that they are incompatible with Christian holiness, since they are in conflict with the requirement of composure of the spirit, Christian chastity and modesty, have a destructive effect on Christian purity and threaten morality, arousing the lowest passions. The pleasures of Christians are completely different - pure, spiritual. In the final chapter, the author gives a vivid image of the greatest spectacle that the world will ever see, the spectacle of the Second Coming of the Lord or the Last Judgment. 6) “On Idolatry” - De idololatria (24 chapters) - is, as it were, a continuation of the treatise “On Spectacles” and transfers the thoughts expressed here to the whole area of ​​art and public life. It is necessary to abstain from every position, occupation and craft that has any relation to idolatry: preparing idols, selling them, building temples, decorating houses on the days of pagan festivals, practicing astrology, magic, teaching pagan literature, any position in civil and military service - all this is impermissible and sinful. In private life, too, everything should be avoided that has any connection with the pagan cult. If someone makes the excuse that he cannot live without some kind of craft, this does not excuse him, since he needs to find another occupation: you cannot deny with your tongue what you build with your hands, profess faith in one God, making many gods. Thus the ship of faith unfurls her sails and rushes, moved by the Holy Spirit, among countless pitfalls and rocks; the whirlwind of idolatry is ready to overthrow those within it: every wave of it is deadly, every abyss of it brings down to hell. 7) “To my wife” – Ad uxorem (in two books). In the first book, Tertullian gives his wife advice, in the event of his death, not to enter into a second marriage, but as a widow to lead a life pleasing to God. A second marriage, if not completely prohibited, is, however, reprehensible and is in conflict with the commandment of God and with the idea of ​​marriage. At the same time, the author tries to weaken the strength of those reasons that are usually given in defense of a second marriage. In the second book, Tertullian says that in any case marriage with a pagan is unacceptable, since such a marriage is not sanctified by grace, and it represents serious obstacles to necessary religious exercises and the greatest dangers to faith. To further reinforce his admonitions, the author, to top it off, animatedly depicts the happiness of the marriage of Christian spouses: they are like children of one father, like slaves of one Lord; there is no discord or schism between them, either in soul or in body; they are two in one flesh - where the flesh is one, there the soul is one; they pray together, kneel together, fast together, mutually encourage and guide each other. They are equal in the Church and in communion with God, they share poverty and abundance equally, they have nothing hidden from one another. 8) “On the adornment of women” - De cultu feminarum, in two books. The first is called so only in the codex Agobardinus, but in other lists it has the inscription De habitu muliebri; it remained unfinished. Tertullian in the harshest tone condemns women's passion for clothes and jewelry. Mourning is more appropriate for a woman than jewelry and luxury in clothing, for the wife (Eve) has fallen; there is a curse on her and her generation; she raised the Son of God to the cross. Women's jewelry is a demonic invention; they feed ambition and lead to debauchery. Simplicity and purity are more appropriate for the servants of God (1–9). The second book (13 chapters) is written in a calmer and softer tone, but the attitude towards outfits is no less strict. It is not a continuation of the first, but a new treatment of the theme, borrowing some thoughts from the first. Here the author is armed against artificial beauty products, hair dyeing, blush and the like. A Christian woman should be adorned with purity of feelings and good behavior, fear of God and especially chastity - they are the guardian of the temple of the Holy Spirit in the soul. One must completely renounce all bliss that weakens strict virtue. “I don’t know,” says Tertullian, “whether hands accustomed to the wrists are able to lift the weight of the shackles; I doubt that the legs, which so often wore silk garters, could endure the pain of tying them with ropes; I’m afraid that the head, covered with emeralds and diamonds, will shamefully retreat from the sword that threatens us every hour.” During the Montanist period, Tertullian wrote the following works: 1) “On the exhortation to chastity” - De exhortatione castitatis - written to a widowed brother. Tertullian reminds him that with the loss of his wife, God gives him an indication of the path of celibate life. Monogamy lies in the original idea of ​​​​marriage. Even if polygamy was sometimes tolerated in the Old Testament, in the New Testament it is absolutely prohibited. A second marriage must be unconditionally rejected; it is similar to debauchery (9). To substantiate his position, Tertullian, among other things, points out that in the New Testament all Christians are priests; but the Apostolic Commandment excludes all bigamous people from the priesthood - therefore, neither a priest nor a layman can enter into a second marriage. – Tertullian’s Montanistic mood is already sufficiently evident in this work. But he speaks even more sharply in the treatise 2) “On Monogamy” - De monogamia (16 chapters) - here, in a sharp current, the author rejects second marriage on the basis of new revelations and attacks psychics (that is, Orthodox, as opposed to pneumatics, that is, Montanists), who, not accepting the Spirit, turn away from what is of the Spirit. “We recognize one marriage, as well as one God,” says Tertullian. – In terms of mood, he is in close connection with him 3) “On fasting against psychics” - De ieiunio adversus psychicos (17 chapters). The Montanists, who called themselves pneumatics (homines spirituales), observed, in addition to the Church fasts, others and wanted that on Wednesday and Friday, in contrast to the Orthodox - psychics (homines animales), who stopped fasting on these days around noon, the fast continued until sunset. Tertullian reproaches the Catholics, who adhered to a certain measure of fasting, with gluttony. In this work, Tertullian's hatred of the Orthodox Church takes on almost painful forms. From the nature of the reproaches against Montanist fasts refuted by Tertullian, it is concluded that he had before him an essay on fasting directed against the Montanists. 4) “On modesty” – De pudicitia (22 chapters) – stands in sharp contradiction with the treatise “Depaenitentia” written in the pre-Montanist period. Actually, the author speaks about modesty and chastity only in the Introduction. The main content of the work is directed against the edict of the Roman bishop (perhaps Callixtus, 217–222), which established a softening of penitential discipline in relation to grave sins committed after Baptism (falling from the faith in idolatry, murder, adultery, debauchery) - for them the possibility of “second repentance” was allowed. Tertullian bitterly complains about the decline of all virtue and good morals, sharply rebels against “psychics” and proves that the Church has neither the right nor the power to forgive grave sins, since this offends the virgin Bride of Christ (1). The right to forgive sins does not belong to the Church of bishops, but to the Church of the Spirit, or in general only to God (3). The main part of the work is occupied by evidence of this position from Holy Scripture (6–20). Only baptism of blood in martyrdom blots out sins. Addressing the Bishop of Rome, he ironically calls him pontifex scilicet maximus, quod est episcopus episcoporum, pastor bonus, benedictus papa and apostolicus and reproaches him for competing with Christ in the forgiveness of sins. 5) “On flight during persecution” - De fuga in persecutione (14 chapters). The work was written regarding the persecution of Scapula at the end of the year 212 and provides a solution to the question of whether Christians, especially spiritual ones, can flee from persecution. The answer is completely negative. Since Tertullian was opposed by Holy Scripture, Tradition and the example of the great bishops (Polycarp), he also had to find grounds for his strict understanding. Tertullian contrasts the Savior's instructions to flee from city to city when persecuted (Matthew 10:23), with reference to Christ as the good Shepherd and His words (John 10:11: “the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep”), as well as new revelations from the Montanists. 6) “On the Warrior’s Crown” - De corona militis (15 chapters) - written on the following occasion: a Christian soldier, after the victory over the Parthians, when receiving an award, did not want to put a corona castrensis on his head, but wore it in his hand, and in explanation of his action he indicated that his religion (Christian) forbids him to crown his head. He was imprisoned as a Christian. Some of the Christians did not approve of the soldier's action. Tertullian in August or September 211 wrote the aforementioned essay, in which he approves of the warrior’s behavior and proves that the custom of crowning the head is of a pagan nature, should be placed on the same line with idolatry and contradict Christian traditions. The crown on the head does not fit well with the crown of thorns of Christ. And in general, military service is incompatible with Christianity. 7) “On the Protection of Virgins” – De virginibus velandis (17 chapters). In this work, Tertullian returns to a topic that he touched upon already in the treatise “On Prayer” (21–22), and reveals it in great detail. With references to the Paraclete, Holy Scripture and Church discipline, he proves that in public meetings and in churches not only women, but also virgins who have reached maturity, especially those dedicated to God, who occupied separate places in churches, should wear veils. With this he came to the defense of Montanist practice. In contrast to the view expressed in other cases, he does not want to attach the importance of praescriptio novitatis, for which his opponents reproached him, but defends this custom by pointing to its inner truth. A special place among Tertullian’s works is occupied by the small treatise “On the Cloak” - De pallio (6 chapters), which cannot be classified into any of the three classes mentioned above. It was written due to completely personal circumstances of Tertullian himself in the years 209–211. For some unknown reason, Tertullian replaced the Roman toga with the Greek philosophical mantle. The Carthaginians he had previously known began to laugh at this transition from horse to donkey. In his justification, Tertullian wrote the named work, full of humor and caustic sarcasm. The author reveals an amazing ability to say a lot, skillfully, with scientific apparatus, about such an insignificant subject. Tertullian points out to the Carthaginians that the toga is the clothing of the Romans, their conquerors. Changing clothes is justified by history and nature, which often changes its clothes. Tertullian only disapproves of unnatural changes in clothing, for example, dressing in women's clothing. For him, the cloak is all the more valuable because it hides the highest, Divine wisdom under it. I. 3. Lost works of Tertullian The listed works do not exhaust everything written by Tertullian - some of his creations have not survived to us. First of all, everything that was written by him in Greek has been lost, namely: the “De spectaculis”, “De virginibus velandis” and “De baptismo haereticorum” (“On the invalidity of the baptism of heretics”) published by him in Greek, as well as, very likely, the large work “Περì ἐκστασεως” written in Greek (De ecstasi), in six books, for the defense of the ecstatic speeches of the Montanist prophets; Subsequently, when Tertullian became acquainted with the anti-Montanistic work of Apollonius, he added the Seventh Book. A significant number of works written in Latin have also been lost. According to Tertullian's own instructions, he published: a) “De spe fidelium” – about Christian hope for the future in contrast to chiliast Jewish views. b) “De paradiso” - resolution of various questions about Paradise. In particular, here Tertullian argued that all souls, with the exception of the souls of martyrs, will remain in hell until the day of the Lord (Deanima, 55); c) “Adversus Apelleiacos” - directed against the teaching of the followers of Apelles that it was not God, but the highest Angel who created this world, but after creating it he repented (De carne Christi 8); d) “De censu animae” - directed against the position of Hermogenes that the soul originated from matter and does not have free will at all; e) “De fato” – against the teaching of philosophers about fate and the game of happiness (Deanima, 20); f) “De Aaron vestibus” – mentioned by Jerome (Ep.64, 23) – about the liturgical vestments of the Old Testament high priest; g) Jerome claims that Tertullian, even in his youth, dealt with the question de anqustiis nuptiarum (ad amicum philosophum),” however, in later works devoted to similar subjects, he does not mention such a work; i) “De mundis atque immundis animalibus” (about the last works - g, h, and - see Jerome Er. 22, 22 and Adv. Iovin. 1, 13); k, l, m) in the table of contents cod. Agobardinus also mentions the following works that were supposed to be in it: “De came et anima”, “De animae submissione”, “Desuperstitione saeculi”; however, the possibility cannot be excluded that the last two works are identical with “De testimonio animae” and “De idololatria”. I. 4. Authentic works attributed to Tertullian 1) In some manuscripts, as was said, as an appendix to the “De praescriptione haereticorum” there is a treatise “Adversus omnes haereses”, in which heresies are reviewed from Dositheus to Praxeus. The treatise was not written by Tertullian, but by a later author who used the so-called Syntagma of Hippolytus. 3) "De cibis Iudaicis", which early began to be attributed to Tertullian, actually belong to Novatian. 4) The five books “Adversus Marcionem”, written in hexameter, poor Latin, without any poetic merit, probably come from the second half of the 4th century (from Africa or Rome). 5) The fragment “De execrandis gentium diis” - the author of which, using the example of Jupiter, wants to show that the pagans have the most perverse ideas about the Divine - due to the difference in style, cannot be adopted by Tertullian. The time of origin and the author of this work are unknown. 6) In various manuscripts, two poems are attributed to Tertullian: “De Sodema” and “De Iona” - a poetic adaptation of the 19th chapter of the book. Genesis and the books of the prophet Jonah - they were written in the 4th or even, perhaps, in the 6th century. 7) The origin of the poem “De iudicio Domini”, published by Fabricius under the name of Tertullian, is also unknown. I. 5. Theology of Tertullian Tertullian’s literary activity was dominated by practical interests: his dogmatic works served polemical purposes, and even in the treatise “On the Soul” only practical reasons led to the disclosure of psychological views. He was not a philosopher, and speculation was alien to him. The Christian Revelation is not seen by him either as new light that should expand intellectual horizons, or as a body of truths that require research. But his rich and comprehensive education and natural talents allowed him to occupy a prominent position in the philosophical field. Tertullian is strongly influenced by Stoic philosophy, which is found especially in his doctrine of God, psychology and the doctrine of knowledge. Tertullian's attitude to philosophy is not consistent. He does not share the view that only through philosophy can Christianity achieve perfection. On the contrary, he often rebels very sharply against philosophy. “What is similar,” he says, “between a philosopher and a Christian, a student of Greece and Heaven, between one who seeks glory and life... between a friend of error and its enemy, between a forger of truth and a faithful interpreter of it, between its thief and its guardian” (Apol. 46). Even what philosophers borrowed from the Holy Scriptures in the knowledge of truth, they distorted with their opinions for the sake of philosophical doctrines (Apol. 47; cf. De anima 2). Philosophy has produced all heresies (De praescr. haeret. 7). Philosophers are the patriarchs of heretics (De anima 3), Philosophy is the work of demons (De anima 23). However, Tertullian could not abandon his philosophical education, which is why he involuntarily recognizes that philosophy has some possession of truth (De resur.carnis 1). Philosophy agrees with Christianity in the fundamental truths of dogma and morality, and some of its representatives had at least a vague concept of the Logos, of Angels and demons and of some other subjects of the Christian faith (Apol. 21, 22, 48). “Seneca is often ours,” says Tertullian (De anima 20). The basis for this is that reason is from God and God arranged everything rationally, which is why He wants nothing to be considered and nothing to be tried to be understood without reason (De paenit 1). The human spirit has a natural knowledge of their creation (Adv. Marc. 1:17–18). Therefore, reason and faith are not in conflict with each other. The idea “credo, ut intelligam” is common in Tertullian. But knowledge of their nature is, of course, imperfect (Depaenit1). “So that we might more fully and accurately know both God Himself and His commands and desires, He gave the sacred Books to all who want to seek the true God, to find the One sought, to believe in the Found One, and to serve by believing” (Apol. 18). The preaching of the prophets is older than Greek wisdom and is confirmed by the fulfillment of predictions (Apol. 19). Holy Scripture consists of a double instrumentum - the Old and New Testaments (Adv. Marc. 4:1; De praescr. haeret. 36). Having its source in the Holy Spirit, Holy Scripture is not false and has unconditional authority (De carne Christi 3). Contradiction between the Apostles is excluded (De pudic 19; De praescr. haeret. 24). The Old Testament is vigorously defended by Tertullian against Marcion. Regarding the New Testament, he takes the same point of view as Irenaeus. Against the Gnostics, Tertullian felt the need to prove that the Church is the guardian of the Apostolic truth. She draws this truth, firstly, from the Holy Scriptures, the entire composition of which is of Apostolic origin. The writers of the Gospels are partly Apostles, partly apostolici, whose authority is established on the authority of the Apostles (Adv. Marc. 4:5). These Scriptures belong to the Church and She alone has the right to refer to them in support of Her teachings (De praescr. haeret.). Secondly, the source of Church truth is the Tradition of the Churches founded by the Apostles. Only the Son knows the Father; He received this knowledge from the Father and communicated it to the Apostles, who alone possessed His teaching. The Apostles in turn communicated it to the Churches they founded. These Churches are the guardians of Christian truth. He abides in the truth who shares their faith; and whoever does not agree with them is mistaken (De praescr. haeret. 21, 32, 36). Tertullian invites his heretical opponents to visit the Apostolic Churches, where the pulpits of the Apostles still stand in their original places, where one can hear the reading of their authentic Epistles. For Achaia, such an Apostolic Church is Corinth, for Macedonia - Philippi or Thessalonica, for Asia - Ephesus, for Italy - the Roman Church, to which the African Church also resorts in necessary cases (De praescr.haeret. 36). Based on the traditions coming from the Apostles through the Churches they founded, Tertullian denies heretics the right to refer to the Holy Scriptures in favor of their teaching. The Scriptures belong to the Church, constitute Her property, and not of heretics. The short expression of Tradition is the symbol - regula fidei, lex fidei (De praescr. haeret. 