On the essence of church law

Contents The theory of a powerless Church The spiritual side of law The hierarchical principle in church organization The science of church law and the church life of the current moment met here, and, perhaps, throughout the Christian world, with some common interests in resolving issues that are of great importance for both. Among them, the question of the essence or nature of church law, or more precisely, canon law, is of primary importance. What are in their essence and origin those norms and institutions that make up and on which the organization of our Orthodox Church and other confessional denominations is based? Do they flow from the essence of the Church founded by Christ, and, at least in their principles, were given by Himself and the Apostles, or are they the fruit of purely human creativity, although carried out under the influence of the teachings of Christ? I will not consider this issue from a confessional or practical life point of view. I will make an attempt to consider them purely theoretically, from the point of view of church-historical and philosophical-legal science. My immediate inspiration is the remarkable, in many respects, book of the professor of canon law Rudolf Som: Die geschichtliche Grundlagen. V. I. Leipzig. 1892, the first 12 §§ of which appeared in the Russian translation under the title: R. Zom. Church system in the first centuries of Christianity. Transl. A. Petrovsky and P. Florensky. M. 1906. Even a superficial reading of this book involuntarily draws the reader’s attention to the clarity and certainty with which it tries to inculcate into consciousness the idea that “ecclesiastical law is in conflict with the essence of the Church.” But, after all, church law has existed for almost two millennia? “Yes,” Zom answers, “it exists, but as a fruit of lack of faith.” “It is true,” says Zom, “Catholicism asserts the opposite, that legal order is necessary for the Church, that the Church and the conceivable, namely spiritual, kingdom of God cannot exist without a certain legal order. According to Catholic teaching, without a pope, bishops, priests, without a certain kind of ecclesiastical legal order, there is no Christian Church, there is no Christianity at all. Catholicism affirms the existence of a certain “divine law” that determines this legal order essential for the Church, and it is forced to affirm its existence, because the whole essence of Catholicism rests on the recognition of the necessity for the Church of a legal order (and, moreover, the necessity for its spiritual essence).” “In some parts of the reformed Church it has been argued, as well as on the Catholic side, that some particular order of government and legal order, whether it be episcopalian (Church of England) or governed by elders (Presbyterians), is divinely ordained and given to the Church. But most importantly, the development of Protestant and, in particular, Lutheran church governance was determined by the conviction that there is no “divine” church law, that the legal structure of the Church is something left to choice, freely determined by historical development, indifferent to the spiritual essence of the Church. Nevertheless, here too the view has gained universal dominance that the Church, as a liturgical community, “necessarily is the bearer of a legal order,” that the existence of church law is required by the very essence of the Church, because the Church cannot but give birth to a liturgical community 1 . Thus, here too we remain with the affirmation that the legal system (albeit a non-legal system of a certain content) comes from the essence of the Church and corresponds to the essence of the Church.” “The history of church law stands against such an understanding, both Catholic and common Protestant. It shows us, as a rule, that the entire development of church law is determined by the fact that the church, by virtue of its essence, does not want any church law.” “And yet, church law exists!” This fact and this mystery dominate the history of church law throughout the centuries. A different solution to this problem determines the division of the history of church law into its main sections. In practice, church law arises with iron necessity. From what angle can it be maintained, defended, placed in any relation to the essence of the Church? “This poses a question, the answer to which is the history of church law” 2. Such a categorically clear formulation of the question, such insistence in proclaiming an idea that is in direct contradiction with the history and existing existence of the Churches: Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and Protestant societies (we are not even talking about the Christian East), which have developed and each adhere to their own “ecclesiastical rights” positively intrigue the reader and arouse an irresistible desire to quickly look at the very end of the book and hear: what is the answer, in fact, The history of church law gives an answer to the question that was fatal to it. Here are the final words of Zom's book: “The Church of early Christianity is a pure spiritual organization (’Εχχλησία), the Catholic Church is a spiritual-secular organization, the Evangelical Church, in the legal sense, as it appears before us in its present form, is a purely secular organization. The Church of Christ is the people of Christ. The government of the Church of Christ is the government of Christ's people through the Word of Christ. The Church of Christ is spread throughout the whole earth. It is visible wherever there is a confession: you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” Where this confession is, there is the Church of God, forgiveness of sins, eternal salvation. The Church of Christ is founded on the rock of this confession. She is a single flock under a single shepherd and the gates of hell will not overcome her. She is not capable of a legal structure, she rejects it. It cannot be controlled by coercion, but only by exhortation through the word.” Human lack of faith has come up with the idea that the protection of the Church of Christ should be ensured by human means, by the construction of wooden pillars and crossbars of human law and order. The matter began with the organization of the love supper and the management of church property. In addition, human concern for preserving the right teaching by external means led to this. Church law embraced the Church. Catholicism arose, changing the doctrine and church organization according to spiritual and temporal laws. In the same way, the Reformation elevated ecclesiastical law in the Church. It gave rise to the management of the Church by local owners (landesherrliche Kirchenregiment) and, as a consequence, the secularization of the church structure, the transformation of the Church into a verein organized in a worldly manner. The great mystery in the history of early Christianity was the emergence of the monarchical bishopric and with it Catholicism (Catholicism?); The great mystery in the history of the Reformation was the emergence of local church government, from which came the secularization of the Church. Both one and the other cannot be explained from the essence of Christ’s Church: on the contrary, both stand in complete contradiction to it. Both find their explanation only in the emergence of church law, which here and there distorted the essence of the Church. Everywhere, church law declared itself hostile to the spiritual essence of the Church, with which, therefore, the living spiritual forces of the Church were in a natural struggle. The essence of the Church is spiritual; the being of law is worldly. The essence of Church law is in conflict with the essence of the Church” (698–700). This is the decisive answer about the meaning of church law, given by the last word of church legal science. Before us is an interesting phenomenon: the historical study of a real object that exists at the moment and has a thousand-year history behind it, leads to the denial of this object, and therefore to the denial of the very science about it? No. Science can and should deal with church law as a fact, so to speak, of inevitable or iron necessity, or an inevitable evil, with the aim of paralyzing its powerful influence. If such a sentence came from the mouth of any religious rationalist sectarian fighting against the Church, it would not represent anything astonishing: for, once the Church is denied in toto, both its right and its legal organization are denied. But the interesting thing about Zom’s book is that it examines the issue not from a confessional point of view, but from the point of view of positive church historical science. “When approaching the history of church law, we are faced with the task of surveying at one glance an almost two-thousand-year period of development. In all other areas of law, the existence of a legal order is, in itself, understandable. But on the threshold of the history of church law, a sphinx rises, throwing at its feet the question of the legality of its existence. This question is forgotten with time... Nevertheless, if we understand the silent language of centuries, their aspirations, their highest goals in the field of development, church structure, then we will see that the question that constantly, in the very depths worries them, indicating the way for their movement forward, their desire for further education, is precisely the question: can church law exist at all? In what sense is a legal order possible? 