13–14; De virg. velandis 1). This rule of faith contains everything essential for a Christian and is not subject to research: the symbol must remain unchanged; but beyond the symbol, Tertullian allows for exploration and theological speculation where there is darkness or uncertainty. In the Theological teaching of Tertullian, on the one hand, elements of the Theology of the apologists are noticeable and, for example, in the doctrine of the Logos, Tertullian is their successor; on the other hand, under the influence of the fight against monarchianism, he introduces such additions and amendments into the doctrine of the Trinity that place his Theological system significantly higher than his predecessors. Tertullian is a strict monotheist and a conscious Trinitarian. He emphasizes monotheism not only because the struggle with the monarchians forced him to do so - it is rooted in the very essence of his religious views. “If God is not one, then He does not exist at all” (Adv.Marc. 1:3). Tertullian describes the Being of God with the same predicates as the apologists. God is an Original Being, Eternal, Unborn, Unchangeable, Indefinable, Immortal; He is invisible and cannot enter into direct relations with the finite world. A feature of Tertullian's teaching about God is his concept of Him as a kind of bodily substance. “Who will deny,” he says, “that God is a body, although He is a spirit? For the spirit is a body of its own kind (sui generis), having its own form” (Adv. Praxean 7). Tertullian, together with the Stoics, generally did not allow a purely spiritual existence and activity independent of one or another physicality. “There is nothing incorporeal except that which does not exist” (De carne Christi 2). Hence, he believes the difference between soul and body to be in the incomparably greater refinement of the body of the soul compared to the ordinary body (De anima 7). But God is corpus, not caro (Adv. Praxean 27). God, self-satisfied and all-blessed, from eternity “was one, by Himself making up both the world and space, and everything” (Adv. Praxean 5). Revealing the doctrine of the Trinity in this eternal Divine existence, Tertullian actually speaks only about the Logos. “God was one,” writes Tertullian, “however, even then He was not actually alone, for He had with Him His mind, which He had in Himself. God is a Reasonable Being, and Reason was in Him before (all being); then it came into being from Him and that’s it. This mind is His self-consciousness. The Greeks call him Logos, which term we convey by the concept of “word”... Although God had not yet spoken His Word, yet He had It in Himself with the mind itself, and in the mind itself, in silence, pondering and arranging what He had soon to express through His Word” (Adv. Praxean 5). When the moment of creation arrived, when God wanted to bring “substances and forms” into reality in Him, He brought out the Word in order to accomplish everything through the one through whom it was thought out and predetermined. This was “the perfect birth of the Word” (Adv. Praxean 7). Tertullian associates it with the biblical “fact when God said: let there be light” - then His Word in the true sense was born of Him, became the only begotten Son. If the Logos was at first the immanent power of God, having no personal existence, now He becomes an individual essence, distinct from the Father. And God at this very moment becomes the Father. God was not always the Father, since He could not be the Father before the Word became the Son; there was a time when there was no Son (Adv. Herrn. 3). From the Father through the Son (and Patre per Filium) the Holy Spirit received being (Adv. Praxean 4); and since the Son, as a person separate from God, appeared only before the creation of the World, then the procession of the Spirit could only take place after that. To clarify that internal process in the inner Divine life, which led to the formation of three Persons in a single Divinity, Tertullian uses the term “outflow”, “emanation” (προβολή). This term gave him the opportunity to prove that the Son and the Spirit are not creatures that appeared according to the will of the Father, and not separate independent beings existing next to and independently of him. Proceeding from the Father, as His own generation, as the internal development of His being, they stand in inextricable connection with Him, although they do not merge with Him: “we call the Son flowing out (prolatum) from the Father, but not separated, because God produces His Word as a trunk is a branch, a source is a stream and the sun is a ray.” “What has come from another does not, by this very reason, become separate from that from which it comes. But since it is the second, there are two. The third is the Holy Spirit, flowing from the Father and the Son, like the third fruit from a branch, the third river flowing from a stream, and the third reflection of a ray from the Sun.” “None of them is alienated from the root from which their characteristics arise. So, the Trinity, which comes from the Father, does not in the least contradict the monarchy” (Adv. Praxean 8). Therefore, trinity does not destroy unity, does not overthrow unity of command - it expresses the fullness of Divine existence, so to speak, organizes it. But the trinity in the Divinity is not a consequence of the internal need of the Divine being itself, it is only the first act in that great process that embraces the entire totality of God’s relations with the world and which is designated by the term οἰκονομία - economy: “We must believe,” says Tertullian, “in one God, but also in His economy, in His Revelation outwardly, realized in the Son and in Spirit" (Adv. Praxean 2). From this point of view, the development of the Trinitarian teaching in Tertullian is presented in this form: God is unicus, but He brings out the Logos from Himself, sends Him to the Virgin and to the Earth, then the Father, or the Father and the Son, or the Father in the Son sends the Spirit. This is the Divine economy, by virtue of which God acts in such gradualness. His monarchical dominatio is not limited to the fact that He exercises it through both persons who participate with Him in one essence and through whose revelation His essence is revealed more deeply to people. This does not exclude the preexistence of three Persons, but the Trinity is revealed to people only little by little, so that the three Persons can gradually be distinguished numerically. How does Tertullian solve the question of the consubstantial and hypostatic distinction of the Divine Persons? Tertullian decisively asserts that all three Persons are God: “et pater deus, et filius deus, et spiritus sanctus deus, et deus unusquisque” (Adv. Praxean 13). The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are in constant union and communion with each other (idid., 2), inseparable and inseparable (ibid., 18). Therefore the connection (conneus) of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Holy Spirit produces three united (cohaerentes), one from the other, so that the three make one and not one (tres unum sunt, secnonunus. Adv. Praxean 25). This unity of essence finds its basis in the fact that the separation of the Logos from the Father into a Hypostasis distinct from Him does not destroy the substantial unity of the Father with the Son, because it does not extend to the inner nature, just as the separation of a ray from the Sun, a river from a source does not destroy their unity and equality in essence with the Sun and the source. Tertullian understands the difference between the persons of the Holy Trinity not as a division of Their essence or cutting off (separatio, diversitas, divisio), which would result in independent beings, but as an internal distinction, distribution (distributio, distinctio), and neither the completeness of the whole nor the mutual connection of the parts with it changes. They differ not in essential properties, but in degree, not in substance, but in form (nec substantia, sed forma), not in power, but in appearance (nec potestate, sed specie: Adv. Praxean2). Tertullian also developed a precise formula for such a teaching, which remained the formula of the Latin Church: “tres personae, una substantia.” On the question of the Hypostatic distinction of the Divine Persons, Tertullian establishes that, as separate species of the same genus, They have their own special characteristics that distinguish them from each other: the Father does not come from anyone and is not born (Adv. Praxean 19), the Son is born and reveals itself to people (20), the Spirit comes from the Father through the Son (4). Since the time of the separation of the Divine Persons, Tertullian has made their hypostatic distinction very sharply. They are other, other and other (alius, alius, alius), but not other (aliud), and are numbered as First, Second and Third (9 and 13). Despite, however, the decisive affirmation of consubstantiality, Tertullian did not rise to the doctrine of the equality of Divine Persons. This was clearly reflected already in his teaching about the birth of the Logos in time. The same consistency is found in his subordinationism, which constitutes an essential feature in Tertullian’s teaching about the Hypostatic difference of the Logos from the Father. The essence of the Logos is qualitatively completely identical with the substance of the Father, but in its origin it is already an outflow from it and in volume it is less than the Father’s essence. The Father is the whole substance (tota substantia) and fullness of the Divinity, the Son is only a certain portion (portio) of this substance and fullness (Adv. Praxean 9). Likewise, the Holy Spirit is only light kindled from the Light (Son), as if portio of the Son (Apol. 21). Together with apologists, Tertullian expresses the position of the unconditional invisibility and impassibility of the Father, in contrast to the visibility and capacity for suffering of the Logos. “The Father is invisible because of the fullness of His greatness, but the Son is visible because of the measure of His flowing out” (Adv. Praxean14). This difference between the invisible and visible God existed even before the incarnation of the Logos; this difference is determined by the constant difference in the Hypostatic properties of the Father and the Logos. The latter, in contrast to the Father, from the very beginning of His Hypostatic existence had His own form different from the Father - the body and had the ability to be visible precisely as the bearer of a bodily form separate from the Father, as the image of God, and not God Himself (Adv. Marc. 5:19). Therefore the Son alone can come into contact with the finite (Adv. Marc. 2:27). In relation to the Holy Spirit, Tertullian clearly and precisely affirms His Divinity. Being a Montanist at the time when he wrote the treatise “Against Praxeus” (Adv. Praxean), and a convinced supporter of new Revelations, Tertullian energetically proclaimed the greatness of the Paraclete. In general, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit represents a natural development of the same principles that are established in the doctrine of the Logos. The Holy Spirit is God with the Father and the Son (Adv. Praxean 2), one essence with the Father (ibid., 3, 4). But Tertullian also attaches to Him a subordinate dependence not only on the Father, but also on the Son; he assigns Him third place in the series of Divine Hypostases and thinks of Him in terms of the amount of Divine substance less not only in comparison with the Father, but also with the Son (ibid., 8). Although the Holy Spirit has the basis of His existence in the Father, as “the entire Divine substance,” however, He received it not directly from the Father, but through the Son, just as a river does not flow directly from a source, but is formed from a stream (Adv. Praxean 4). The Holy Spirit receives its actual Hypostatic existence only after the Ascension of Christ to Heaven, being the continuer of His work on Earth, the Organizer of His Church. At His Ascension, the Lord “poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit received from the Father - the third name of the Godhead and the third degree of greatness,” the “Interpreter of the Economy,” the beginning of a “new prophecy” and “the conductor of the whole truth” (Adv. Praxean 30). In His relationship to the world, the Logos is, first of all, its creator - the world is entrusted by God under His special care and management. But this creation is not actually His work: He only realizes in a dream those substances and species that God thought out with Him even before the creation of the World (Adv. Praxean 6). As the closest mediator between God and the world, the Logos took an active part in the economy of human salvation. He acted in righteous people, appeared on Earth in a vision, in a dream, in a mirror, in fortune telling to Abraham, Jacob, Isaiah, Ezekiel and others (Adv. Praxean 14); but these Old Testament appearances of the Logos were only hidden indications of the future New Testament Revelation to His people. After the fulfillment of times, “He was sent from the Father to the Virgin and from Her was born of God and a man named Jesus Christ, suffered and was buried according to the Scriptures, rose again and ascended into Heaven and sat down at the right hand of the Father and will come again to judge the living and the dead, and He sent from His Person the Holy Spirit, the Comforter and Sanctifier of the faith of those who confess the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (ibid., 2). Thus, for the sake of saving people, the pre-existing Logos became a Man, since only as a Man could He act among people. He was born from a virgin. The Logos was the Son of God and He had no need for a human father - He only needed to take on human flesh; He received this flesh from the Virgin. Therefore, God was born from Mary. In Christ there were thus two natures - the Divine Spirit and human flesh. The body of Jesus Christ, according to the teachings of Tertullian, is real, born like ours, and consists of flesh and bone (De carne Christi 1:5, 9). By denying this reality, they at the same time deny the Suffering and death of the Savior and turn all the Houses of Redemption into illusion. The Son of God took on our body because He had to save this body (De carne Christi 16:14); he also accepted our soul - spiritual and rational (ibid., 10:14). He is a perfect man, sharing in our sufferings, in the weaknesses of our nature except sin (ibid., 5:9): He is a new man, a new Adam (De resur.carnis 53). But He is also God. Thus, in Christ there is one Person of two natures. But how to understand and express the union of the Divine and human in Him? Tertullian was the first to sharply raise the question of how to understand the incarnation - in the sense of metamorphosis or taking on the flesh. He understands in the latter sense. The transformation of God into Man is an impossible thought, first of all because God and the Word of God are unchangeable, and then because in this way the Divinity of Christ, as well as His Humanity, would be destroyed and not two natures would be obtained, but something third - mixtura quaedam (Adv. Praxean 27). Using the terminology of Stoic philosophy (μι ξις, κράσις, σύγχυσις), Tertullian very precisely, approaching the definitions of the Council of Chalcedon, formulates the answer to the question posed: “The Son of God united (miscens) in Himself Man with God (Adv. Marc. 2:27); Man united (miscens) with God (De came Christi 15). In Him we see a double state, not fused, but united (non cofusum, sed cojunctum) in one person, God and Man. And at the same time, the properties of both substances are preserved, so that just as the spirit (Divinity) performs His works in It, that is, virtues, wonders and signs, so the flesh (caro = = humanity) fulfills its sufferings, feeling thirst and so on, and finally dies.” “Two substances act differently according to their state, and the flesh is never spirit, nor the spirit flesh” (Adv. Praxean 27). Thus, in Jesus Christ there is one person and two natures: una persona, duae substantiae). Therefore, one cannot speak either of the transformation of Divinity into Humanity, or of the merging of two natures into a kind of third substance (ibid., 27). It is natural, therefore, that Tertullian sees in Jesus Christ a double series of phenomena - Divine and human, spiritual and carnal, immortal and mortal, strength and weakness (De carne Christi 5). If they say that Christ died, then this refers to Human nature: God does not suffer, which is why the Divinity in Christ cannot suffer along with the flesh (De patientia 3; De carne Christi 5; Adv. Marc. 2:27). But, on the other hand, Tertullian uses the following phrases: nasci se Deus patitur, passiones Dei, vere crucifixus est Deus vere mortuus. The man Jesus, even in Heaven, preserved the nature and image of human flesh: “there now sits at the right hand of the Father Jesus, a man, although God, the last Adam, although the original Word, flesh and blood, although of a purer quality than ours, however, the same both in substance and in appearance as at His Ascension. He, according to the Angels, will come again in the same way, so that those who wounded Him can recognize Him... Be calm, flesh and blood: you have already taken possession of both Heaven and the Kingdom of God in Christ” (De resur. carnis 51). Tertullian's Trinitarian teaching, with its simplicity and completeness, should have produced and did produce an impressive impression. Tertullian spoke the language of science and certified what was a religious belief - the unity of God and the trinity of persons, using the concepts of Substantia and persona. He achieved the same clarity and certainty in Christology - in the latter he even surpassed his Trinitarian teaching. Moving on to the general characteristics of Tertullian’s teaching on the Salvation of man, it should be noted that in this respect a characteristic difference between him and Irenaeus is revealed. The latter views the Salvation of man as an internal process of his healing, which in consistent development leads to eternal life; Tertullian understands grace as saving education through the law, by virtue of which a person learns to do good and through this acquires eternal life as a reward. This reflected the influence of Roman jurisprudence, the spirit of which Tertullian was completely imbued with, even if he was not a lawyer. He revolves around the categories of law and in Christianity he sees, first of all, fact and law. As a fact, it must be established and understood, as a law, interpreted and especially observed. Therefore, from Tertullian's point of view, it is completely just in establishing religious relations to apply the principles of human legislation and to introduce into this area the precision and rigor that prevail in the determination of our civil duties and rights. Indeed, for Tertullian, all Christianity falls under the point of view of the law. Jesus Christ preached the “New Law” (De praescr. haeret. 13). The Gospel is the law of Christ (De monogamia 8). Christ expanded the ancient law in that he prohibited not only sinful deeds, but also desires (D epaenit. 3). Therefore, sin is a violation of the law by deed or thought. Sin is guilt before God and is subject to punishment (ibid.). On the contrary, good is what God has commanded (De paenit 4). Fear of God is the beginning of Salvation. The consequence of fear is obedience, as the similarity of the soul with God, which a slave should have in relation to his master (ibid.). Whoever fulfills the will of God expressed in the law makes God his debtor (De paenit 2). Thus, all religion here turns into a legal relationship with God, and such an understanding of it, naturally, leaves no room for either mystical contemplation or direct and inner experience, the outpouring of the heart and devotion of the soul to God. The consequence of this inevitably extends to the entire moral life: in the Christian life the main task comes down to fulfilling the law or acquiring merit before God; and according to merit, a Divine reward is given. This teaching of Tertullian on the meaning of merit, as an expression of the whole spirit of his moral and dogmatic teaching, had a strong influence on Latin Theology. As one Roman Catholic scholar remarked (J. Tixeron, Histoire de dogmes, I, p. 330), Latin theology would have been completely dried up if other influences in the fourth and fifth centuries, especially the influence of Augustine, had not corrected the excesses represented by the Theology of Tertullian. But, on the other hand, as has been said, Tertullian has an exceptional merit for Latin Theology: the Latin theological language is his creation, without paying attention to the rules of the Latin classical language and constantly violating its purity, he enriched it with new terms, adapted it for the expression of new ideas, gave it theological precision and certainty and created a significant number of dogmatic formulas. Latin Theology owes to Tertullian both the forms of thought and the forms of language. II. Saint Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage II. 1 Information about the life of Saint Cyprian Tascius Caecilius Cyprian is the most attractive personality in the Western Church of the 3rd century. The main source for information about his life after his conversion to Christianity is the “Vita Caecillii Cypriani” written shortly after his death by the deacon Pontius, who was close to Cyprian (compare: Hier. De vir. ill., 68); his own works and, in particular, his extensive correspondence make it possible not only to understand the course of his spiritual life, but to a certain extent to become familiar with the external circumstances of his episcopal service. Cyprian's proper name is Tascius; He adopted the nickname Caecilius in honor of the Carthaginian bishop of this name, to whom he owed his conversion to Christianity. Cyprian was born at the beginning of the 3rd century in North Africa; his hometown was probably Carthage - at least from his early youth he was raised in Carthage. He came from a noble and wealthy pagan family and received a good education - he was sufficiently familiar with Latin and Greek literature. Cyprian chose for himself the career of a teacher of rhetoric, and, as a representative of his science in Carthage, enjoyed fame and glory (Lactantius, Div. Instit. 5: 1, 24). His life before his conversion was probably distinguished by pagan concepts of moral purity, but after Baptism, from an exalted Christian point of view, it seemed to him sinful and displeasing to God. Nothing, apparently, foreshadowed a decisive change in Cyprian’s beliefs and life. But awareness of the vanity of paganism, the desire for certainty in religious views, reading the Bible and the influence of the elderly presbyter Caecilian or Caecilius who lived in his house led the brilliant rhetorician to Christianity. In the year 245 or 246 he received Baptism. Immediately after his conversion and, perhaps, even before Baptism, Cyprian distributed most of his property to the poor and devoted himself entirely to the study of the truths of Christianity and the implementation of Christian virtues. To cleanse his mind, he abandoned reading classical works of Greek and Roman. Soon after Baptism, he was ordained a deacon, and in the year 247 he was awarded the priesthood. After the death of Bishop Donatus, Cyprian at the end of 248 or at the beginning of 249 was elected Bishop of Carthage and at the same time became Metropolitan of Proconsular Africa and all of Latin Africa in general. Cyprian, out of modesty, declined the choice, but the people surrounded his house and forced his consent. However, among the senior presbyters there were several dissatisfied with the elevation of a recently baptized person to the Carthage episcopal see. But the people were not deceived in their choice: piety and gentleness, humility and self-sacrifice in the new bishop were harmoniously combined with strength and firmness in carrying out Church discipline, administrative genius, and all this was imbued with ardent love for the Church. With his elevation to the episcopal see, Cyprian began a life full of tireless struggle and fruitful activity. First of all, part of the presbyters, dissatisfied with the election of Cyprian, united into an opposition party, which made it very difficult for him to perform episcopal service, opposed his orders and stopped at nothing to slander the bishop in the city and in wide circles of the Church and undermine his good name. Cyprian treated his opponents with wise consideration, called the presbyters compresbyteri and did not make any orders without first consulting them; however, he was soon forced to apply strict measures to the opposing elements and defend the authority of his dignity with all his energy. Cyprian was especially diligent in restoring the greatly fallen Church discipline and did not hesitate to take strict measures even against presbyters and virgins who dedicated themselves to God. This further increased the number of his enemies. At the end of 249, the persecution of Decius unexpectedly broke out, which showed how much during the long peace the spirit of Christians had weakened, which was reflected in numerous apostasies from the faith. Cyprian's life was also in danger: the pagan people repeatedly loudly filled the circus and the amphitheater with a cry: Cipr. ad leones (Cipr. Ep. 20, 1). Cyprian escaped and his property was confiscated. This removal gave his enemies a new weapon to accuse the bishop of cowardice and disloyalty, who makes high demands on his flock, and himself deprives them of his help in difficult circumstances and shamefully abandons them. They also made sure that the news of Cyprian's flight was disseminated as widely as possible and, in particular, that it reached Rome and, moreover, in the most unfavorable light. The Roman see was vacant at that time, but the clergy wrote an Epistle to Cyprian, in which he did not directly, but quite clearly condemned his behavior. Cyprian defended himself in a special Epistle to the clergy, and then to Bishop Cornelius, outlining the motives that forced him to flee and, among other things, refers to a vision that happened to him and a Divine command. However, rumors unfavorable for Cyprian on this matter did not stop until his martyrdom. One might think that Cyprian was hiding in the vicinity of Carthage, although his place of refuge remained a secret until his return. In any case, Cyprian did not cease to vigilantly monitor the condition of his flock and manage it. The faithful deacon conveyed letters, and two bishops sent by him examined the state of Church affairs. The persecution of Christians especially intensified when in April 250 a new proconsul arrived in Carthage, who, in order to gain the favor of the Government, went on a rampage in carrying out its orders. Not only imprisonment and exile were used, but also numerous executions. Many already died under torture during interrogation, others were crowned with martyrdom in public executions, and many, through their courageous confession of Christianity, acquired the honorary title of confessor. But in very many cases there were sad consequences of the lull of Christian feeling and instability during the first interrogation; others could not stand the torture. Then, with the same ease with which they renounced Christianity, they sought to be readmitted into Church communion without fulfilling the requirements of penitential discipline; at the same time, they greatly abused the ancient custom, which gave confessors the right to intercede for the fallen, and neglected the demands of Cyprian and the clergy devoted to him for relative public repentance. Some frivolous and arrogant confessors opposed the episcopal orders: they accepted into church communion not only individual Christians named by name, but entire houses and families, and hundreds of apostate confessors entered the Church solely on the basis of this kind of petition. Finally, before death, confessors transferred the right of intercession to others, for the benefit of everyone; who will only seek to return to the Church; they even issued permits and sociable certificates (libelli pacis). Confessors of sometimes dubious dignity arrogated rights of this kind to themselves. All this greatly undermined Church discipline and the authority of bishops and clergy. Cyprian resolutely rebelled against such outrages and demanded from the fallen real repentance and the passage of the penitential test established by the discipline, and he taught and warned confessors with all caution, urging them to limit the use of their rights. Cyprian revealed his views on this issue in his treatise “On the Fallen.” He does not want to completely exclude all the fallen from the Church; however, the return reception should be postponed until a calmer time and only in case of mortal danger of the fallen should they immediately be given the communion of peace. But the turmoil in Carthage did not stop. The confessors, with one stroke of the pen, allowed the fallen to receive Church communion, despising episcopal authority, and in an arrogant manner notified Cyprian about this. At the same time, Cyprian's opponents accused their bishop in Rome. Cyprian defended himself very successfully before the Roman clergy in two letters, and the Roman clergy and confessors agreed with Cyprian's stricter view of the treatment of the fallen. But in Carthage he could not completely overcome the opposition: being a strict defender of the unity of the Church, he had to experience almost simultaneously two divisions in the Church, one of which - the Felicissim schism - began in his own region. The soul of this schism was Presbyter Novatus, whose instrument was Deacon Felicissimus. When, at the end of the year 250, Bishops Caldonius and Herculanus, on behalf of Cyprian, undertook a visit to the Churches in order to help the poor from the money sent by Cyprian and replenish the clergy with worthy and noble men, Felicissimus raised a loud protest against these orders, whom Novatus, in the absence of Cyprian, ordained as a deacon with his own authority. Cyprian excommunicated him from the Church. Then five elders, and Novatus among them, took his side. They rebelled against the strict, as it seemed to them, practice of Cyprian in relation to the fallen and demanded too much leniency for everyone. Cyprian, after an absence of 15 months, returned to Carthage after Easter 251 and convened a council to discuss the issue of the fallen and the schism of Felicissimo. This council decided that libellatici could be accepted into the Church after sincere repentance, and those who took part in pagan sacrifices - only in case of mortal danger. Fallen clerics should be defrocked. The next Council of Carthage in 252 spoke out even more softly, under the influence of the Roman Church. Filicissimo was condemned and excommunicated by the council of 251. His adherents acquired a new member in the person of the excommunicated bishop Privatus of Lambeth, and the whole party elected their own bishop for Carthage in the person of Fortunatus. But Cyprian had to repel opponents from the other side, when Novatian spoke in Rome and demanded that the Church not, under any circumstances, give permission to the fallen. The Novatian party elected its bishop for the Roman Church in the person of Novatian, and for Carthage in the person of Maximus. Thus, Maximus advocated rigorism towards the fallen, and Fortunatus advocated the elimination of any disciplinary requirements towards them. Cyprian's practice occupied a middle ground between both extremes. Novatian also found himself on the side of Novatian in Rome. An ardent opponent of Cyprian in Carthage, this man, it seems, generally inclined to opposition, apparently became the main driving force in the Roman schism; it is difficult to say whether a radical change in thoughts occurred in him, or whether the subject of the dispute was of secondary importance for him, and the main thing was the dispute. However, both extremes weakened each other and strengthened the position of Cyprian, who, thanks to the reasonableness of his views, administrative wisdom and perseverance, little by little achieved recognition by all the bishops of the province and victory over the decaying schismatic communities. To restore Church unity, Cyprian wrote an essay - “De catholicae ecclesiae unitate”. These unrest had barely subsided when a new disaster struck Christians: in the summer of 252, a pestilence broke out in the Roman Empire. Gall, frightened by the strong development of the epidemic, ordered solemn sacrifices to be made and this again aroused the hatred of the mob against Christians who did not participate in pagan worship. They began to blame the “ugly” (Christians) for the wrath of the gods that befell the Empire. But Cyprian defeated this hatred with selfless love. The devastation wrought by the plague in Carthage is beyond description; dead and half-dead littered the streets, corpses poisoned the air and intensified the disaster. Cyprian, orally and in writing (“De mortalitate”), consoled Christians and inspired them to active love (“De eleemosynis”), which should be manifested not only in relation to fellow believers, but also to pagans. The bishop's fiery speeches ignited the flock. Christians organized assistance to the sick and burial of the dead, and collected money to help the needy, faithful and infidel, without distinction. Cyprian himself was a model of pastoral love. He even showed compassion for the plight of Christians in other areas. When the Numidian bishops reported that many Christians had been taken captive by the Barbarians, Cyprian collected a significant amount of money to ransom them. Such manifestations of love on the part of Christians won even the hearts of pagans towards them, who were amazed at their courage and selflessness. To dispel their prejudice, Cyprian raised his voice (in the work “AdDemetrianum”) in defense of Christians and Christianity against the reproach that they were the perpetrators of public disaster. In October 253, Gall was overthrown by Valerian, the persecution ended, and the believers enjoyed peace for three years. Cyprian directed his concerns to the restoration of internal Church discipline, broken by divisions and persecution. His authority increased unusually and was recognized in other Churches - in Gaul, Spain and even in Rome. In the last years of his life, Cyprian was involved in a great controversy - about the validity of baptism among heretics. The opposing parties were: Cyprian and the Roman Bishop Stephen I. The question was actually whether Baptism in a heretical society could be considered valid, or should the acceptance of heretics into the Church be carried out only under the condition of a new Baptism? While Stephen declared valid that Baptism which, according to the institution, was performed either in the name of Jesus Christ or in the name of the Holy Trinity, and confirmed it only by the laying on of hands, Cyprian, based on the idea of ​​the unity of the Church, with perfect consistency drew a conclusion regarding the invalidity of heretical baptism: outside the Church there can be no real Baptism, there cannot be the grace of the Holy Spirit and the path to Salvation. Baptism remains valid only for those who were baptized in the Church, then for a certain time belonged to a heretical society and returned to the Church with repentance. Cyprian in this case followed the views of Tertullian and had on his side not only the North African bishops, but also Firmillian of Caesarea (in Cappadocia), who decisively sided with Cyprian (his letter to Cyprian around the year 256). Stephen made clear his claim to supremacy over all bishops. Cyprian wisely and with dignity defended his position. Firmillian, excited by Stefan's passionate tone, paid him in the same coin. Cyprian firmly stood on the point of view that the Bishop of Rome was only equal to them. Stephen, in a dispute, interrupted Church communion with the North African Churches and with the East, although it has not been proven that he carried out this break formally. Dionysius of Alexandria, as a mediator, sought to end the dispute and prevent its sad consequences. (Eus.Hist. eccl. 7, 2 sqq 7:2~ff.). For his part, Cyprian tried to eliminate passion in the dispute and the danger of division and wrote “De zelo et livore.” This sad situation continued until the martyrdom of Stephen and Cyprian. At the end of 256, persecution of Christians broke out under Valerian. In Rome, Stephen (in 256) and his successor Sixtus II (258) became victims of persecution. In Africa, the courageous bishop prepared his flock for the expected edict of persecution there with the essay “De exhortatione martyrii”, exhorted them to firmness and himself showed the best example of it during the first interrogation on August 30, 257 before the Roman proconsul Aspasius Paternus. The latter demanded that Cyprian make a sacrifice to the gods. Cyprian resolutely refused and courageously confessed himself to be a Christian. The proconsul banished him to the deserted Kurubis. Taking advantage of the fact that the place of exile was one day's journey from Carthage, Cyprian consoled his Church and sent clergy and money to other places. From Kurubis he was transferred to his estate. At this time, a new edict was issued ordering the execution of all primates. Cyprian knew the contents of the edict and calmly awaited the final interrogation. He refused to follow his friends' advice to flee and only visited Carthage in secret one more time. On September 13, 258, he was captured by order of the new proconsul Galerius Maximus. On September 14th he was presented for questioning, once again confessed his faith and refused to make a sacrifice; then a death sentence followed, by which, as an enemy of the Roman gods, he was sentenced to beheading by sword. Cyprian replied: "Deo gratias." The execution took place in the square in front of the city. A huge crowd of people accompanied him there. Here he undressed, knelt and prayed; two of his clerics blindfolded him. He ordered the executioner to be given 25 gold coins. With trembling hands, the deeply moved executioner carried out the sentence. Christians buried the body of the martyr near the place of execution. II. 2. Literary activity of Saint Cyprian The entire literary activity of Saint Cyprian is in close connection with his episcopal ministry. He was a man of practice, not theory and speculation, and his cane entirely serves practical purposes and interests. Almost all of his treatises and even some of his letters have the character of pastoral Epistles, and their form shows that they were conceived by the author as speeches. It does not enter into theoretical explanations, but refers to Christianity and the Church consciousness of believers. The content of Saint Cyprian's literary works was strongly influenced by Tertullian: many of them have titles identical to the works of Tertullian (“De habitu virginum”, “De dominica oratione”, “De bono patientiae”). This was already evidenced by Jerome, who noted (Ep. 84) that “Blessed Cyprian uses Tertullian as a teacher, as his works prove.” But no matter how great his dependence, however, the characteristic features of his unique personality and his literary talent are revealed everywhere. As closely as he comes into contact with Tertullian in his thoughts, he differs so decisively from his “teacher” in the form of his presentation. His works bear the stamp of a calm, balanced spirit, a clear thinker and a noble, gentle man. The calm and logical development of thoughts, a subtle aesthetic sense, poetic rhetorical coloring, symmetry and fluency of speech give them attractiveness and instructiveness. Often in them there are images and allegories chosen with great taste and lovingly revealed, which in significant numbers passed into later literature. His speech breathes with liveliness and warmth of feeling. He does not have the dark brevity, sententiousness, caustic sarcasm of Tertullian. Quite rightly they compare Tertullian's speech with. a stormy mountain stream, rushing over rocks and heights, and the tongue of Cyprian - with a quiet stream flowing in the valley; but the latter retains life and energy within itself and swells into a mighty stream when the need arises to protect the Church from arbitrariness and pride and to defend the truth and Church order. Like Tertullian and often imitating him, Cyprian in his treatises develops apologetic, dogmatic and Church-practical themes. The following works are undoubtedly recognized as authentic: 1) “To Donatus” (Ad Donatum), later – “On the Grace of God” (Degratia Dei). In it, Cyprian, in the form of a letter to his friend Donatus, depicts the depravity of decrepit paganism and the recreating power of Christianity. The author imagines himself talking with a friend in a vineyard and describes the revival and renewal of the spirit that took place in him, which he previously considered impossible: the reviving waters washed away the filth of his former life and Heavenly light spilled into a purified and justified heart; Having received the Spirit, he became a new man, his doubts were resolved into confidence, secrets began to be revealed, darkness began to disappear - a new life began, animated by the Holy Spirit. To more clearly show the meaning of Divine grace, Cyprian asks his friend to imagine that he has climbed a high mountain and is looking from there at the objects lying below. There is war and robbery everywhere. In the cities there are gladiator games and bloody bullfights, immoral theatrical performances in which parricide, adultery and shamelessness are presented. People are fattened and killed for the pleasure of spectators. Even more unbridled is what lurks inside home walls. The corruption of judges threatens the law. People strive for transitory goods, wealth and honor, as true happiness, but they do not satisfy a person. Cyprian invites Donatus to take part in the feast of Heavenly grace. This work was probably written shortly after Cyprian’s conversion to Christianity. The poetic and artistic style is still reminiscent of the former rhetorician. 