3. Yes, before us, as if, undoubtedly, is an objective scientist, a specialist historian, who even understands the “silent language” of centuries, not to mention the language of documents and material historical monuments.......... In the book of the venerable “scientist” there are some pages that strongly suspect his learned impartiality, namely, in favor of his admiration for the authority of one person, namely Luther. Som begins his review of the Reformation with the following praise to Luther: “In the 16th century, a powerful Reformation movement arose. The truth of the gospel has illuminated the whole earth. The revived freedom of Christian humanity, this Samson threw into ruins the structure of “divine ecclesiastical law” erected by Catholicism. “By Baptism we have become free and subject only to the divine Word; why should man bind us, like captives, with his word?” The Church of Christ does not know any human, legal domination. It exists not in papal authority, not in episcopal authority, nor in other external institutions, but, solely, in the word of God and the right faith. Is it only Catholic law, “divine law,” that must be rejected? Not at all! Luther declared war on every church law, every kind of divine church law... On December 10, 1520, in Wittenberg, Luther threw the Corpus juris canonici into the fire with the bull of excommunication. It is unlikely that such a dithyramb would come from the mouth of an accurate historian, if only in view of the real fact that the Corpus juris canonici and the entire edifice of Roman Catholicism remain safely to this day, after the attempted arson committed in 1520. Even more important is the fact that in the entire two-thousand-year history of Christianity, Zom could indicate only two eras when there was no “legal order” in the Church - in the first sixty years after the birth of Christ and in the short period of Luther’s protest among his followers. In general, the legal system continuously exists in the Church and, it seems, there are no signs of its general destruction, even in the distant future... So, this worship of Luther, his teaching about the Church and hatred of Catholicism, did not influence Zom in his scientific coverage of individual eras and particular facts that were significant in the history of the development of church law? To put it briefly and more clearly, isn’t the history of law outlined by Som an attempt to justify historically Luther’s idea of ​​the Church? This question, in itself, is of little interest; for us, at the moment, it has only the significance that it helps us understand the oversights, inaccuracies and exaggerations we noticed in Zom’s book, which are difficult to explain in an impartial historian and exegete. Weighing these views, inaccuracies and exaggerations, peering closely at the logical structure of Som's entire work, one comes to the conviction that his historischen Grundlagen is not so much a strictly historical study as a theory, factually or historically grounded. “The essence of law is to contradict the essence of the Church. The essence of the church is spiritual, the essence of law is secular.” These are the basic principles, this is the basis on which Zom’s theory, which claims to be an impartial historical study, is built! This theory cannot be more accurately characterized than by calling it the theory of a disenfranchised church. Let's move on to consider it. What is the Church? However, one paragraph (2nd), consisting of only 6 pages (16–22), is devoted to the consideration of this issue, which is of great fundamental importance for the study. Through philological research of the term Έχχλησία, Zom expresses the following judgment about the Church: the word Έχχλησία does not express any specific value, any social concept (also the concept of a local community), but expresses, solely, a dogmatic judgment of value. Ekklesia means every assembly that represents, in dogmatic terms, for faith, in its spiritual value, the assembly of Christianity, the assembly with God and before God (Christ) of the New Testament people (Eine Verfammlung des neutestamentlichen Bundesvolkes). Zom also provides this philologically derived judgment with the following positive confirmation - the words of the Lord (Matthew 18:20) “where two or three are gathered in My Name, there I am in the midst of them.” Where the Lord, the Head of the body, is, there is Christianity; Where two or three are gathered in the name of Christ, there are the people of God, New Testament Israel, there is all Christianity, with all the promises that befall it, because Christ, Who is all in all, is in the midst of it. Where Christ is, there is Ecclesia (the people of God), hence the early saying: “ubi tres, ibi ecclesia” (p. 20). Zom’s entire concept of the Church is limited to this judgment. Where two or three persons professing the Lord gather together, there is ecclesia. According to Luther - of course so, but hardly so according to the Gospel: in the very place of the latter to which Som refers, the term Έχχλησία clearly designates not a meeting of two or three, but something else: “if your brother sins against you..., take one or two more with you..., but if he does not listen to them, tell the Church” (Matthew 18:15-17). It is clear that the Church is not made of two or three. 5 After all, if we interpret the Lord’s words about a meeting of two or three as a church in this way, then it will be necessary to admit that one can constitute the Church (Rev. 3:20). The incompleteness of the concept of the Church, which forms the basis of the theory, reflected, in our opinion, very unfavorably on its development, on the entire book of Zom. Of course, from a dogmatic point of view, this judgment about the Church is correct: the Church is truly the people of God, gathered and being gathered by Christ. This judgment of our historian raises him far above those who teach that Jesus founded a community of disciples like Socrates or Plato his schools, and then this community grew into the Church. But for Zom it was necessary to solve, first, another question: does this spiritual essence of the Church of Christ, accessible only to the believer’s contemplation, but not to external observation, eliminate the possibility of displaying, revealing, externally by one or another form of social life. Does the term Έχχλησία, in addition to the clarified meaning, also eliminate the meaning of a certain local community, for example, Jerusalem, Rome, Corinth? The Church is the spiritual kingdom of Christ: but it is in the human race: what signs characterize the bearers of this inner Kingdom of God? Is it possible to distinguish them, at least approximately, from those people who do not yet have this Kingdom of God, or, better said, who have not yet entered it? In a word, for Zom it was necessary to pose the question - what features were expressed or characterized in the early stages of history by the visible, namely social, nature of the Christian Church? It cannot be said that Zom did not pose this question; he had it in mind, but far from giving it the importance it deserved. “Ecclesia is corporate Christianity, the body of Christ, the bride of the Lord, a spiritual value alien to the norms of the earthly, traces, and legal norms. This is how Zom begins his paragraph on the organization of the Church. “This does not mean,” he stipulates, “that the ecclesia is some kind of invisible and ineffective, silently existing somewhere in the dark depths of a purely abstract force. On the contrary, the ekklesia is visible and active in all the congregations that take place in Christianity. And it is just as visible and effective in the gifts of grace given to individual Christians to call them to serve all of Christianity. It has its own organs, but it is impossible for its organization to be of a legal nature” (p. 42, § 3). Here are the elements of the visible Church: a) meetings b) gifts of grace, manifested in the forms of preaching, edification, etc. From these elements, Zom further strives to build a spiritual organization of the Church, opposite to the legal one, a divine organization, opposite to the human one. An organization without rights! Something truly original and new, Zom came up with a characteristic name for it: the church organization is charismatic. “Drawn from the divine word, truly, the apostolic teaching on the structure of the Church says that the organization of Christianity is not a legal, but a charismatic organization.” (Page 48, Russian translation). Among the divine gifts (charisms), the gift of teaching is of great importance for the church organization. Those who have this gift are apostles, prophets and teachers. Their gift of teaching also includes the gift of government (p. 53). They lead the entire administration of the Church. In particular, they have the following powers or functions of ministry: 1) “to proclaim the word of the Lord and the conclusions flowing from it with authority” (p. 54): the apostles play this role in organizing their communities, e.g. Apostle Paul... At the same time, however, the point is not in the use of legislative power; this is given just as little to the apostle as to any other Christian, but in the proclamation of the word, teaching, instruction (p. 55); 2) to be elected to any position in the service of Christianity. God chooses the right person through private revelation, the instrument of which is the prediction of a gifted teacher (p. 56); 3) absolve from sins: remission of sin can only be done in the name of God and in God's place. Therefore, for forgiveness it is necessary to possess the word of God, revelation (prophecy), proclaiming, regarding a given sinner, God’s mercy; 4) protect decorum and support it with an exhortation to repentance and an invitation to stay away from the Eucharistic meeting until sincere conversion (pp. 58–60) - “the power of the keys” (p. 65); 5) celebrate the Eucharistic celebration (p. 115). Together with the power to perform these functions, the gift of teaching gives its bearers the right to live from the offerings of the community: they, and only they alone, have the moral right not to work, but to live with the support of the community. Their calling as preachers should and can be their only calling. Connected with this is their equation with the priests of the Old Testament. The Old Testament rule that those who serve the altar must eat from the altar is interpreted in their favor” (p. 85). Having depicted in this way the powers of the bodies of the charismatic organization and even the right (so far the only one) to eat from the offerings of the community (although according to the theory of the community there should not be in the Church), Zom makes a reservation, beginning the next paragraph like this: “the power of teaching is not legal power; This is indicated by two circumstances: 1) that the activity of the teacher in the assembly depends on the permission (έπιτρέπειν) of this assembly... The assembly tests the one gifted with the word - whether he is a true teacher, or a false apostle, false prophet, and only then allows him to carry out his ministry of the word when it recognizes him as a true teacher. In this sense, every congregation of Christians has authority over the magisterium and, therefore, at the same time bears responsibility for the dissemination and acceptance of the teaching within it (to whom?) (p. 89). 2) Any activity of the teacher, insofar as it causes external actions, is able to manifest itself for a separate Christian congregation only by virtue of the free consent of the congregation... For this purpose, the “gift of testing spirits” is widespread in the community, as a counterbalance to the power of teaching. Thus, each Christian congregation has authority over the individual manifestations of the speaker in the midst of his teaching. The teacher can never demand obedience by right, but always only obedience of love. The activity of a teacher is never domination, but always only service to Christianity, according to the word of the Lord: “Whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant” (Matthew 20: 26–27). 6 Such is the relationship of the Church to the bearers of governing powers associated with the charism of teaching. It would seem that there was no longer any doubt that the supreme, responsible power over the use of these powers by these bodies belongs to the Church - in toto. Zom, however, admits this, but now makes a reservation: “but the action of the assembly also never represents a legal action of government: but always only the action of permission, agreement, even subordination” (p. 91). The apostles, prophets and teachers represent the first and, apparently, the most primary series of organs in the charismatic organization of the Church. The secondary and second row are also carriers of charisma, but not teaching ones; these are bishops, presbyters and deacons. According to Som's theory, they began to arise as a single, essentially spiritual ecclesia began to visibly organize itself into separate communities. Before moving on to consider this additional, so to speak, organization of the primacy of the Church, let us make some comments regarding what has been stated so far. When reading Zom’s book, one cannot escape the dual impression: on the one hand, it captivates with the author’s sincere desire to idealize with all his might the structure of the primacy of the Church, with its sharp contrast to any form of human, worldly coexistence. One can see everywhere the effort to bring down, so to speak, heaven to earth. These efforts captivate the reader, especially since the author substantiates all his provisions with the texts of Holy Scripture and their scientific exegesis. Before us, as it were, is a recreation of reality, based on documentation, and not a theoretical construction. But on the other hand, the reader cannot escape the thought of the futility and uselessness of these efforts. Throughout the author’s entire presentation there runs a monotonous schematic construction of the concession period in the following form: “although the Church had an organization, this organization was not an organization in the legal sense.” Or: “although the bodies of the Church had power and rights, they were not power and rights in the legal sense.” Although the Church had the power to give or not give recognition to charismatic powers, to judge and evaluate their external actions and bear responsibility for them: however, it did not have any power or control over them in the legal sense. Such a logical construction becomes boring to the point of nausea, due to frequent repetition, and involuntarily arouses the desire to say: why such indecision? Wouldn't it be better for Zom to admit the simple proposition that there was no organization at all in the primal Church? Another thought arises about the insufficiency of the structure of Zom: after all, if in the Church the Holy Spirit supplies governing bodies through the distribution of the teaching gift, then what is the meaning of recognizing the charism received from above by the Church, i.e., by the assembly of other members? Since the teacher acts according to a calling from above, why else does he need human recognition of this authority, this calling? The prophets, truly called from above, did not seek recognition, nor did the apostles. One cannot ignore the preference given by Zom for the teaching gift, the