2) “On the clothing of virgins” (De habitu virginum) - a pastoral exhortation first to “every sex and every age” to stand firmly and unshakably against the misfortunes and temptations of this world and, through observance of the piety commanded in the Holy Scriptures, to achieve Divine gifts, and then primarily to virgins who have dedicated themselves to God - this flower of the Church tree - to abstain from luxurious and secular life and above all from a passion for clothes; purity should be equally manifested in everything, and the clothing of the body should not discredit the virtues of the soul. – In its content, this work often resembles Tertullian’s “De cultu feminarum”. Written in the year 249. 3) “About the fallen” (De lapsis) - of course, those who fell away during the persecution of Decius. Written in the year 251, after the end of the persecution, it first of all expresses grateful joy at the return of peace and the firmness shown by many martyrs and confessors - and then sorrow over the falling away of a significant number of Christians. Saint Cyprian raises the question of the reasons for the trial that befell him and points to them in the weakening of the spirit of Christian life. Then, very vividly and with great sorrow, he depicts how many of the Christians were defeated before the battle, overthrown without a fight and did not even leave a visible pretext for themselves, as if they were making sacrifices to idols under duress. Now a new type of defeat has appeared, when, contrary to the Gospel, contrary to the law of the Lord and God, they imprudently allow the fallen to communicate, giving them an invalid and false peace, harmful for those who give and not at all useful for those who receive. Saint Cyprian rebels against the abuse of sociable letters and proves that confessors cannot demand from bishops anything contrary to the command of God. Reconciliation with the Church must be preceded by sincere repentance. Whoever does not do this commits a crime against the Body and Blood of Christ, of which he partakes; whoever, having repented of his act and being ashamed of his sin, through the very disease of the fall acquires more valor and faith, will rejoice the Church and will earn from God not only forgiveness, but also a crown. 4) In the year 251, Cyprian’s immortal work “On the Unity of the Catholic Churches” (De catholicae ecclesiae unitate) was written, directed against the schism in Carthage and especially against the Novatian schism in Rome; it is remarkable in that it reveals the dogma of the one saving Church (mainly Chapter 6) without any admixture of papistic tendencies. In the Introduction (1–3) there is a general warning against heresies and schisms, which Satan invented to subvert faith, pervert the truth, and dissolve unity. The first part (4–9) proves the unity of the Church. The Lord founded His Church on one thing, that is, the Apostle Peter (Matthew 16:18–19). Of course, the other Apostles were the same as Peter - they had equal dignity and power with him, but at the beginning one is indicated to designate the one Church. This unity must be firmly supported and defended especially by the bishops who preside over the Church, in order to show that the bishopric itself is one and indivisible: the bishopric is one, and each of the bishops participates integrally in it - so the Church is one, although, expanding, it is divided into many. The Bride of Christ is pure and uncorrupted, knows one house and chastely preserves the sanctity of one bed. Anyone who separates himself from the Church unites himself with an adulterous wife, is alien to the Church, obscene, an enemy of Her. He can no longer have God as his Father who does not have the Church as his mother. Those outside the Church could only be saved if one of those outside Noah’s ark were saved. The sacrament of the unity of the Church is symbolically indicated in the unsewn tunic of Christ, which was not divided, but went to one whole by lot; whereas in the Old Testament the prophet Ahijah figuratively represented the division of the twelve tribes into two kingdoms by tearing his clothes. It is impious and treacherous to tear apart the unity of God, the garment of the Lord - the Church of Christ. Only those who are like-minded and agree live and abide in the house of God, in the Church of Christ. The second part (10–22) talks about the crime of division in faith and the need for Church unity. Heresies occurred and occur because the obstinate mind does not have peace within itself. The Lord allows divisions to occur in order to separate the wheat from the chaff, to reveal the treacherous and to test the faithful. In relation to those separated from the Church, the words of the Savior do not find application: where there are two or three congregations in My name, I am in the midst of them (Matthew 18:20), because the Lord speaks here about His Church and to those in the Church who agree with each other and are unanimous. With these words, the One who created and founded the Church does not separate people from the Church, but, denouncing those who have fallen from the faith and exhorting the faithful to peace, shows in his own words that He is more willing to be with two or three who pray with one accord than with a large number of those who differ in their views, and that more can be asked for by the concurring prayer of a few than by the dissenting prayer of many. The indelible and heavy guilt of discord is not cleansed even by suffering: one who is not in the Church cannot be a martyr; he can be killed, but cannot be crowned. He falsely calls himself a Christian. It is a great and amazing thing to prophesy, cast out demons and perform great miracles, but the one who does this will not reach the Kingdom of Heaven unless he follows the straight and true path. The Lord in His teaching (Mark 12:29–31; Matt. 22:37–40) taught unity and at the same time love: what kind of unity is maintained, what kind of love is preserved by one who, giving in to the impulses of discord, dissects the Church, destroys faith, disturbs the world, eradicates love, desecrates the sacrament. This evil began a long time ago. The Holy Spirit foretold through the Apostle that this should be the case at the end of the age. What was predicted is being fulfilled. But the treachery of many should not disturb believers; one must only be surprised by such people, because they are armed against the Church, they oppose the Divine economy; they are enemies of the altar, rebels against the sacrifice of Christ, traitors to the faith, blasphemers. Having despised the bishops and abandoned the priests of God, they dare to build another altar, compose another prayer from inappropriate words, desecrate the truth of Christ’s sacrifice with false sacrifices, and do not want to know that those who act contrary to God’s order are punished for reckless daring. Already in the Old Testament, rebels against the Divine order and priesthood were subjected to the most severe punishment (Corah, Dathan and Abiron, Uzziah). Even confessors must be on guard against the temptations of the devil: after confessing faith, the danger is greater, since the enemy deceives more. Solomon and Judah fell after many discoveries of grace in them. The conclusion constitutes a strong exhortation to unity. 5) “On the Lord’s Prayer” - De dominica oratione, written at the beginning of the year 252 and is closely related to Tertullian’s treatise “On Prayer,” but the development of the topic is generally independent. The content of the treatise is the interpretation of the Lord's Prayer (chapters 7–27); At the beginning and at the end, general instructions and comments are made regarding the mood during prayer, the need to combine prayer with good deeds, and regarding the times for solemn performance of prayers. 6) In the year 252, or maybe in the year 253, the work “To Demetrian” (Ad Demetrianum) was written, a pagan with whom Cyprian repeatedly had heated debates. This is an apology for Christianity, which aims to refute the accusations of Christians common among pagans that because of them wars arise more often, plagues and famines rage, rains and dew stop in a long bucket. But the real reason for these disasters is, firstly, that the world is already outdated, and it no longer has the strength and stability that it was rich in before; secondly, in the obstinacy and depravity of the pagans, especially in the persecution of Christians, for which they are subjected to the righteous judgment of God. The author vividly depicts the moral decline of the pagan world and eloquently exhorts to repentance and conversion to Christianity. 7) “On mortality” (De mortalitate) - due to the fact that during the pestilence that raged for several years, especially, as it seems, in the years 252-254, in Carthage and its environs, some of the Christians showed cowardice, and others were especially embarrassed by the fact that the painful ulcer affects Christians along with the pagans. Only those who do not want to go to Christ can fear death; and not wanting to go to Christ is characteristic only of those who do not believe that he will begin to reign with Christ: The fear of death comes from a lack of faith in the truth of what God has promised. Christians, while they are in this world, are connected with the human race by the sameness of the flesh, although they are separated in spirit and because this corruptible will not put on the incorruptible, and this mortal will not put on immortality, until Christ leads us to God the Father, until then all the infirmities of the flesh will be common to us with the entire human race. Moreover, the Christian in this age must endure more than others; therefore, one should not grumble during disasters, but patiently endure everything, no matter what happens. The fear of God and faith should make him ready for anything. Saint Cyprian even points out the benefit and necessity of the pestilence in that it reveals the true mood of people and, teaching Christians not to fear death, prepares them for the feat of martyrdom. Therefore, one who has to move into the dwelling of Christ and into the glory of the Heavenly Kingdom should not cry and grieve, but, nourishing true faith in the promise of the Lord, should rather rejoice in such a transition and resettlement. 8) “On charity and almsgiving” (De opere et eleemosynis) - aims to encourage wealthy members of the Church to support brothers in need; written probably during the same disasters. Saint Cyprian points to the manifold and great Divine blessings by which our salvation has been and is constantly being arranged - the generous and rich mercy of God the Father and Christ, and precisely in the Redemption of man by the Son of God and in the saving care for the complete preservation of already redeemed man. Divine love revealed some means of preserving salvation, pointing to deeds of truth and mercy, teaching us to wash away through alms those filth with which we subsequently stained ourselves. Through almsgiving and deeds of righteousness the flame of sins is extinguished; everlasting, unceasing charity again returns to us God’s mercy. The Divine voice never ceased - in the Holy Books of both the Old and New Testaments - to always and everywhere call the people of God to works of mercy and make it their duty to give alms. There is no need to fear that, having begun to do a lot of charity and spent all your wealth through generosity, you yourself will not fall into poverty: where is the spending for Christ, how is Heavenly Wealth acquired, there cannot be scarcity. 9) “On the Good of Patience” (De bono patientia) - written during the dispute about the Baptism of heretics (Cipr. Er. 73, 26), probably in the summer of 256, in order to show one’s own peaceful mood and calm down the members of the Church who were heated by the discussion of this issue; but Cyprian does not mention the very subject of the dispute at all. It was written under the influence of Tertullian's De patientia; but Cyprian independently and uniquely introduced whole series of new thoughts. The commandment of the Lord is to maintain patience with all diligence. Philosophers also cared about him, but their patience was as false as their wisdom was false, for how could one be wise and patient who had no concept of either the wisdom or the patience of God. Christians, being philosophers not in words, but in deeds, must show in spiritual obedience the patience that we learn from Divine instructions. They have this virtue in common with God; Patience begins from Him, and it is necessary to imitate the patience of the Master and Father. And Cyprian further depicts examples of God’s long-suffering. And Jesus Christ taught patience not only in words, but also in deeds. Patriarchs, prophets and all the saints who symbolically bore the image of Christ, when praised for their virtues, especially valued praise for the fact that they maintained patience with a firm and constant calm of spirit. Patience not only preserves good things, but also prevents evil things; on the contrary, lack of patience causes much harm. Therefore, Saint Cyprian calls upon us to be unshakable and diligent in our labors and to persevere firmly in all patience. 10) “On Jealousy and Envy” (De zelo et livore) was written, perhaps, at the same time as the previous one. The author exhorts prudence and moderation in the dispute that has arisen. Jealousy and envy should not have a place in Christian society, since these poisonous growths, originating from the devil, are the root and source of all evil: hence hatred, discord, schisms, discontent, disobedience. The medicine against them comes from the same place where the wounds were inflicted: love those whom you previously hated, be kind to those whom you persecuted through envy with unrighteous slander; imitate the good ones if you can follow them, and if you cannot follow them, then at least rejoice in them and greet the most worthy. Think about Paradise, where Cain, who kills his brother out of jealousy, does not enter. Think about the Kingdom of Heaven, into which the Lord accepts only those who agree and like-minded. Think about the fact that only peacemakers can be called sons of God. Think about the fact that we stand before the eyes of God, that God Himself observes and judges our passage in life. 11) “To Fortunatum on an exhortation to martyrdom” (Ad Fortunatum de exhortatione martyrii). Written during the persecution of Valerian in the year 257. At the insistent request of Fortunatus, Cyprian decided to extract from the Holy Scriptures the Commandments of the Lord, which would be weapons and, as it were, armor for those who would enter into battle. The sayings of Holy Scripture are arranged according to the plan established by Cyprian himself and are intended to warn Christians against idolatry (1-5) and serving the world (6-7), to convince them to remain firmly in faith, in virtue, in the accomplishment of heavenly and spiritual grace (8), to explain that disasters and persecutions come for our testing, and to console with an indication of the faithfulness of the Divine promise regarding rewards and rewards (9-12). 12) “To Quirinus, or Three Books of Evidence against the Jews” (Ad Quirinum, Testimoniorum libri III adversus Iudeos). Initially, as can be seen from the preface to the first book, the author wrote two books; in the First, he tried to show, on the basis of the Holy Scriptures, that the Jews, according to predictions, apostatized from God and lost the Lord's grace, which was given to them before and was promised for the future, and that Christians took their place, pleasing God by faith and coming from all nations and from all over the world. The second book contains an explanation of the mystery about Christ - proof that the messianic prophecies were fulfilled precisely in Christ, as God, as the Redeemer and the future Judge. The books are divided into a number of provisions, which are proven in places from the Holy Scriptures. The third book was added subsequently and contains the foundations and guidance for a Christian virtuous life, borrowed from Holy Scripture. Already the ancient Church writers of the West (Commodian, Lactantius, Firmicus Maternus) used the treasures of Biblical places collected here. The work is important for the history of the translation of the Bible into Latin. 