actual “prophetic” gift to all other gifts. After all, according to the Apostle, the highest of all gifts is love, and not the gift of prophecy. As for the “gift of teaching,” strictly speaking, it is not at all in Holy Scripture in the form in which Zom presents it. “Apostle means, in fact, a divine messenger,” and not a teacher; especially an Apostle chosen directly by Christ. Here, it seems, the accuracy of the historian is directly sacrificed to a well-known confessional view. Zom was undoubtedly right when he said that the Church had a God-given and charismatic organization: but do these properties prevent this organization from being legal? – “The Word of God,” he says, is the final decisive authority on the question of the structure of the ecclesia” (p. 54). But what is the Word of God proclaimed by the Apostles? Isn’t this the New Testament, a new law aimed at renewing the entire life of mankind according to the Gospel? In accordance with this law, or this “divine right,” the charismatic bodies acted in the constituent sphere and in the sphere of administration in the churches they organized. But it is certain that this organization was in all respects unlike the governmental or civil organizations of paganism and Judaism. It was not here that the bearers of the spiritual gifts of early Christianity took lessons in organizational technology, but in a completely different place. Where? Their speeches clearly suggest the answer - in the teaching of the Old Testament prophets - in Scripture. The same source remained valid in subsequent eras of the development of church law. But let us follow further the construction of Zom. Bodies of, so to speak, secondary formation - bishops, deacons and presbyters - arose in the Church, although still under the influence of organs of the primary form, but much later than them. They were formed when the need for a communal, corporate organization arose, precisely as Christianity spread and the number of believers increased. The church act that necessitated their appearance was the Eucharistic celebration - a liturgy consisting of the breaking of bread, prayer of thanksgiving and the supper of love. At this point in time, “there were usually several congregations in the larger cities, meeting chiefly to celebrate the day of the Lord. The reason for this was that Christians did not yet have their own premises, so meetings usually took place in private houses. But, nevertheless, one meeting was considered the main one, that is, one to which not only the majority actually gathered, but to which everyone should, in fact, gather, if this were not prevented by the cramped space... It was in the nature of circumstances that all the emerging elements of the church structure were adjacent to this main assembly and from its structure arose the structure of the community and the Church (pp. 112–116). “The Eucharist is the pinnacle of Christian community life. Although its celebration can be celebrated in every meeting of Christians, where only two or three have come together in the name of Christ, in the main meeting its celebration takes a definite form.” The Eucharistic celebration consists, as is known, first of all, in “prayer of thanksgiving”; pronouncing it is an act of service of the word. Therefore, as a general rule, it falls to the lot of those endowed with the gift of teaching and this needs no further explanation. But what about the celebration of the Eucharistic celebration if there is no apostle, prophet and teacher in the congregation, no called preacher of the Gospel? It was to satisfy this need that the force of circumstances led to the need to form an organization of a secondary form: bishops, deacons and presbyters. Several bishops were elected in the community. This election did not give them the legal authority to celebrate the Eucharist and, associated with it, the reception of gifts and the administration of the Love Supper. Election and consecration gave them, so to speak, only the potency, the legal capacity to celebrate the Eucharist. For on the Lord's Day a prophet or teacher may come to the community, and then he celebrates the Eucharist; in the same way, from the available number of bishops, the one to whom the community awards it performs. Simultaneously with the bishops, deacons also arose as natural assistants to the bishops in the celebration of the Eucharist and the administration of the gifts of love. As for the elders, their origin is explained extremely simply and naturally. As the term itself shows, the elders were those Christians who, by their very age, already had the right to a special honor, namely, in the Eucharistic celebration. “Who should sit with the bishop in the altar? The answer to the question posed reads: at the meal, the core of the community sits with the bishop, representing the real bearer of the life of the community; the spiritual, respected persons of the community sit, therefore, ascetics, confessors, teachers, but, above all, and as a general rule, elders. The elders sit with the bishop at the meal (later in the choir of the Church), and the rest of the community sits or stands in the back of the room. Already from the end of the 1st century, perhaps, the seat of the elders was indicated in the altar (Rev 4:4). “Thanks to the honorary seat of the elders at the Eucharist, the concept of elders received a formal meaning. For the sake of this place of honor behind the Eucharist, ordination to the presbyter arose in the first half of the second century (after the formation of the monarchical episcopate)” (p. 228). This, schematically presented, is the origin of the organs of secondary formation. In addition to this, we consider it worthy of mentioning the method of electing these bodies and the relationship of the presbyters to the bishops. Bishops are elected by the local community from the existing membership, chosen as deputies for persons with teaching charism. Who can be a candidate for bishopric? The general answer is as follows: having some other gifts, especially the gift of love, but not the gift of teaching, then, possessing those qualities that are indicated in the pastoral epistles 7. In general, the most suitable persons for episcopacy were presbyters, but not in the sense of position, but in the sense of status, that is, people of respectable age, known for their good life and behavior. Therefore, the bishops of the primal Church were precisely elected and ordained presbyters (p. 108). This thought of Zoma represents, in our opinion, the most ingenious of all his hypotheses regarding the structure of the primal Church. It really easily explains the often indifferent designation of bishops as presbyters, and presbyters as bishops, both in the Epistles of the Apostles and in other ancient monuments of early Christian literature. Zom uses the same idea to reconcile his statement that elders began to be specially elected and ordained only from the half of the 2nd century with the evidence of the Acts of the Apostles. 20, 17–28; 14, 23 (pp. 166–168). But, unfortunately, this idea does not fit well with Zom’s general idea that the episcopal office arose as a substitute for prophets and teachers. For in the book of the Acts of the Apostles we meet “ordained elders,” in Zom’s terminology, i.e., bishops and elders, acting simultaneously with the prophets, teachers and apostles. On the other hand, “to replace a temporarily absent” prophet or teacher, why was it necessary to ordain several presbyters as bishops? One would be enough. Zom’s teaching on election and ordination, as acts by which the organs of the Church, both primary and secondary formations, receive their titles is also worthy of deep attention. According to Zom's teaching, these acts, like everything in the primacy of the Church, do not have any legal nature, but only a spiritual, mysterious one 8 . “There was,” he says, “an election by men, which was regarded as an election by God. Three stories give us an idea of ​​such an election: 1) the story of the election of Matthias to the place of the 12th Apostle; 2) the election of Paul and Barnabas to the Apostleship and 3) the election of Timothy 9 to the position of evangelist. In all three stories, we encounter, says Zom, two factors: 1st, the testimony of God, 2nd, the testimony of those gathered. The testimony of God is obtained each time through prophecy, that is, about a person gifted with the gift of teaching; the casting of lots, which decides the election of Matthias, is an exception. Associated with the testimony of God is the testimony of those gathered, meaning (in the sense just established above) agreement with the words of the prophet, i.e., recognition that God really spoke through the mouth of man. Thus, the election contained in the word of the prophet and the subsequent consent of the congregation is not an election by men, but by God. The act of election is not an act of a legal, but a spiritual nature. The elect is not chosen by this assembly, as a corporation endowed with any legal power, but by the Holy Spirit” (p. 48, cf. p. 108). This energetic indication of the spiritual or mysterious side in the act of electing church officials, in the mouth of an admirer of Luther, makes Som especially attractive as a scientific analyst of the evidence of Holy Scripture. However, one cannot help but notice some insufficiency in his generalization. He ignores, in this case, two more stories by Apost. Acts of election to church offices: a) election and ordination of 7 deacons and b) election and ordination of elders in the Antiochian Church. The last two accounts do not mention that the election and ordination were preceded by an order through a prophet, as in the election and ordination of Matthias. It turns out that out of five cases of the order of election, three represent exceptions (at the expense of the testimony of God). Then, in all 5 cases, the initiative and performance of the main act - prayer and ordination - belongs to the Apostles. Finally, in two cases (the election of Matthias and the 7 deacons), according to the precise and clear text, the election belongs to the community, and prayer and ordination belongs to the Apostles. Why did Zom ignore such important details? Meanwhile, in the practice and rules of subsequent times, these details were carried out with remarkable steadfastness, like the apostolic tradition. By assigning such spiritual power to the act of ordination, Zom recognizes that this power remains the same - whether we are talking about the position of teacher or about positions of the second order; both are supplied by God, although through people, and not by people. He refutes Harnack, who, based on 1 Cor. 12:28 and Eph. 4:11 concluded that the apostles, prophets and teachers were chosen by God (for the entire Christian world), while the latter were chosen by the community (and only for this local society) (p. 99 note). The act of ordination to a church position is so important! But, true to his idea that the organization of the Church is not legal, Zom, at the same time, argues that the appointed bishop may not be allowed to exercise his office if this is not acceptable to the assembly of the moment. And so, the question naturally arises: was it worth performing such an important act to elevate a given person to a position, since the entire result of the election could be paralyzed by the will of the meeting of the moment?! This is involuntarily joined by a thought that is not yet beneficial for Zom’s theory - was it worth establishing bodies of the secondary formation as substitutes for the bodies of the first, only for the celebration of the Eucharistic celebration and the management of church property? After all, the entire Eucharistic celebration, according to Zom, consisted of a prayer of thanks, a meal and the acceptance of offerings? Was it worth organizing any kind of organization for this, when, according to Zom’s basic concept of the church, the latter even consists of a meeting of two or three? If such a meeting is a church without prophets, teachers, and, especially, bishops and deacons, then why couldn’t a meeting of 10–20 members celebrate the Eucharistic celebration without these same persons?! What, however, served as the basis for Zom to invent such an unsuccessful guess about the emergence of positions of a secondary formation in the primal Church? The only positive basis to which he persistently points out are the following words of the “Teaching of the 12 Apostles”: “Appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord... for they also fulfill for you the ministry of prophets and teachers” (p. 140 Russian translation). But what is this basis? Is there any thought here about replacing some figures with others? Every unprejudiced reader will, without hesitation, answer that bishops and deacons combine the ministry of prophets and teachers - and that’s all. And this is in accordance with the pastoral epistles, where the bishop and presbyter are charged with the duty of serving the word and teaching, along with special pastoral duties; according to and with the testimony of the book of Acts about the ministry of the word of the deacons Stephen and Philip along with the special diaconal ministry. If the author of the “Teaching of the 12 Apostles” wanted to express Zom’s thought, then nothing prevented him from directly expressing that bishops and deacons replace prophets and teachers. It is not our task to examine in detail the argumentation on which Zom relies in developing particular provisions of his theory. We are interested in the general scheme of the supposedly historically established process that the church organization followed throughout the entire Apostolic Age. This scheme is as follows: the first moment is the action of a purely charismatic organization; the second is the formation of its deputies: bishops, deacons and presbyters. The structure of the Church existed in this form until the end of the 1st century. Then, at the beginning of the second year, a sharp and major revolution took place: church law was born and the secondary organization triumphed over the primary; the charismatic organization had to yield to the juridical or juridical one; divine structure to human. In place of Christianity, the Catholic Church was born. This strange conclusion, logically following from a number of Som's assumptions, best characterizes the dignity of the whole construction. The absurdity of the result undermines the dignity of the labor spent on acquiring it. However, it does not follow from this that Zom’s work has no value and significance. Its insufficiency lies in the exaggeration of an undoubted and historical fact that runs through the entire history of church law, and not in the fact that this fact did not exist in reality. It is not the fight against church law, as an element contrary to the essence of the church, that runs through the entire history of church law, but the fight against the distortion of the spirit and forms of church law, the fight against the zealous and indiscriminate worldization of this law and other, various kinds of abuses, which were so rich in the Roman Catholic Church, especially at the time of the appearance of Luther. One has only to make a modification of Zom's main idea, and his historical foundations of church law will easily be freed from shortcomings that are easy to notice and which are inevitable if the formulation of the main idea is incorrect. Thus, Zom has the positive merit that he scientifically proved the independence of the development of the church organization, and not its borrowing from the outside - from state institutions and forms of social system of the Greeks and Romans. The threefold principle, as the basic principle of church hierarchy and organization, is, so to speak, taken with historical necessity into the distance of early Christianity or the Apostolic Age. What is inaccurate is its meaning in this age, the content and essence of its service, as well as the manner in which it arose; Her relationship to the extraordinary, so to speak, hierarchy of the Apostles and Prophets is also incorrectly established. But this inaccuracy can be easily corrected on the basis of the same documents that Zom holds. The apostles and prophets do not eliminate bishops, deacons and presbyters, but act together with them; bishops and deacons are ordained not by communities that do not have apostles and prophets, but rather by these latter with the active participation of the communities. But what a difference there is in their activities! The apostles (12) act not only as evangelists and teachers, but also as