13) “On the vanity of idols (De idolorum vanitat”) or “On the fact that idols are not gods” (Quod idola dii non sint). A small work, the first chapters of which (1–9) are a compilation from “Octavia” by Minucius Felix, and the last chapters are taken from Tertullian’s “Apologetics” (21–23). The author proves that idols are not gods, since pagan gods are glorified people; only monotheism is a true religion. At first the Jews had grace from the true God, but then they lost it due to violation of the rules of religion; Christianity replaced Judaism. The authenticity of this work is questioned, since neither Cyprian’s Vita nor the list of his works of the year 359 mentions it; handwritten tradition is also not conducive to recognizing it as authentic. In any case, in its present form, the work was hardly intended for publication. Saint Cyprian took an active part in all the most important events that worried the Church of his time - this forced him to enter into written relations with representatives of different Churches; in addition, the circumstances of the life of the Carthaginian Church and the personal life of Cyprian himself provided enough reasons for letters. The newest editions contain eighty-one letters, but of these only 65 were written by Cyprian himself, the rest were addressed to him. The chronology of these letters, as far as determining the year of their composition is concerned, in most cases does not present any difficulties; but attempts to establish their exact sequence are not considered unconditionally successful. All letters come from the time of Cyprian's episcopal ministry: 248/249–258. In their content, they provide rich material for judging, first of all, the personal character and literary activity of their author, and then serve as a rich source for the history of Church life and Church law: the spirit and life of the Church, Church discipline and government of his time are presented here not in abstract reflection, but in concrete facts of living clarity. The letters of Saint Cyprian concern a wide variety of issues raised by the needs of life - discipline among the clergy and the laity, care for the poor and captives, encouragement and consolation of confessors during persecution, the flight of Cyprian during persecution, demands towards the fallen and the decision to hastily not accept them into Church communion and not allow them to participate in the sacrament of the Eucharist, Church divisions in Carthage and Rome and methods to their elimination, disputes about the Baptism of heretics, and so on. II. 4. Dubious and inauthentic works In addition to the listed, undoubtedly authentic works of Saint Cyprian, many treatises, letters and even poems were distributed under his name, the attribution of which to the Carthaginian saint is either questioned or even decisively rejected. The most important of them are the following: 1. “In Praise of Martyrdom” (De laude martyrii) is an inspired sermon on the essence, meaning and dignity of martyrdom. The attribution of this work to Saint Cyprian is very well attested: it is used by Lucifer; and it is in the list of the year 359, Augustine knows it, and it is in all the manuscripts of the works of St. Cyprian, but it has not been proven that it was already in the Vita Pionii collection. The denial that it belongs to Saint Cyprian is based on its significant stylistic features in comparison with the original works of Cyprian and on its strong dependence on Virgil. Under such conditions, the authenticity of this work must be considered doubtful. 2. “The Book of Spectaculis” (De spectaculis) makes a decisive demand to abandon pagan spectacles and turn our attention to those glorious spectacles that lie ahead for Christians in the future. It was compiled by a bishop who was away from his flock. This circumstance, in connection with the dependence of the work on Tertullian’s “On Spectacles” and its relationship with the original works of Tertullian, forces us to refrain from making a decisive verdict regarding its authenticity. The list of the year 359 does not know him; Not a single ancient writer testifies to it. Recently, the idea has been persistently expressed that it belongs to Novatian, mainly on the basis of significant stylistic kinship with the works of Novatian. 3. The same author who wrote the book “On Spectacles” also wrote the treatise “On the Good of Chastity” (De bono pudicitiae), which praises the virtue of chastity with great animation. The dependence on Tertullian here is so great that here too they insist on the origin of the treatise from Cyprian, also relying on stylistic contacts with his original treatises. Meanwhile, others claim that the treatise belongs to Novatian for the same reasons that are given in relation to the work “On Spectacles”. In any case, the author of the treatise is a bishop and, when he wrote it, was away from his flock. 4. The treatise “Against the Jews” (Adversus Iudeos) is a sermon that exhorts Israel in living, rhetorical language to come to their senses and repent. He is named in the list of the year 359. Previously, it was seen as a translation from Greek and associated with the name of Hippolytus; Now they are inclined to believe that the Latin text should be considered original, and its author should be sought among Novatian’s circle of friends, if it was not Novatian himself. 5. The book “Against Novatian” (Adversus Novatianum), or, more correctly, the treatise on Novatian, refutes the rhetorical point of view on the issue of the fallen; since the opinion of Saint Cyprian about the baptism of heretics is quite clearly rejected here, then this treatise cannot belong to Cyprian. It was written shortly after the persecution under Gallus and Valerian (251–253); however, some (for example, Krüger) date it to the time after the persecution of Valerian. In any case, its origin from Retitius of Autun is excluded on chronological grounds; The authorship of the Roman Bishop Sixtus II is not substantiated by sufficient arguments - and in general the Roman origin of the treatise is disputed. 6. The book "On Rebaptism" (Derebaptismate) is a polemical work directed against the views and practices of Cyprian and other bishops who defended heretics, in favor of the Roman point of view on the validity of baptism performed in heretical societies. It certainly cannot belong to Cyprian. They claim (Ernst) that it was compiled in the year 256, shortly before the Council of Carthage on September 1, 256, in Africa, very likely in Mauritania. According to others, it was written after the council, in North Africa (Koch) and generally back in the 3rd century, suggesting literature on the issue under discussion (G. Krüger). 7. The treatise “On Dice Players” (De aleatoribus, more correctly – Adversus aleatores) is a sermon written in a vulgar, heavy, but strong and heartfelt language, with the fire of sacred jealousy, against the game of dice, as against the invention of the devil. Due to stylistic features, the work cannot belong to Cyprian. Adolf Harnack previously, on the basis of the treatise’s relationship to the canon of the Old and New Testaments and especially to the “Shepherd” of Hermas and the “Teaching of the 12 Apostles,” as well as its position in the history of the penitential discipline, spoke out for a pre-Cyprian origin and considered the Roman Bishop Victor (189–198/199) to be its author; but after a long and heated struggle he abandoned his hypothesis. The unknown author of this work undoubtedly made use of the works of Tertullian and especially the Ad Quirinum (Testimonia) and entered into the thoughts and spirit of the works of St. Cyprian. 8. "Calculations regarding Easter" (De pascha computus) contains Easter calculations and is analogous to the "Indicator of the Time of Easter" compiled by Hippolytus (Ἀπόδειξις χρόνων του πάσχα). The author does not name Hippolytus, but works on the same basis as him; however, significant deviations in particulars make the direct influence of Hippolytus improbable. The work was written in the fifth year of the reign of Gordian, before Easter of the year 243. It cannot belong to Cyprian. Adolf Harnack considers it possible to be identical with Novatian’s work “De pascha”. 9 . “On the Two Mountains” or “On Mount Sinai and Zion” (De duobus montibus vel De monte Sina et Sion) - through a very wide use of the allegorical method, tries to present evidence that Sinai and Zion are types of the Old and New Testaments. The treatise is written in vulgar Latin and contains ancient features that make it possible that it originated in the first half of the 3rd century. II. 5. Theological teaching of Saint Cyprian Saint Cyprian did not have a speculative mind and was not a theologian in the strict sense of the word; he was a practical man, an administrator; He entered into the subtleties and difficulties of dogmatic teaching only to the extent that it was necessary for the instruction of his flock and sought, first of all, to establish peace in the souls of his flock and directed all his strength to their internal transformation. These qualities provided him with outstanding significance and influence both among his contemporaries and in the ancient Church in general. But they also had the consequence that the Trinitarian, Christological and soteriological questions found little place in his works - the center of his Theology was the disclosure of the doctrine of the Church. Before Cyprian, the question of the Church had already been more or less widely discussed (by Saint Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian), but Saint Cyprian combined the results obtained by early dogmatic thought, developed them in more detail, supplemented them with new dogmatic provisions, and his teaching about the Church now appears in the form of a relatively integral system. Considered from the side of its visible elements, “The Church consists of the bishop, the clergy and all who stand in the faith” (Er. 33:1; in Russian translation letter 17; cf.: 66:8:54). In her mystical essence, She is the Bride of Christ, spiritually distributing sons to God (Decath. eccl., 4-6; Ep. 74:6:61). The Church alone guards and possesses all the power of Her Bridegroom and Lord (Er. 73:7:60); in Her is grace and all truth, because grace and truth are one (Er. 71:1:58). Based on Matt. 16:18 ~and further the Church is established on the bishops, and they have the right to lead and manage “from here (that is, from Matthew 16:18 ~ff.) the power of the bishops and the government of the Church flows successively and successively, so that the Church is established on the bishops and every action of the Church is controlled by the same rulers... this is based on the Divine law”... (Er. 33:1:17). “The bishop is in the Church and the Church is in the bishop, and whoever is not with the bishop is not in the Church” (Er. 66:6:54). The elders and deacons who share his labors must obey him and only on his instructions carry out everything that the Church administration requires (Er. 5:2:27). Bishops are the successors of the Apostles, chosen by the Lord Himself and placed in this position by Him, as primates and shepherds: “The Apostles, that is, bishops and primates, were chosen by the Lord Himself... who appoints bishops (Er. 3:3:4). The idea of ​​the succession of the power of bishops in the Church from the Apostles was revealed earlier by Saint Irenaeus, but for him the succession of bishops was a historical argument in favor of the truth of church tradition - Saint Cyprian transfers the question to a purely dogmatic basis and speaks of the Divine establishment of a successive hierarchy in the Church: bishops are the successors of the Apostles not only in the historical sense, but also personally and precisely through the gift of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, to criticize a bishop is to judge the judgment of God and Christ. “This means not believing in God, this means going against Christ and against His Gospel... His greatness and truth assert that nothing, even the smallest thing, happens without the knowledge and permission of God, and you (letter to Florence Pupian) believe that priests are appointed in the Church without His knowledge. For he believes that those who are appointed are unworthy and criminal, isn’t it - he believes that His priests are not appointed in the Church from God and not through God” (Er. 61:1:54). Hence it is natural that the Provider of priests avenges them: Korah, Dathan and Abiron received punishment for their sacrilegious insolence; and all attempts made by the wicked to destroy the Divine order are made against God (De cat. eccl., 18). The bishop appointed by God is the body that unites the separate Church around itself - as it is said, he has full power. Therefore, the flock is obliged to obey, and Cyprian tirelessly speaks about obedience to the bishop: one cannot think that one can inherit life and salvation without obeying bishops and priests (Er. 3:4:4). Obedience to the bishop is necessary for the peace and integrity of the Church: “if, according to Divine teaching, the entire brotherhood obeyed him, then no one would ever rebel against the host of priests, no one, after the Divine determination, after the voice of the people, after the verdict of the co-bishops, would no longer make himself a judge - not over the bishop, but over God, no one would tear the Church apart by dissolving the unity of Christ; no one, to please himself and out of arrogance, would separately establish a new heresy outside the Church” (Er. 59:5:47). In a letter to Florence Pupian, Cyprian writes: “bees have a queen, cattle have a leader and remain faithful to them, robbers obey the ataman with complete obedience - how much more honest and better are senseless cattle and dumb animals, as well as bloodthirsty, raging robbers with swords and weapons. And there they recognize and fear the ruler, who was appointed not by the determination of God, but by the agreement of a dissolute crowd and a criminal crowd” (Er. 66:6:54). If obedience to the bishop is the basis of the unity of the Church, then disobedience is the beginning of division and heresy: “the efforts of heretics and evil-minded people usually begin with self-indulgence, combined with arrogant and proud contempt for the primate: this is how apostasy from the Church and the desecration of the altar are accomplished, this is how the peace of Christ, the order and unity of God are disturbed” (Er. 3:3:4). But Saint Cyprian does not stop at the unity of each individual Church, governed by a bishop - he focuses with special love on the thought of the unity of the entire Church of Christ: he gave a clear and systematic expression to the dogmatic teaching about the unity of the Church, devoting his famous treatise “On the Unity of the Catholic Church” to the disclosure of the topic of the unity of all individual Churches in one Ecumenical Church of Christ. The Church founded by the Apostles in all parts of the world is one: they handed over to the bishops only one Church. By its very foundation the Church is one: it is the Catholic Church (Er. 73:20:60). “The Church is one, although, with the increase in fertility, expanding, it is split into many. After all, the sun also has many rays; There are many branches on a tree, but there is only one trunk, firmly held by the root; many streams flow from one source, but although the overflow resulting from the abundance of waters represents multiplicity, however, at the very source it still retains unity. Separate a sunbeam from its origin - unity will not allow a separate light to exist; separate a branch from a tree - the broken one will lose the ability to grow; separate the stream from its source - the separated one will dry up. In the same way, the Church, illuminated by the light of the Lord, spreads its rays throughout the world; but the light spreading everywhere is one, and the unity of the body remains undivided. Throughout the earth she spreads her branches laden with fruits; its abundant streams flow into distant space; for all this, the head remains one, one beginning, one mother, rich in success [of fruitfulness]” (De unit. Eccles. 5). This sacrament of unity, this union of indissoluble consent, is indicated in the Gospel story about the tunic of the Lord Jesus Christ: the tunic was not divided and torn, but went to one who fell by lot, and came into possession unspoiled and undivided (De unit. Eccles. 7). The unity of the people is also mysteriously depicted in the sacrament of the Eucharist, for just as many grains, gathered together, ground and stirred, form one bread, so exactly do many believers form one and the same body, uniting in Christ, Who is the heavenly Bread (Epist. 63, cap. 13). The unity of the Church is expressed in the unity of faith, as well as obedience to the shepherds (De unit. Eccles. 6; 8; 10; 12). The unity of the Church finds external expression in the episcopate, which serves as the body of unity of the universal Church. The one Catholic Church is united and sealed by the bond of priests who are mutually connected with each other (De unit. Eccles. 5). There is one bishopric, branched into a single person of many bishops (Epist. 43, cap. 5; Epist. 55, cap. 24), and each individual bishop is the bearer of precisely this universal priesthood. Therefore, whoever, not observing either the unity of the spirit or the union of peace, separates himself from the Church and from the society of priests, he, not recognizing neither episcopacy, nor unity and peace, can have neither the power nor the honor of a bishop (Epist. 55, cap. 24). Finally, St. Cyprian gives another basis for the unity of the Church, which is used by Roman Catholic theologians as an ancient, clear and indisputable evidence of the primacy of the Apostle Peter, with corresponding conclusions regarding the significance of the Roman see. St. Cyprian writes: “The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you that you are Peter...” (Matthew 16: 18–19). And again He says to him after His resurrection: “Feed My sheep” (John 21:16). Thus, He bases His Church on one thing. And although after His resurrection He assimilates equal authority to all the apostles, saying: “As the Father sent Me, I also send you...” (John 20:21-23), however, in order to show unity, He was pleased to begin this unity from the same place. Of course, the other apostles were the same as Peter, had equal dignity and power with him; but one is indicated at the beginning, to designate the one Church” (De unit. Eccles. 4). Cyprian speaks of the See of Peter and that main Church from which priestly unity emanated (Epist. 59, cap. 14). However, in the above and similar expressions, St. Cyprian needs to pay attention to the words: “Of course, the other apostles were the same as Peter, had equal dignity and power with him; but at the beginning one is indicated to designate the one Church.” From this it is clear that Christ founded the Church only on one apostle. Peter for St. Cyprian was only a symbol of the unity of the Church: Peter is the temporary beginning of the Church and its unity, but not its origin in the sense that the Church grew out of him and its unity rests on unity with him and precisely with him. The real principle, the efficient cause for the Church and its unity, both at the beginning and after, is only Christ Himself, and not Peter. He is not the beginning of the Church and not the beginning of unity, but he is only the numerical unity with which Christ deigned to begin His Church. With this beginning the Founder most clearly showed that His Church was to be forever one and only. This - and nothing else - is the thought of Cyprian (Koch N. Cyprian und der römische Primat. Leipzig, 1910. S. 22). Practical commentary on your words about the apostle. Peter in their application to the meaning of the Roman see was given by St. himself. Cyprian. In a letter to the Roman Bishop Cornelius, Cyprian sharply condemns those schismatics who dare to undertake a journey both to the See of Peter and to that main Church from which priestly unity emanated, considers it just and legitimate that everyone’s case should be heard where the crime is committed, asserts that the governed should not run hither and thither, should not violate the consent of the bishops with their crafty and deceitful behavior: “except for a desperate few and to lost people the importance of the bishops installed in Africa, who have already judged them, may seem small.” In the dispute over the baptism of heretics, Cyprian resolutely rebels against the claims of the Bishop of Rome to supremacy. “One should not prescribe on the basis of custom where it should be proven by reasoning. For even Peter, whom the Lord first chose and on whom he founded His Church, when Paul subsequently entered into a dispute with him about circumcision, did not arrogately arrogate anything to himself and did not say with arrogance that subsequent newcomers should obey him as the first chosen one: he did not neglect Paul, did not accept the advice of truth and easily agreed to the legal reasoning defended by Paul, providing us with an example of patience and agreement” (Er. 71: 3-58). In a letter to Pompey (74:61), Cyprian mercilessly condemns Stephen's arrogance, blindness, cunning and cruel stubbornness. Saint Cyprian was the first to decisively formulate the position that there is no Salvation outside the Church (Er. 73:21:60). This was a natural conclusion from his teaching about the unity of the Church and that only in the Church is grace and truth and everything that is necessary for Salvation. Therefore, just as all those outside the house of Rahab in Jerocho perished, so all those outside the Church will perish (Er. 69:4:62). He who leaves the Church of Christ deprives himself of the rewards