organizers of communities, sometimes with the assistance of prophets, sometimes without them, but always with the living participation of communities. Presbyters, bishops and deacons act as shepherds, always present at the places of their appointment, that is, teaching, edifying, admonishing, correcting, serving the poor and the Apostles and Prophets themselves. But neither they nor the communities themselves see any provision for organizational activity, or even initiative. This organizational activity and the eternal significance of the Apostles and Prophets is quite clearly expressed by the Apostolic term “formerly created on the basis of the Apostles and Prophets (Εποιχοδομηθέντες έπι τώ θεμελίϕ τώι άποστόλων χαΐ προφητών Εφ)" 10. This essential feature of the prophets and apostles allows us to establish an even more definite relationship between them and other bodies of the church structure: bishops, presbyters and deacons: the first are God's immediate chosen ones and founders, the second are officials appointed and led by the first to serve and serve the Church. The first are by no means officials, as Zom characterizes them, but titles directly called to activity by Divine will and providence; the latter were established by the will of Christ, by the Apostles, with the assignment of duties to serve the Church and endowed with power from above or with various gifts, not excluding the gift of teaching. In Zom's depiction, episcopacy, presbytery and deaconry are presented as some very insignificant ministries, limited almost exclusively to the Eucharistic celebration and church property. This idea is far from consistent with the various testimonies of Scripture, which portray their ministries as a difficult feat. As Ap begged. Paul shepherded the flock of Christ to the elders of Ephesus, setting an example in his own selfless, selfless labors in the service of the Ephesian church! How eloquently the difficulty and versatility of this church ministry is revealed in the pastoral epistles! Is it possible, in view of this, to limit the content of the ministry of these positions in the same way as Zom does? No and no! The ideal and tasks of shepherding depicted in these apostolic writings remain to this day models for officials of church ministry. If, according to Zom’s depiction, it turns out that these officials in apostolic times were more honorable titles in the Church than officials burdened with the burdens of service, then an impartial attitude to the Word of God regarding this subject leads precisely to the opposite conclusion. “Oh, if only our church pastors were as active as Ap wanted them to be. Paul!". This is the everlasting benevolence of the Church... So, a minor correction of the scheme of formation and development of church law made by Zom is enough to bring the initial moment of the formation of the church organization directly to the activity of the Apostles and look at it not as a product of lack of faith and a human affair, but as an Apostolic and prophetic institution, in accordance with the Will and creative destiny of Christ, as the ancient church tradition, attested to by the 1st Epistle of Clement, teaches. Zom interestingly depicts the historical moment of the emergence of church law and Catholicism (Catholicism). “Back at the end of the 1st century (around 90) it happened that in the Corinthian community there was an indignation of “young against old.” It was an indignation against the “ordained elders” - a dispute about the episcopal position, about the celebration of the Eucharist and the division of sacrificial gifts. In accordance with its position, the community refused to celebrate the Eucharist to its “ordained elders” (bishops) and entrusted this to one ascetic, distinguished by spiritual gifts. Such an event became the subject of general attention in Christianity. In the Corinthian community itself there were, in significant numbers, voices that disputed the permission of such an act. Discord, indignation, excitement were the result. Even in pagan circles this dispute within the Corinthian community was noticed and served as a reason for reproaches against Christianity.” “The Roman community saw itself forced to intervene. She sent three elders to Corinth (around 93–97) with a message from the Roman community to settle the dispute.” This famous communal Roman epistle (1st Epistle of Clement) constitutes an epoch in the history of the church structure. It decided that “the original structure in the Church has come to an end.” “The essence of our, Clement’s, message is that the Corinthian community acted against the commandment of God when it excluded the elected (ordained) elders from celebrating the Eucharist and managing church property, although these men were impeccable in the administration of their episcopal office. The rationale for this opinion says: there must be firm order in the community. In an army, everyone cannot be a leader, but everyone serves the whole in his own rank (1 Clement. 37, 2-3): just as a body has many members, and each, in subordination with the others, serves the whole, so do communities (37, 5; 88, 1). Even more: the Old Testament clearly shows that God prescribed a certain order for sacrifice and worship, both in relation to the place (only in Jerusalem and only in the vestibule of the church should sacrifices be made) and in relation to persons. The High Priest is assigned only the service assigned to him, the priests are assigned a place assigned by him, the Levites are assigned an auxiliary service, and the worldly person (λаϊхάς, άνθροπας) behaves befitting him. To preserve such a divine order, corresponding to the Divine Will, is the greater duty of Christians because they are awarded the highest knowledge (41, 4). Everyone must, in the order assigned to him, bring thanksgiving to God, so as not to transgress the legal rule in his service to God. But the content of this rule is revealed from the apostolic injunction. The apostles appointed bishops and deacons (42:4). For through Divine inspiration they knew that a dispute would arise about the episcopal office, and they appointed the episcopal office so that after their death other chosen men would succeed them in Divine service (44: 1-2). This establishment of the Apostles is a Divine Establishment. For the Apostles were sent from Jesus Christ, and Christ from God, and by the power of this divine commission and by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Apostles acted in the installation of bishops and deacons, as is already certain from the fact that the Old Testament prophecy (Isa. 60:17) predicted the installation of bishops and deacons (1 Clymen. 42). Therefore, in conclusion, it is said: “we consider it unjust (ού διχαίως νομίξομεν) to remove from ministry those who were appointed by the Apostles or, later, by other excellent men, with the consent of the community to this office and who brought gifts without fault. Yes, it is a great sin (αμαρτία ού μιχρά) if we remove them from the bishopric 144, 3-4).” “One thing is clear: according to the Epistle of Clement, the “ordained elders” have, based on the Divine order, the right to the episcopal office, that is, to celebrate the Eucharist and manage church property and, namely, a lifelong right (unless through sins they make themselves unworthy of this right) with the consequence that they exclude all others from such office. In a community, the Eucharist can only be celebrated by an appointed elder, that is, only by an elected bishop. Election and consecration to the episcopal office receive legal significance. The bishop has formal authority, that is, of a legal nature, which now distinguishes him from every other member of the community. The end of the 1st century heralded in the Epistle of Clement the emergence of church law. An event of immeasurable magnitude 11. Is this true? You need to put on your over-exaggerating glasses to highlight the meaning of this message to the extent that Zom did. A careful reading of this document, not confused by any preconceived idea, gives an impression of a completely different kind: The Epistle of Clement states that bishops and deacons are: 1) an Apostolic institution, that 2) at the time of the composition of the epistle there were not only those ordained to these positions by the Apostles themselves, but also appointees of the second generation - appointed later by other venerable men, and 3) that the lifelong holding of these positions (with condition of integrity), is the Will or Law of Christ. The epistle presents these provisions as a fact known not only in the Roman church, but also in the Corinthian one. But if this is so, and there is no doubt about it - for, otherwise, the Corinthian rebels would not have left this statement without objection, then the question arises: what new did the Epistle of Clement introduce into the structure of the Church?! In the interests of Som's theory, it would undoubtedly be more consistent to reject the antiquity of Clement's Epistle than to exaggerate its significance. In the Epistle of Clement there is another important element - motivation or argumentation for the need to preserve order in the Church: and an instruction to preserve this order, as God's commandment. Zom sees in this nothing more or less than the introduction of a new element into the divine teaching of Christ - legal, human, i.e. the first and important step in the perversion of Christianity, which gave a strong impetus to further distortions in favor of Catholicism “about pure Christianity. Human right is elevated to divine, and violation of this right is “sin.” From the point of view of the “theory of a powerless Church,” this is, of course, true, but that is the question for the historian of the church system of the Apostolic Age: does this theory correspond to the actual structure of the Church of the Apostolic Age or not; Does it correspond to the views of the Corinthian Christians on this subject in 90, or does it correspond to another theory, precisely developed in the 1st Epistle of Clement? But, apparently, the answer to these questions is not very difficult: after all, if the theory of Clement’s Epistle did not correspond to the views of Corinthian Christians, then Clement’s Epistle would not have had any success, would have been considered an innovation, a lie and, perhaps, would have perished forever, while reality says something completely opposite: this epistle was read in the Corinthian church for a long time along with the Apostolic Epistles. So, who distorted the Apostolic structure of the Church: Zom, or Clement, Bishop of Rome of the 1st century? – the answer is not difficult. Looking further into the content of the argumentation of the Epistle of Clement, one cannot help but note in it the important significance of the Old Testament Scripture. On it, mainly, Clement substantiates the apostolic establishment of bishops and deacons and their lifelong, subject to integrity of application, right of hierarchical service in the Church. The reference to the words of the prophet Isaiah: I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and deacons in faith (60:17), is especially remarkable in that it sheds light on the dark question of why such terms as επίσχοπος, πρεαβΰτερος, διάχονος. At the same time, a more general question is being clarified about the meaning of the Old Testament institutions regarding the church and priesthood in the church organization of the Apostolic Age. The Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament served as a very important source. Yes, it was not in the public and state institutions of paganism that the early Christian organizers sought models and guidance for their activities of this kind, that is, for organizing the church structure, but in the establishments of the Divine Law, explained by the great prophets. And this is completely in accordance with the Will of the Lord, Who, according to the expressive remark of the Evangelist before ascending to heaven, “opened to them (i.e., the apostles) their minds to understand the scriptures” (Luke 24:45). Therefore, to see in Clement’s references to the Old Testament Scripture any introduction of an alien element into early Christianity is completely unfounded. Clement, in this case, followed in the footsteps of the Apostles and the first Christian servants of the Word (See, for example, the speech of Archdeacon Stephen). We find exactly the same attitude towards the Old Testament Scripture in legal monuments closest to the Epistle of Clement and in distant ones (such as, in particular, didascalia and apostolic decrees); so that the Epistle of Clement does not constitute an “epoch,” as Zom puts it, in the history of original church legal formation, the moment from which, as it were, the formation of the church structure on the principle of hierarchy and all church law began, but only a natural link, internally and externally adjacent to the era of the apostolic age and to the era of the apostolic men. This limits the entire meaning of Clement’s Epistle and the significance of the personality of its author. Yes, that St. Clement, the Apostolic man, was an exact zealot and even preserved the apostolic institutions in the records - this fact is attested to by general church tradition. Elevating him to the founder of Catholicism is Zom’s hypothesis, which does not have any historical basis. Das Wesen des Rechts ist weltlich. R. Sohm. Zom substantiates his theory of a powerless church not only historically, but also philosophically and legally. The Church, according to his teaching, can neither be a legal organization itself, nor be the bearer of some kind of “divine law.” For the right, by its nature, is contrary to the essence of the Church; the essence of the Church is spiritual; the essence of law is worldly. (Das Wesen der Kirche ist geistliche, Das Wesen des Rechts ist weltliche.). The Church wants to be led, governed by the dominion of the Divine Spirit; law is always able to produce only human domination, which is earthly in nature, fallible, subject to the flow of time. The Church adheres to real truth, that is, to the fact that the true Word of God and the true Will of God are proclaimed and brought into the world, and carried out in reality. Law, on the contrary, adheres fundamentally to form (summum jus-summa injuria), and must, first of all, adhere to form, because only in this way is it able to achieve a supra-partisan decision, forcing both sides, despite the opposition of interests, to recognize its justice, which follows not from the suggestions of the moment, but from solid, generally accepted fundamental principles handed down by antiquity. This is connected with the fact that although law, in its concept, does not require coercion, it nevertheless strives for compulsory implementation, while the essence of the Church hates any coercion, because only the free assimilation of the divine has spiritual value 12. A little further, Zom says this about law. The essence of law is not that it is enforced, but, undoubtedly, that it is of a formal nature, that is, that it is based on certain facts of the past, without the possibility of criticism, without taking into account whether it is really justified at the present time or not. Is it possible that there could be a right that would impose a decision on a community as God's decision? Is it possible that any teaching should be considered divine on the basis that the teacher, some time before, was, perhaps, correctly elected by the community, or in some other way received a legal appointment? If it is reliably known that the ecclesia can be governed not by human, but solely by the divine word, then it is equally certain that in Christianity there can be no authority and no appointment that would give legal authority in relation to the community. The Word of God is recognized not by any form, but by its inner power. Christianity must follow only that word which, by virtue of an internal free agreement, it recognizes as the divine word. Only the truly justified Word, which truly flows from the Spirit of God, is it obeyed 13 . These are the shortcomings in the nature or essence of law that make it completely unsuitable in the life of the Church of Christ. 1. The nature of law is worldly, not spiritual. 2. Law, in its essence, is formal and conservative. 