predetermined by Christ: he is alien to Her, indecent, Her enemy. He can no longer have God as his Father who does not have the Church as his mother. Anyone outside the Church could be saved only if one of those outside Noah’s ark were saved” (De cat. eccl., 6). III. Saint Hippolytus, Bishop of Rome In 1551, near Rome, on the Verovo field, along the Tiburtine road, a statue of a bishop sitting on a throne was unveiled; on the sides of the latter is carved a list of the works of the person in whose honor the statue was built, and an Easter circle compiled by him for 112 years - from the 222nd to the 333rd year. The statue was damaged - the head was missing. The bishop represented by the statue was recognized as Saint Hippolytus on the basis of a list of works; The monument - all made of marble - was erected by admirers of Hippolytus, probably no later than the second half of the 3rd century. The head was subsequently attached, so that the monument now has a complete appearance; but it is impossible, of course, to determine how closely this attached head corresponds to the original one. The sad fate of the statue, by fatal accident, deprived of its head, perfectly characterizes the state of scientific works about Hippolytus: despite extraordinary efforts, it is still not possible to accurately establish the features of the image of this ancient writer - his true face still eludes researchers. The darkness that shrouded the life of Saint Hippolytus was only partially dispelled around the middle of the 19th century, when significant parts of the work known under the name Φιλοσοφούμενα (“Philosophumena”) were discovered and published. His first book was known for a long time and was published under the name of Origen, although its author in the preface assimilates to himself the episcopal dignity (ἀρχιερατεία), which the Alexandrian scientist did not have. In 1842, Minoid Mina brought to Paris a 14th-century manuscript he discovered on Mount Athos, which contained 4–10 books of the Philosophumen according to the current count. These books were published in 1851, again under the name of Origen. A lively dispute immediately arose about the author of the entire work. There were attempts to attribute it to Caius, Novatian, Tertullian; but soon the almost general opinion of researchers tilted in favor of the authorship of St. Hippolytus (especially Döllinger and Volkmar). Although this work is not named in the ancient lists of Hippolytus’s works, however, it is said that it belongs to Hippolytus in the first place, the fact that in the “Philosophumenae” the author casually names several works written by him before (Syntagma - in the Preface, Chronicle - at 10:30 ~ and “On the Essence of the Universe” - at 10:32), the attribution of which to Saint Hippolytus is proven on the basis of other evidence; secondly, some other works of Hippolytus - “On the Antichrist”, “Against Noetus” - reveal a close relationship with the “Philosophumens”. Finally, only thanks to the “Philosophumena” are made clear and understandable those scanty and contradictory information about Hippolytus that science had until that time and which it was not able to understand in the circle of legends that developed very early in Western tradition around the name of Hippolytus and did not allow insight into historical reality. Based on the data of ancient tradition and Hippolytus’s own instructions in the Philosophumena, the circumstances of his life can be presented as follows: Hippolytus was born, perhaps in Rome, in a family that spoke Greek, probably around 160-170, in the theological field he was a student of St. Irenaeus (Prot. Bibl., cod.121), was a presbyter of the Roman Church and already under Bishop Zephyrinus (199–217) gained fame for his scholarship and literary activity. At this time, another prominent member of the Roman clergy was Callistus, with whom Hippolytus had disagreements on the grounds of Theology and Church discipline. Defending against the monarchians the difference in the Holy Trinity of the Father and the Son, Hippolytus allowed subordinationism and incurred the accusation of bitheism from Callistus; he himself suspected Callistus of an inclination towards the teachings of Sabellius and Theodotus. In matters of Church discipline, Hippolytus was a representative of the strict trend and accused Callistus, who had a strong influence on Zephyrinus, of upsetting the Church’s moral requirements by excessive leniency; at the same time, he made it clear that the basis for such leniency was the previous faulty moral life of Callistus himself. After the death of Zephyrinus, the contenders for the Roman See were Hippolytus and Callistus; Callistus's party won. Having taken the Roman see, Callistus, in order to remove suspicion, condemned Sabellius as a wrong-minded person, and thereby tried to strengthen his reputation before the flock as a man of Orthodox convictions; then he condemned the "bigtheism" of Hippolytus and his followers; further, he further weakened the strictness of the Church rules and began to treat sinning members of the Church quite easily and condescendingly, softening the requirements regarding marriage and repentance and allowing the possibility of accepting all repentants into the Church, no matter what the sins that caused their excommunication. In view of this, the relationship between Hippolytus and Callistus became so strained that Hippolytus completely stopped communicating with Callistus, became the head of his followers and became the bishop of the separated community. It is unknown how and where Hippolytus was consecrated as a bishop; but one can think that in this regard there was no violation of the established Church orders: Hippolytus himself calls himself “successor of the Apostles” and a participant in the grace of the Holy Spirit by succession (Philos., prooem.). In Church tradition he is also known with the name of “primate,” bishop (Eus. Hist. eccl. 6, 20; Hier. De vir. ill., 61; Theodor. Ep. 145, etc.). In contrast to the society or “school” of the Callistians, Hippolytus considered his community to be a real “Church” containing anti-Church teaching. Thus, Hippolytus was the Bishop of Rome. This fact, which is a direct conclusion from the messages of Hippolytus himself in the Philosophumena, is also confirmed by the fact that external signs of respect for the personality of Hippolytus are also concentrated in Rome: his grave is open here; not far from it a marble statue of Hippolytus was found, erected by his admirers; in Rome, several churches were built in honor of Hippolytus. Then, Eastern writers before the 7th century, who definitely named the place of his bishopric, speak of Hippolytus of Rome; even from the 7th century, when the Western tradition began to spread that Hippolytus was the bishop of the Pier near Rome, the tradition about him as the bishop of Rome continues to stubbornly adhere to this (Leontius of Byzantium - 6th century, Eustratius, presbyter of Constantinople - 6th century, Anastasius Sinaite - 7th century, Patriarch Germanus, John of Damascus - 8th century, Patriarch Nicephorus - 9th century, Theophilus of Bulgaria - XI century: see: Migne, PG 10, 575–576). Numerous manuscripts of Hippolytus' works call him Bishop of Rome; The same is true for the most part in the Greek calendars, synaxarions, prologues and menaions. In view of this, it is now considered a firmly established and almost irrefutable position that Hippolytus was the Bishop of Rome and was the first anti-pope. Therefore, it is necessary to stop calling him Bishop of the Pier near Rome. How long this first church-hierarchical schism in the Roman Church lasted is unknown. One might think that it was not widely used, which is why the only source of information about it is the message of Hippolytus himself in the Philosophumena (9:7, 11, 12). Probably, the schism ended with the death of Callistus (222), and in 235, Hippolytus and Callistus’s second successor, Pontian, were exiled to Sardinia for professing Christianity (Catalogus Liberianus a. 354) and, very likely, died there. The bodies of Pontiac and Hippolytus were transferred and solemnly buried in Rome on the same day - August 13, 236 or 237. Therefore, in the Western Church the memory of both martyrs is August 13th. Saint Hippolytus is numbered among the martyrs by the Eastern Church (January 30). This date for the death of Saint Hippolytus is accepted by most researchers; but some, taking into account Western and Eastern legends about the activities of Saint Hippolytus in Alexandria, Arabia, in the Marina near Rome, believe his martyrdom to be much later (for example, during the persecution of Valerian). The martyrdom of Saint Hippolytus in peace with the Church was, one might think, the reason that the schism he caused was soon completely forgotten even in Rome itself. III. 1. Literary activity of Saint Hippolytus The most important evidence of the literary activity of Saint Hippolytus is the inscription on the sides of the pulpit of the statue dedicated to him. Unfortunately, damage makes it impossible to restore this list. This list of works by Hippolytus is supplemented by information from Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 6:22) and Jerome (De vir. ill., 61), as well as random indications from other ancient writers - Sophronius (Jeronimov’s translation of “On Famous Men”), George Syncellus (in Chronograph), Nikephoros, Callistus (Hist. eccl. 4, 31) and actually at Photius. According to all these data, the volume and versatility of Hippolytus’s literary activity seems amazing. It extended to the areas - exegetical, homiletical, apologetic-polemical, didactic, chronographic and Church-canonical. No Western writer of his time can be placed next to him - he recalls the multifaceted learning of the Alexandrians. But his literary heritage has reached us in such a sad state that it is not possible to make a definite remark about its spiritual and literary significance: except for a few complete works, only fragments of his name have survived, in Greek and in translations of Latin, Slavic, Syriac, Coptic, Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian. There is still a lot of textual-critical and historical-literary work to be done here. Apparently, the most extensive part of the works of Saint Hippolytus were exegetical works. Like his contemporary Origen, he most often follows the allegorical-typical method of interpretation, however, he differs significantly from it: if he seeks a higher, spiritual, ideal meaning, then, like the Antiochians, he considers history and the letter of the narrative as a necessary assumption of the allegorical-typical explanation. Ippolit did not engage in critical study of the text. His interpretations present predominantly paraphrastic explanations of the text of Scripture. It is not possible to reconstruct the true volume of his exegetical works. There is no doubt that Hippolytus explained many books of the Old Testament, or better yet, individual passages in homiletical form. Interpretations are mentioned: on the Sixth Day (εἰς τὴν ἐξαήμερον), on the narrative after the Sixth Day (εἰς τà μετà τὴν ἐξαήμερον), on Genesis, Exodus, remarks on Noah's Ark and Melchizedek, interpretation of Isaac's blessing. It is doubted that Hippolytus wrote a commentary on the entire book of Genesis (Bardenhewer); He probably interpreted in monographs the four sections of this book: the six days (Gen. 1), the narrative of Paradise and the Fall (Gen. 2–3), the blessing of Isaac (Gen. 27), and the blessing of Jacob (Gen. 49). The last section has been preserved in the Armenian and Georgian translations. The first leaves of the Georgian manuscript also contain a fragmentary explanation of the blessing of Isaac, which probably should be considered as the remainder of the third treatise on the book of Genesis. The fragment preserved in the Sacra Parallela about the place of Paradise probably belongs to the second treatise. The commentary on the six days, according to Jerome (Er. 84:7~ and 84:19), was used by Saint Ambrose of Milan. No fragments have survived from the commentaries on the books of Exodus and Leviticus (if they were written). From the commentary on the book of Numbers, a small fragment has been preserved (from Leontius of Byzantium) with the inscription “from the blessing of Balaam” - (ἐκ τω εὐλογιων του Βαλαάμ) about Christ as the God-man, as well as three small passages (from Theodore of Kursk) from the commentary on the great song (εἰς τὴν ᾠ δὴν τὴν μεγάλην), that is, the “song of Moses” (Deut. 32). The treatise on Deuteronomy 33 – the blessing of Moses – has been preserved in the Georgian and Armenian translations. Further known is the Greek fragment “from the explanation of the book of Ruth.” The treatise “on the ventriloquist” - about the Enchantress of Endor (εἰς ἐγγαστρίμυθον), attested by the list on the statue, has been lost, and the fragment known under the name Hippolyta seems to be inauthentic. The four passages (in Theodoret) "on Elkanah and Anna" (εἰςτòν Ἑ λκαν ᾶ ν καì εἰς τὴν Ἄ νναν) are probably taken from the homily. The conversation about David and Goliath (I Samuel 17) was preserved in the Georgian and Armenian translations. Hippolytus, one might think, did not explain all the psalms, but only some. Fragments of a commentary on Psalms 2, 7 have been preserved (by Theodoret); 22, 1; 23, 7; however, they could have been taken from homilies. Other fragments on the psalms included in the editions and preserved in the Greek text and in the Syriac translation, except for the most insignificant part, are not authentic, including a large passage that talks about the inscription, author, division and sequence of the psalms. The commentary on the “Song of Songs” is currently known, apparently in the volume (1:1–3:7) in which it was compiled by Hippolytus. Initially, only fragments were known in Greek and in Slavic, Armenian and Syriac translations. Then in 1901, the commentary up to 3:7 was published (by Marr) in Georgian (based on a manuscript of the 10th century) and translated into Russian, it seems complete - at least none of the Slavic fragments of this commentary provides an explanation of the further text of the Holy Book. The Georgian translation comes, through the Armenian, from the Greek original. Hippolytus sees in the Song of Songs an allegory of Christ’s relationship to his Bride - the Church and to every God-loving soul. From the commentary on the book of Proverbs, only fragments scattered in the catenas have been preserved, and the commentary on Ecclesiastes has been completely lost. From interpretations of prophetic books, the passage on Isa. 19:1 ~(in Theodoret: ἐκ του λόγου του εἰς τὴν ἀρχήν του Ἡ σα ΐ αν. According to Eusebius, Hippolytus wrote a commentary on certain parts of Ezekiel (εἰς μέρη του Ἰ εζεκιὴλ), and the Syriac fragment on 1:5–10, concerning the symbols of the Evangelists, is recognized as authentic. Nothing has survived from the commentary on the prophet Zechariah (Jerome). The most fully preserved is the Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Daniel. Most of the text survives in the original Greek, there are passages in the Syriac and Arabic translations, and all or almost all of the text is preserved in the Slavic translation. The commentary consists of four books: The commentary was written after the treatise on the Antichrist, probably between 203 and 204, and has a practical purpose - to calm those confused by the persecution of Septimius Severus. The living generation will not see the end of the world. The Second Coming of the Lord, the appearance of the Antichrist with all the horrors of this time and the terrible end will come only with the fall of the Roman kingdom; the latter will exist for another 300 years. As proof of this, Hippolytus cites his interpretation of Daniel’s vision regarding the four kingdoms (2), explaining the image seen by Nebuchadnezzar in a dream, in agreement with most exegetes, as an indication of the Babylonian (gold), Persian (silver), Greco-Macedonian (copper) and Roman (iron) kingdoms. The stone that broke away from the mountain and smashed the statue is Christ, who in place of the kingdom of this world will lay the foundation of the Heavenly and enduring kingdom of saints and which will fill the entire Earth. Daniel's vision of the four beasts is explained in a similar way. The commentary on the book of the prophet Daniel begins with the story of Susanna (Dan. 13), which in the text that Hippolytus had, stood at the beginning. Hippolytus notes that this event happened later, but was placed earlier in the book because the sacred writers had the custom of putting the later earlier and the earlier later in order to deprive the devil of the opportunity to understand the Holy Books. Hippolytus acknowledges the historical nature of the story, but gives it a typical explanation. Susanna is the image of the Church, her husband Joachim is the image of Christ, the garden at his house is the called saints who are planted in the Church like fruitful trees, the sacred assembly of those living in righteousness and the sacred place in which the Church is planted. Babylon is the world, and the two elders are images of two peoples who harm and have always harmed the Church - Jews and pagans. Susanna's bathing in the garden, accompanied by two maids, is an image of Baptism, in which converts, accompanied by two virgins - faith and love - are cleansed of sins, for the Church receives Baptism through faith in Christ and love for God, pronouncing the Confession. Hippolytus's explanations are important for the history of the rites of Baptism and Confirmation in the ancient Church. Confirmation is directly adjacent to Baptism. Two virgins, by order of Susanna, bring oil and anointing; fragrant anointing is the commandments of the Word, and oil is the power of the Holy Spirit, with which believers are anointed after Baptism, like oil. – For the history of the canon, it is important that Hippolytus explained parts of the book of the prophet Daniel known only in the Greek text: the story of Susanna (13) and the song of the youths (3:24-90), perhaps also the section about the idol Bel and the dragon (14). There is also evidence of Hippolytus' commentary on the New Testament. Jerome mentions a commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, and the catenas in Coptic, Arabic and Ethiopic contain 24 fragments with the name Hippolytus. An excerpt (from Theodoret) from the word on the parable of the talents (ἐκ του λόγου του εἰς τὴν τω ν ταλάντων διανομήν), probably borrowed from homilies on the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14 ~ff); in the same way, three passages (in Theodoret) “on two thieves” (εἰς τούς δύο λ ῃ στάς) belong to the homily on the two thieves (Luke 23:39 ~ff). Ancient writers (Jerome, George Sincellus, Nikephoros Callistus) mention Hippolytus' commentary on the Apocalypse; some information about him can be obtained on the basis of quotes and abstracts from later writers; the richest and most valuable messages are made by the unknown author of the Arabic commentary on the Apocalypse. But this commentary must be distinguished from the apology of the Apocalypse against the alogs written by Hippolytus ( ἀποκαλύψεως ). The homiletical works of Saint Hippolytus stand in close connection with exegetical works: it is quite possible that some of the exegetical works of Hippolytus were also homilies in form and origin. Of the homilies of Hippolytus, only one has survived in its entirety: “On the Holy Epiphany” (εἰς τà ἅ για θεοθάνεια). None of the ancients mentions it, but in manuscripts it is signed with the name of Saint Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, and in its content does not present decisive signs of inauthenticity (however, authenticity is not indisputable). In the First Part of this homily, it is established that the one who received Baptism in the form of a slave is God, the Creator and Savior of the world, eternal, omnipresent, incomprehensible to people and Angels, Who alone could blot out the sins of the whole world and adopt people to God - it also speaks of two natures in Him, indicating in what facts of the Savior’s earthly life both were manifested. In the Second Part, the preacher calls on all nations to accept in Baptism the gift of immortality and freedom from slavery to the devil and explains that a person reborn by water and the Holy Spirit becomes God, that is, he also acquires co-inheritance with Christ. The promises of the prophet Isaiah about the whitening of sins are cited as evidence of the reality of Baptism, and the moral exhortations attached to them indicate the need for the baptized person to renounce everything sinful and completely devote himself to Christ, confessing Him as God. The second conversation on the four-day Lazarus, placed between the inauthentic works of St. John Chrysostom, was preserved in Armenian in two reviews under the name of Hippolytus with the inscription: “From a commentary on the Gospel of John and the resurrection of Lazarus.” Homilies are also known by their names: a) “On the glorification of the Lord the Savior” (“De laude Domini Salvatoris”), which Hippolytus pronounced in the presence of Origen (Hier. De vir. ill., 61) – the homily is lost; b) “On Easter”, which must be distinguished from the chronological work of Hippolytus with the same title; two Syrian fragments and a passage in the acts of the Lateran Council have been preserved from it, on the basis of which one can think that it was a sermon for the feast of Easter. The dogmatic treatises of Saint Hippolytus include: 1) “About Christ and Antichrist” (Περì Χριστου καì περì του Ἀντιχρίστου) – preserved in full (67 chapters) in three Greek copies and in the ancient Slavic, Armenian and Syriac translations. Hippolytus himself mentions it in his commentary on the book of the prophet Daniel. Its authenticity is not in doubt. The work was written under the vivid impression of the persecution caused by the rescript of Septimius Severus in the year 202 and the expectation of the end of the world that arose in connection with this. It is dedicated to a friend of Hippolytus, a certain Theophilus, and aims to warn believers and encourage them to greater devotion to Christ. Therefore, the author convinces Theophilus to distribute it only among God-fearing people, and not among unbelievers and the vicious, who are only looking for reasons to blaspheme the truth. Hippolytus does not seek to say anything new, but wants to present only what the prophets taught about Christ and the Antichrist. The Word acted in the prophets; at the same time, the prophets are compared to the strings of a musical instrument, and the Word - to a plectrum - the prophets moved by it proclaimed the will of God and did not say anything on their own. Through the Incarnation, the Word became the Child of the Lord and was a loving physician who examines the illnesses of all people of all ages and conditions, wants to save everyone for perfection and through the Holy Spirit make them sons of God (1-4). From the fifth chapter begins an exegetical-dogmatic study about the personality of the Antichrist, his origin, time of coming, name, dominion, about the ways he deceives people, about the persecution of God’s chosen ones and, finally, about his death with the Coming of Christ to the Judgment. The Antichrist appears to be an independent person; in his life and actions, with external imitation of Christ, he will appear as the complete opposite of Him: since Christ is depicted in the Bible as a lion, king, lamb, then the Antichrist will come into the world as a lion, and so on. He will come from the tribe of Dan (5-15). The author cites numerous passages about the Antichrist from Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel. Just as the world kingdoms of Babylon, Persians and Greeks were mutually destroyed, so the Roman kingdom will perish - the fourth beast of the prophet Daniel (7). But the Roman kingdom is not the Antichrist itself, but only its forerunner (κατέχων) (2 Thess. 2:7). Before the Antichrist appears, the destruction of the Roman kingdom will follow (15–28). The fate of the great harlot - Rome - is depicted based on Daniel, Isaiah and the Apocalypse (30-42). In the second half, the author tries to determine as accurately as possible the time of the appearance of the Antichrist, relating it to the last week of Daniel, in the second half of which Enoch and Elijah will appear again. The name of the Antichrist in the Apocalypse of John is indicated by the number 666. Nothing definite can be said about its meaning - only assumptions are possible here. It is most likely to see in it an indication of the Latins: λατει νος, according to the numerical value of the letters included in it, it is equal to 666 (43–50). The pagan peoples will side with the Antichrist. He will also gather and deceive the Jewish people, and the saints will be oppressed and persecuted. The Antichrist declares himself God, and with this will begin the persecution of the Church, which trusts in the Son of God (51–63). Then the Lord will appear and unexpectedly, with general horror, the end of the World will come through a world fire, and the Last Judgment. This will be preceded by a falling away from the faith and the overthrow of the Antichrist. The coming of Christ will be in power and glory. The wicked will suffer eternal fire, but the righteous and the living saints will enter with the Lord into His glory. The discussion ends with an admonition to Theophilus to keep himself blameless before God and people, in order to be always ready to meet the great events indicated to him and undoubtedly destined to take place (64–67). The statue bears the title of Hippolytus' essay "On God and the Resurrection of the Flesh" (περì θεου καì σαρκòς ἀναστάσες). Jerome mentions his essay “On the Resurrection” (“De resurrectione”). The Syriac translation preserves extracts from the work of Hippolytus “On the Resurrection, to the Empress Mammea” - Julia Mammea was the mother of Emperor Alexander Severus (222–235). The same work probably includes fragments from Blessed Theodoret (Eranist., dial. 2 and 3) “from a letter to a certain queen” (ἐκ τη ς πρòς βασιλίδα τινà ἐπιστολη ς), as well as fragments from Anastasia Sinaita “from the book about resurrection and incorruption” (ἐκ του περì ἀναστάσεως καì ἀφθαρσίας λόγου) – about the Angelic state of people after the Resurrection. From the inscription on the statue is known the treatise “Admonition to Severina” (προτρεπτικòς πρòς Σεβηρει ναν) - probably to Julia Severa, the second wife of Emperor Heliogabalus (218–222); The work is no longer known from other sources, and its content cannot be determined. The work “On the Economy of Salvation and the Incarnation of the Word,” mentioned by the Syrian writer Ebed-Iezu (Avdisho), has also been lost. The “Sermon on Theology” (περì θεολογίας λόγου) is known only from a quotation in the acts of the Lateran Council of 649. Hippolytus' polemical works are directed against pagans, Jews and heretics. The following treatises belong to this category: In the Philosophumena (10, 32) the author quotes his work: “On the essence of the Universe” (περì τη ς του παντòς οὐσίας), which is identified with what is mentioned on the statue: “Against the Hellenes and against Plato, or about the Universe” (πρòς Ἕ λληνας καì πρòς Πλάτωνα περì ἤ καì του παντòς ), from which a significant passage has been preserved with the inscription: “Joseph from the book (against the Greeks), inscribed against Plato about the reason Universe." ( Λόγου του ἐπì γεγραμμενένου κατà Πλάτωνας ( Πλάτωνα ) περì τη ς του παντòς αἰτίας) - it speaks of hell as an underground place of residence of the souls of all people after death, created together with the world and guarded by angels. Here in the bosom of Abraham reside the souls of the righteous, awaiting immeasurably higher bliss in eternal life in Heaven; here, but in a particularly dark place, sinful souls experience various sufferings; here, finally, the lake of unquenchable fire, the place of eternal torment, awaits its victims on the day of the Last Judgment. Rejecting metempsychosis, the author claims that each person will be resurrected with his own body, and the bodies of the righteous will become incorruptible, and the bodies of sinners will retain their earthly infirmities and illnesses after the Resurrection. In its present form, the passage contains undoubtedly alien and inauthentic thoughts. Photius also knew the work περì του παντòς (Bibl., cod. 48); pointing out the discrepancy between the manuscripts regarding the author, he himself attributes it, together with the “Philosophumens”, to the presbyter Caius. About the content of the works, Photius says that in two small books Plato was exposed as contradicting himself, the opinions of the Platonist Alcinous about the soul, matter and the resurrection of the flesh were refuted, it was refuted by the presentation of Christian teaching on the same issues, and finally, it was proven that the Greeks should not be proud of the antiquity of their origin, since the Jews in this regard are superior to them. “Evidence against the Jews” - (ἀποδεικτική πρòς Ἰ ουδαίους) - some think to see an indication of it in the ending (ιους) of the erased first line on the statue. This work is not mentioned by any of the ancient writers. A significant passage from it has been preserved in the Syriac translation, in which, on the basis of the Holy Scriptures, it is proved that the Jews unjustly boast that they condemned Jesus of Nazareth to death and gave Him ocet and gall to drink, that Jesus of Nazareth is the true Messiah, and that all the disasters that befell the Jews are the result of the rejection and crucifixion of the Son of God. A small work “Against all heresies” (Eus. Hist. eccl. 6:22; Hier. De vir. ill., 61), published earlier by “Philosophumen”; it is identified with the work that Photius calls (Bibl., cod.121) σύνταγμα κατà αἱρεσέων or Βιβλιδάριον - it briefly indicated the teaching of 32 heretics from Dositheus to Noetus and was refuted in the main points. Photius says that it was compiled depending on Irenaeus of Lyons and was written in clear and simple language, but not Attic correct. The number of heresies gave reason to bring this work closer to the “Libellus adversus omneshaereses”, which constitutes a later addition to Tertullian’s “Depraescriptione haereticorum” and lists the same number of heresies from Dositheus to Praxeus. But it is not possible to identify the last work with the Syntagma due to its great differences in comparison with the Philosophumena; but there is no doubt that pseudo-Tertullian actively used the work of Hippolytus, as did Epiphanius and Philastrius later in their hereseological works. The syntagma was written around the year 200 (according to Adolf Harnack, not earlier than the first decade of the 3rd century). "Discourse of Hippolytus on the Heresy of Noetus" From this work, 18 chapters have been preserved, from which it is clear that the title of the work “conversation” is incorrect; but it is not recognized as an independent work, but rather as the final part of another large anti-heretic work, by which some (A. Harnack) mean a large treatise against all monarchians unknown from other sources, or the “Small Labyrinth” (Kihn) or, finally, the Syntagma; but in the latter case one would have to admit that Photius did not read the Syntagma itself, but a brief extract from it. Saint Epiphanius of Cyprus (Haer. 57) repeats the news contained in the first eight chapters of the Conversations, without naming his source. In the first chapter of the surviving fragment of the work, information is provided about the origin of Noet from Smyrna and about his excommunication from the Church for the doctrine of the identity of the Father and the Son, according to which the incarnation, life on earth and suffering were acquired by the Father Himself. Then (2-8) the passages of Holy Scripture on which Noet based his teaching are indicated, and the correct understanding of them is established, and positive evidence is also given from Scripture that Jesus Christ clearly distinguished Himself - the Son of God - from the Father. In further chapters (8-18), the author urges to pay attention to the direct meaning of the speeches, expressing the teaching that God Himself through the Holy Spirit wanted to instill in people, and not to try to find in it the teaching that is desirable for us through refined interpretations, and sets out in detail and accurately the Church teaching about the trinity of Persons in God, about the existence of God the Word in the Father, His birth before the world, the creation of the world through Him, about the activity of the Word in the world through the prophets and the law about the Incarnation of the Son of God, through which He became the Son and in humanity, for the Revelation to people of true worship of God - the glorification of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, about the incomprehensibility of the mystery of the birth of the Son for the human mind; for a person it is enough to know that the Word of God descended from Heaven into the womb of the Virgin Mary - it received a rational soul and all human nature, except for sin, that it came to save man who fell through the sin of Adam, and to grant immortality to believers, that He is, finally, a perfect God and a perfect man, so that in His earthly life one can clearly distinguish between the actions that manifest His Divinity and the actions characteristic of Him only as a man. Only by the title (by Eusebius and Jerome) is the work of Hippolytus “Against Marcion” (πρòς Μαρκίωνα) known. With him, perhaps, is the same work “On Good and Where Evil Comes from” (περì τάγαθου καì πόθεν τò κακόν), named in the list on the statue. Two treatises can also be considered polemical works, in which Hippolytus proves the authenticity of the Gospel and the Apocalypse of John. 1) “In Defense of the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse” ) is named on the statue and was completely lost in Ebed-Iezu († 1318). One might think that it was directed against the alogues who denied the canonical significance of the writings of the Apostle John. 2) From the second work, called by Ebed-Iezu “Chapters against Caius” (in Greek, probably κεφαλαία κατà Γα ΐ ου), five passages have been preserved in Syriac. Each of them provides the text of the Apocalypse, Caius’s opinion on it, and Hippolytus’s refutation of it. The anti-montanist Caius apparently considered the Apocalypse to be a work of Cyrinthus, which teaches about a thousand-year kingdom full of pleasures, and at the same time comes into conflict with the recognized canonical writings of the Apostles. “Against the Magi” (Κατà μάγων) is mentioned in the Philosophumena (VI:39) and, probably, this work was directed against the false miracles of Mark (compare: Iren. Adv. haer., 1:13–21) and similar Gnostics. But perhaps it should simply be understood as the Fourth Book of the Philosopher. The “Small Labyrinth” (ὁ σμικρός λαβύρινθος) was named so by blessed Theodoret in contrast to the “Great Labyrinth”, that is, “Philosophumen”. This work is apparently identical with Σπούδασμα μετà τη ς Ἀρτέμωνος αἰρέσεως by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 5, 28) - such an identification is undoubtedly with the blessed Theodoret, who attributed it to Origen. Photius (Bibl., cod.48) attributes λόγος κατà τη ς Ἀρτέμωνος αίρέσεως to the presbyter Caius. If the identification is correct, then its content can be judged on the basis of the fragments of Σπούδαομα preserved by Eusebius. They talk about the errors of Artemon and Theodotus the Tanner (from Byzantium), who, like Paul of Samosata, denied the true Divinity of Jesus Christ and argued that the ancients and even the Apostles taught as they themselves teach, and that this faith was preserved until Bishop Victor and was distorted under Zephyrinus (202–219). Hippolytus contrasts the false teachings with the authority of the previous fathers and the command of Victor himself in relation to Theodotus, who came to Rome around the year 192 and was excommunicated by the Bishop of Rome from communion with the Church for his teaching. Hippolytus condemns the method of heretics, who, to confirm their false teachings, abuse the “sciences of the infidels” and distort the meaning of the Holy Scriptures, rejecting their authority and inspiration. The most important work of Hippolytus must be considered the so-called Philosophumena. There is no mention of him either in the list on the statue or in Eusebius and Jerome; however, as was said, it is considered most likely that it belongs to Saint Hippolytus. The work, according to its content, was probably called “The Exposure of All Heresies” (Κατà πασω ν αἱρέσεων ἔλεγχος). Photius called it the “Labyrinth” (λαβύρινθον), and the author himself, towards the end of the work (10:5), speaks of the “labyrinth of heresies” τòν λαβύρινθον τω ν αἱρέσεων). The title “Philosophumena” (Φιλοσοφούμενα) refers actually to the first, or, more correctly, to the first four books: the author, in the further course of the speech, refers to these four books with the words: “in the presentation of philosophical teachings” (9: 8: ἐν τοι ς φιλοσοφουμένοις δόγμασιν ). In its content, the Philosophumenae represent not so much a direct refutation of heresies as their exposition. The author wants to prove that heretics developed their systems not on the basis of Holy Scripture or Tradition, but borrowed them from pagan wisdom, from the teachings of philosophers and the mystical inventions of astrologers. In view of this, the first four books are devoted to the presentation of the wisdom of the pagans in the broadest sense of the word. This presentation of philosophical systems should show that the pagan teaching is older than the heretical and more worthy of respect, and comparisons with it of individual heretical systems will make it obvious exactly how the heretics used philosophy, assimilated its principles, and drew even more untenable conclusions from them. The first book gives an outline of Greek philosophy from Thales and Pythagoras to the Stoics, Epicureans and Academicians, the philosophical systems being divided into three classes: physicists, ethicists and dialecticians. Information is taken from very insufficient sources. The Second and Third Books have not survived and about their contents we can only say that, as can be seen from the concluding words of the First Book, the Second Book dealt with “mysteries and very curious thoughts, about stars and spaces”; the same should have been the subject of the Third Book, because the Fourth Book, the beginning of which has not been preserved, also deals with representatives of magic, astrology and other superstitions. It should be noted, however, that contrary to the generally accepted opinion that the Second and Third Books of the Philosophumen, together with the beginning of the Fourth, have been lost, interesting evidence has recently been presented (d’Ales. La Théologie de elt. Hyppolite. Paris, 1906, p. 80–90) that the Fourth Book of the current editions contains both the Second Book (1–27) and the Third (28–42) and The fourth (43–51), but all three are in somewhat damaged form. Having outlined the teaching of pagan philosophy, on which the false gnosis is based, about God and the creation of the world, he wants in the following books to present the systems of their disciples and robbers, who are designated by the general name “Gnostics.” Thus, from the fifth book begins the second part of the work - a presentation of heresies in connection with the proof of their pagan origin. For this purpose, he describes individual heresies, first under the influence of Judaism: the Ophites, Perates, Sethites, Justinians (Book V), and then (in Books VI and VII) Gnostic sects that arose on pagan soil, and their teaching is presented mainly based on extracts from the writings of the founders of these sects. Simon, the founder of this type of gnosis, is followed by: Valentinus, a follower of Pythagoras and Plato, with his many disciples. Basilides (with Isidore and Saturninus), subject to the influence of Aristotle, Marcion, an imitator of Empedocles, a pure dualist, and his disciples, who introduced various mediators to reconcile opposing principles: Carpocrates, Cerinthus, the Ebionites, Apelles, Theodotus the tanner and Theodotus the Moneychanger. The eighth book speaks of the Docetians, Tatian, Hermogenes, the Quartodecimani and the Montanists. The ninth book deals with the heresies contemporary to Hippolytus in Rome: the followers of Noetus - the Patripassians, to whom Callistus also joined in order to attract them to his side and secure the bishopric in Rome. On this occasion, the biography of Hippolytus’s opponent, Callistus, and his teaching, directed against the ditheists (that is, Hippolytus) and presented as covert patripassianism, are presented in very unattractive terms. Another heresy - the Elkezaites - preached the remission of all sins under the condition of a new baptism, circumcision and observance of the Mosaic Law, and also adhered to Callistus, who was lenient in accepting sinners into the Church. A note about the Jewish sects - the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes - ends the review of heresies, of which there are thirty-two. The tenth and last book summarizes what was taught in the philosophers and heresies discussed earlier, then gives a brief overview of the history of peoples from Abraham to the Egyptians, Chaldeans and Greeks, in order to show that the belief in one God and Creator of the world, which the Greeks and the heresiarchs who followed them did not know, is original. In conclusion, the content of the Old Testament and New Testament Revelation is briefly indicated with a call to all peoples of the Universe to follow Christ as God and Creator of the world, so that those transformed in His image, deified, immortal in body and soul, reach the Kingdom of Heaven. Finally, attached is Hippolytus’s own confession of faith about the one and only-begotten God the Word, about creation and redemption, about man and his purpose. A study of the sources reported in the Philosophumena about heretics and their teachings has led to the fact that those sections in which Hippolytus repeats Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian, and some brief remarks that he introduced independently and on the basis of his own acquaintance with the subject of speech, stand beyond doubt; but a significant part of the news is borrowed from sources that were falsely attributed to the founders of sects, which is why great caution is needed in the use of this type of information. In any case, the publication of this work by Hippolytus shed in some respects new light on the history of ancient heresies. Of particular historical interest are the information reported in the Ninth Book about the division in the Roman Church - the first papal schism. The work was written in the last years of Hippolytus’s life, probably around the year 230, at least after the death of Callistus. The chronographic works of Hippolytus include two works: 1) “Indication of the time of celebration of Easter” (ἀπόδειξις χρόνων του πάσχα καì τà ἐν τω @ πίνακι) in the list on the statue must be identical with the work Hippolytus "On Easter" (περì του πάσχα), mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 6:22), according to the latter, it consisted of chronological remarks and a sixteen-year Easter circle, beginning with the first year of the reign of Alexander Severus. One might think that the table carved on the statue with the calculation of the time of Easter celebration according to a 16-year circle for 112 years (222–333) represents the Second Part of this work. According to Hippolytus’s calculation, the day of the Vernal Equinox is considered to be March 18th, and in the Easter circle, every 16 years the same numbers of the month are repeated for the Easter full moon, and after 112 years these numbers coincide again with the days of the week. This calculation of Hippolytus was corrected in the work “De pascha computus” written in 243, falsely attributed to Saint Cyprian. 2) In the list on the statue the work of Hippolytus is named χρονικών βίβλος, very likely this work was named by the author himself in the Philosophumena (10:30). It was a chronographic compendium that began with the creation of the world and was brought to the year 234 - the last year of the reign of Alexander Severus - perhaps it was with this that Hippolytus ended his literary career. In his work, Hippolytus used the “Chronography” of Julius Africanus and the “Stromata” of Clement of Alexandria. The work was not preserved in its entirety in the original Greek text: until recently, only fragments found in the later Byzantine chronicles were known, but in 1905 the Greek text of a significant part of the work, almost the first half of it, was published (by Vaeg). The Latin adaptation of this work of Hippolytus has also been preserved: Liber generationis (hominum), which came in two forms: a) separately in manuscripts and b) and in the Chronograph of the year 354, which is based on the Chronicle of the year 334; the second, the so-called Barbarus Scaligeri (Chronicon Alexandrinum). These revisions are based on two reviews of the original chronicle of Hippolytus, of which the oldest was probably the more extensive one - Chronicon Alexandrinum. From Jeronimov’s remark (Er. 71:6) we can conclude that Hippolytus wrote canonical works concerning church rules and church rituals; and tradition persistently assimilates the canonical works to Hippolytus. But at present it is not possible to determine what he actually wrote in this area. The following works of this kind are attributed to Hippolytus: a) “Canons of Hippolyti” (Canones Hippolyti) were preserved in Arabic and Ethiopic translations and were published in 1870; they are attributed here to Hippolytus "high bishop of Rome." There are 38 of all “canons”. They talk about the Trinity, especially about faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God (Chapter 1), about the consecration of bishops, presbyters, deacons, readers and subdeacons, as well as the qualities of these degrees of clergy (8–9), then about non-Christians, their acceptance into the Church, about illicit activities (10–15), about wives, virgins and catechumens, about Baptism and the order of the liturgy (17–19 and 29), about fasting and prayer (20, 22, 28, 32), about teaching, about caring for the sick and poor, about times of prayer and reading the Holy Scriptures (chap. 23–27), about the firmness and moral behavior of catechumen Christians (chapter 30), about feeding the poor and Agapah (33–35), about offerings and liturgical clothes of the clergy (36–38). The first publisher of the Canons (D. B. V. Haneberg) looked at them as a genuine work of Hippolytus, however, he already recognized that they contained provisions that contradict the discipline of Christian antiquity and information about the views of Hippolytus. During further discussion of the monument, completely opposite opinions were expressed. The question of the relationship of the “Canons of Hippolytus” to another ancient canonical monument - the so-called “Egyptian Church Rules”, which represents the Second part of that canonical code, headed by the “Apostolic Church Rules”, was resolved differently. The latter are divided into 30 canons, and the "Egyptian Church Rules" embrace canons 31–62. In terms of content, the “Canons of Hippolytus” and the “Egyptian Church Rules” reveal such a close relationship that can only be explained by the fact that one work is a reworking of the other. There are two currents in resolving the issue of the mutual relationship of these monuments. According to some (Aeneiis), the “Canons of Hippolytus” contain the grain of the genuine work of this anti-pope, compiled between 218–221, with which he regulated the life of some Roman Christians who recognized him, and not Callistus, as the legitimate Roman bishop. The further relationship of the ancient canonical monuments is constructed as follows: The original “Canons of Hippolytus” (additions and distortions are recognized in the Arabic translation) were revised in the first half of the 4th century in the “Egyptian Church Rules”, and the latter, in turn, served as the basis for the Eighth Book of the “Apostolic Constitutions”. According to others (A. Harnack), the Eighth Book of the Apostolic Constitutions served as the source for the Egyptian Church Rules, which is an extract from the Apostolic Constitutions made no earlier than the 5th century; and from the “Egyptian Church Rules,” not earlier than the end of the 5th century, perhaps even much later, an extract was made known as the “Canons of Hippolytus.” Thus, there can be no question of the authenticity of the “Canons of Hippolytus” (to any extent) from this point of view. The second opinion seems to be the prevailing one at present. In any case, the current text of the “Canons of Hippolytus”, regardless of later additions, contains provisions (in the doctrine of the Trinity, the Word, in the doctrine of the possibility of forgiveness of grave sins) that contradict the views of Hippolytus known from the “Philosophumena”. b) Under the name of Hippolytus, fragments of the work “Constitutiones per Hippolytum” have survived, which, with the exception of some places, literally coincide with the eighth chapter of the Apostolic Constitutions. Each of the five passages has a special inscription: 1) Διδασκαλία τω ν ἀγίων ἀποστολω ’ ν νπερì; χαρισμάτων (= “Apostolic Constitutions” 8:1–2); 2) ?? ππολύτου (“Apostolic Constitutions” 8:4–5; 16–18; 30–31); 3) ἀγίου ἐκκλησιαστικυ ν (“Apostolic Constitutions” 8:32); 4) Πέτρου καì Παύλου τω ν ἀγίων ἀποστόλων διατάξις (“Apostolic Constitutions” 8:33–34; 42–45); 5) Περ ί εὐταξέας διδασκαλία πάντων τω ν ἀγίων ἀποστόλων (“Apostolic Constitutions” 8:46). Only in the inscription of the second passage is the name Hippolytus and thus only he claims descent from Hippolytus. But here, as in relation to the “Canons of Hippolytus,” completely opposite judgments were made. On the one hand, they claim (Fr. Funk, P. De Lagarde) that all five passages represent an extract from the Apostolic Constitutions and, therefore, have nothing to do with Hippolytus. On the other hand, it is suggested (Achelis, A. Harnack) that the extract was made not from the Eighth Book of the Apostolic Constitutions, but from another more ancient work, which is related in content to this book and served as a source for it. If the “Canons of Hippolytus” is recognized as such a work, then this establishes a direct connection between at least the second passage and the Roman bishop being studied. As for the first passage of the “Teaching of the Apostles on Spiritual Gifts,” one can see in it a reworking of the work of Hippolytus indicated on the statue: “The Apostolic Tradition on Spiritual Gifts” (Περì χαρισμάτων ἀποστολική παράδοσις ). It talked about supernatural spiritual gifts and proved that they do not at all imply special holiness of the persons who received them, and in a broad sense are given to every believer, because faith in God the Father and Jesus Christ, God incarnate, and purity from heresies, and patience and abstinence are also gifts of God. This work was probably written before the schism, that is, before the year 217, but was already directed against the Roman Bishop Zephyrinus. III. 2. Theological teaching of Saint Hippolytus It is impossible to make a completely definite judgment about the theological views of Saint Hippolytus, because most of his dogmatic writings have been lost. He appears to occupy a middle position between Saint Irenaeus and Tertullian. Hippolytus revealed his teaching about the relationship between the Father and the Son in polemics with the modalists, after refuting their errors, especially in the 10th and 11th chapters of the treatise against Noetus. The starting point of Hippolytus’ theological teaching is, like Tertullian’s, the idea of ​​God the Father as the entire Divine essence, as the “one” God in the primary meaning of the word. “There is only one God in whom we must believe”—unborn, passionless, immortal, who does whatever he wants, how he wants, and when he wants” (Contra Noet., 8). “God is one, first and only” (Refut. X, 32). “Being unique and having nothing co-eternal with Himself... He was everything and everything was in Him” (ContraNoet., 10). From this concept Hippolytus derives the doctrine of Logos. “In the beginning the Father was one, however, being completely one, He was also many (μόνος ών πολύς ἦ ν), because He was not unreasonable, devoid of wisdom, powerless, devoid of advice. Therefore, from time immemorial the Father was characterized by various qualities. The word itself - Logos - was not initially an objectified Hypostasis in the proper sense: “The Father contained Him in Himself.” When the Father wanted to create the world, He revealed His Word: the Father makes Him visible at the very moment of uttering the first sound. Giving birth to Light from Light, He produced for the Lord’s creation His Mind, previously visible only to Him alone and invisible to the world.” This work is a birth (γενιω ν); Hippolytus cannot explain this birth, but he energetically asserts it: The Word was not created (Contra Noet., 10): “You cannot even explain how you yourself were born... How can you investigate the origin of the Word, Which God the Father begat according to His own will, as He desired... The Father keeps the knowledge of this birth with Himself, intending to reveal it only to the saints who are worthy to see His Face.” Thus, the Logos becomes “other” in relation to the Father, a “Person” (πρόσωπον) distinct from Him. As the immanent power of the Father, the Logos is co-eternal with the Father, but His birth as a separate Hypostasis was actually a historical act: “The Father revealed His Word at the time determined by Him, when He wanted and as He wanted” (ContraNoet., 10). Born of the Father, the Word of one being with the Father: “To say otherwise, I do not affirm that there are two Gods, but (I mean two), like light from light, water from a source, a ray from the Sun” (Contra Noet., 11). “Logos alone is (born) from God, which is why He Himself is God, being essentially inherent in God” (Refut. X:33). The Logos was begotten by the Father “as the Ruler, Counselor and Executor of all created things” (Contra Noet., 10) and was the Mediator Who was revealed in the Old Testament. But in the proper sense, He became the Son of God only from the time of His Incarnation: “Remaining incorporeal and the Word in Himself, the Logos was not a perfect Son, although at the same time he was a perfect only-begotten Son. And the flesh itself could not constitute the Hypostasis, since only in the Word did it have its composition: Thus the only begotten perfect Son of God appeared” (Contra Noet., 15). As can be seen from the above, Hippolytus reproduces the Trinitarian views of the apologists. He is also noted to have a fairly clear subordinationism - in connection with this he is accused of bitheism. At the same time, they point out that Hippolytus does not recognize the Holy Spirit as a Person in the proper sense of the word: he considers in God “two persons, and according to the economy, the third grace of the Holy Spirit” (Contra Noet., 14). Indeed, Hippolytus clearly does not give the Holy Spirit the name of the Person; but it must be remembered that at that time the heretics raised only the question of the relationship between the Father and the Son - the Holy Spirit remained outside the controversy, and therefore there was no need for a precise definition of the doctrine about Him. But in the Trinity (Tria) Hippolytus also calls the Holy Spirit: “there is one God: the commanding is the Father, the obeying is the Son, the imparter of knowledge is the Holy Spirit; The Father is above all, the Son is through all, the Holy Spirit is in all” (Contra Noet., 14). The Word, at first incorporeal, for our sake became true Man, became incarnate and became human, taking on the rational soul and our infirmities and our sufferings (Comm. In Dan. 2:33, 5; Contra Noet., 4, 17, 18, 12, 15; De Christ, et Antichrist. 4). This Incarnation did not occur through the transformation of the Word into man - the duality of the elements of the Divine and human is energetically affirmed by Hippolytus; but their unity is the closest (σογκεράσας, μίξας): one and the same is God and man together (De Christ, et Antichrist 4:26; Contra Noet., 6, 13, 14, 17, 18). The Word became incarnate to save us all, to set us free by His obedience (De Christ, et Antichrist. 3:4; Contra Noet., 17). Adjacent to Saint Irenaeus, Hippolytus often expresses the idea that the Word united with Adam, that Jesus Christ is the New Man, and in His person the ancient Adam was recreated (De Christ, et Antichrist. 26; ContraNoet., 17). Accordingly, the message of immortality is the very purpose of the Incarnation. The transformation of man is accomplished by the Holy Spirit in baptism, which makes him God and secures the inheritance of Christ for eternity (Orat. in S. Theoph., 8). Christ redeemed sinners with His death, bore the law upon Himself, bound the devil, saved from him and from sins, defeated death by death, and gave life by the Cross (De Christ, et Antichrist. 26; Comm. inDan., 4:33; 4:11, 3, 8). Hippolytus speaks in a wide variety of expressions about the meaning of the suffering of Christ, the main idea being that by the death of Christ we are freed from death. Depending on Irenaeus, he understands Salvation as the penetration of humanity with spiritual life force, as deification. Hippolytus was especially interested in eschatological issues, which he developed on the basis of Old Testament prophecies, especially Daniel, and the Apocalypse. His reasoning takes as its starting point Daniel’s prophecy about the world kingdoms: together with the idea of ​​“economy” and the four Testaments, they form the foundation of the Christian philosophy of history. But this knowledge is not intended for the wide mass of believers - it is the secret of those who know, and those who know must remain silent about it (De Christ, et Antichrist. 1; Comm. In Dan., 4: 5, 6; 15, 1). The fourth world kingdom is the Roman one, which extends power to all nations (Comm. In Dan., 4:8, 3, 7; De Christ, et Antichrist. 25). His prosperity will continue 500 years from A.D., when he turns 6000 years old; then lawlessness will increase more and more, and the kingdom will fall apart into ten parts. Now the Antichrist rises and conquers parts of the Roman kingdom, which previously opposed him as κατέχων (Comm. In Dan., 4:24, 7; 12:2; 21:3). He rages endlessly against Christians; he has an alien and evil spirit in him, since the Jews incite him to persecution (Comm. In Dan., 4:12, 5; De Christ, et Antichrist. 56:58). Antichrist is a Jew from the tribe of Dan. He will restore the temple in Jerusalem and the kingdom of the Jews (De Christ, et Antichrist. 6:25). For every man the Judgment comes immediately after death (Comm. in Dan. 4:18, 7); prophets, apostles and martyrs already reign with Christ (De Christ, et Antichrist. 30:31, 59). Sinners will undergo the torment of fire, which will be eternal (De Christ, et Antichrist. 5; Comm. in Dan., 4:10, 3; 4:12, 1). At what point it will begin is not clear; in any case, the end of the world will not be slow to come as soon as six thousand years end and the seventh begins. The worthy and believing who have received the Holy Spirit will enter with Christ into the Eternal Kingdom (Comm. in Dan. 4:59, 3). Hippolytus could not abandon the thought of the Millennial Kingdom due to its connection with the prophecy of weeks; but she appears to him as a relic - the sensual features of this kingdom are carefully eliminated (Comm. in Dan., 4:23, 4). Saint Hippolytus, despite his extensive literary activity, did not influence the subsequent history of theological thought. His dogmatic views reflected the influence of the moment that was soon to be experienced. The exegetical works of Hippolytus were of great importance, but Origen was in the East at that time, and he could not influence Western Theology because he wrote in Greek.