3. Law is prone to coercion and gives rise to human domination. Let's consider these provisions. The first of them is such a strangeness and unexpectedness that it should be recognized as nothing more than a bright oratorical antithesis, and certainly not a formula expressing the real truth. That the sphere of action of law, i.e., the objects to which its energy is directed, is predominantly of a worldly, directly material nature, and that, in the majority, the means of achieving the goals and objectives of law are of a material nature (fines, imprisonment, physical deprivation, even the death penalty) is also true. On this basis rests a very widespread view that law can develop and operate successfully only in a well-organized state, that without a state there is no law. On this view, in turn, rests a further position, which is closely related to our question, that since the Church cannot do without law, it necessarily becomes dependent on the state and must only seek from it definitions or regulation and guarantees of its rights. And so, if we adhere to this view of the right, and, on the other hand, take into account the purely religious and moral nature of the Church of Christ; then it can be argued that she is disgusted by such a right, that she is a union of individuals of a higher order than that which is the political union of citizens called the state. But such a view is frivolous, incorrect and is refuted by the completely legal antithesis that without law the state itself cannot exist, that the scope of law is incomparably wider than purely material interests and its strength or energy is based not only on the fear of physical coercion, but on purely spiritual factors deeply embedded in the nature of a rationally moral person. Psychologically, the philosophical explanation of the essence of law indicates the origin of the need for law in the individual’s desire for freedom and in the motives of duty. Zom ignores this purely mental basis of law. Both of these spiritual factors of law awaken and begin to declare themselves from the moment a person realizes his personality. A complaint about injustice and a consciousness of one’s own and one’s obligations are noticeable already in children, and, as spiritual maturity approaches, they increase in energy. Yes, for a normally developed personality, there is apparently no more severe suffering than obvious untruth and injustice. So firmly embedded in the depths of human consciousness is the instinct or idea of ​​law! And this is quite natural and easily explainable: for it is impossible to imagine the most insignificant, quantitatively, community of free individuals without acting in the midst of its principles that are universally binding for all of them and regulate their relationships. These latter are their spiritual connection (jus) 14, with the fluctuations of which the entire community inevitably wavers and falls apart. And there is no other means, except the mutually binding force of the law, to keep intact for a more or less long time the union of persons, each of whom by nature wants to be a free, self-determining being and at the same time enjoy the services of similar free beings - without which the life of the individual personality itself is unthinkable. “Personal freedom, considered formally, Kant teaches, is arbitrariness, or the ability of an individual to act according to his own discretion, as far as his power extends in a given case.” This is the full possibility that the spheres of freedom of different persons will mutually collide in activity, be hostile to each other, violate and destroy the correct coexistence and, through this, the freedom of each individual person. Therefore, the law of freedom, unless it wants to fall into contradiction with itself, requires that the arbitrariness of each person be within strictly defined boundaries to the arbitrariness of another person, so that no one violates the freedom of another. Thus, personal freedom, in each individual person, is, as it were, surrounded by a certain thread, within the boundaries of which it fills and occupies a safe sphere. This sphere is her right, recognition and preservation of someone else’s freedom is her responsibility. Without this duty there is no right, without right there is no freedom. Only in this form is freedom consistent with the law. This is why freedom must require legal law: law is a necessary postulate of practical reason. On this basis, Kant’s definition of law reads as follows: “law is a set of conditions under which the arbitrariness of one can be reconciled with the arbitrariness of another, on the basis of the universal law of freedom” 15. So, a reasonable person should strive for the rule of law, as his friend and patron of the most precious spiritual good - freedom. In him, alone, she finds a guarantee of freedom. And so, we think that the nature of law is close not only to the spiritual sphere of humanity, but also to the sphere of rational spiritual beings in general. And, if revelation teaches that “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom,” then, since it is logically inevitable that without law there is no freedom, then it is necessary to conclude that the nature of law is not only spiritual, but also divine. Why do we count Som's expression Das Wesen des Rechts ist weltlich among his misunderstandings? Along with this, the main thesis of his book, that the nature of the church is contrary to the nature of law, should be rejected as based on this philosophical and legal misunderstanding. But how does law, or legal law, limiting personal freedom “as if by some thread” become its guarantee? Isn’t it, on the contrary, the right that is the enemy of freedom, the chains that bind it, closing its wide scope into limited spheres? The way out of this contradiction is incomparably easier than it might seem at first glance. We need to pay attention to another basic factor of law - the sense of duty, as an indisputable mental force. In a normal personality, it manifests its energy at different ages, starting from childhood, in a variety of positions, in a variety of spheres of activity and relationships, both sublime and base, everyday. It remains ineradicable in a person, no matter how deeply he sometimes sinks to the bottom of vice. An absolutely moral anarchist is something terrible, not human, if you like, superhuman, hovering on the other side of the spheres of goodness and beauty. It is this sense of duty that weaves, so to speak, the Kantian “threads” that determine the impulse or initiative of the personal human will - to this or that decision, to this or that method of action. With amazing clarity and concrete clarity, understandable to a schoolchild, our domestic lawyer-philosopher, prof. L. Petrazhitsky, and we cannot deny ourselves the pleasure of reminding the reader of the following short tirade from his book: “In our souls we experience two significantly different states: in some cases we feel obligated to do something, or not to do something; in others, we feel free from such a duty, and it depends on our good will to do this or that, or not to do it. For example, I feel obliged to pay the cab driver Ivan 10 rubles. for his work for me; I also feel obliged to pay my gambling debt; I consider it something unthinkable and shameful not to do both. But it’s another matter to lend the same poor Ivan 10 rubles. or donate at all: I don’t feel obligated to do this; this is a matter of my good will. Responsibilities of the first kind, which we will call attributive (Ivan is owed 10 p. = attribuere), the essence of legal duties; duties of the second kind, which we will call imperative, are moral duties. My attributive obligation to Ivan is his right to receive 10 rubles from me. 16 This is the relationship of law, or legal law, to freedom: it is not an enemy of it, on the contrary, it meets its requirements: “freedom requires legal law.” And, since this latter corresponds to his purpose, he is a desirable leader (χανών, Recht, δίχαιον, rule = spirit level), indicating the direct path to achieving a personal goal without violating the free actions of other persons who enter into a close relationship with him: for this same rule, to the same extent, is obligatory and desirable for them. On the part of positive law, assistance is provided in two ways to the free striving for the fulfillment of duty: a) it presents to everyone clear, categorical formulas of the dictates of duty, which can be perceived vaguely, vaguely for individual thinking (legislation and court); b) it eliminates obstacles to a person’s implementation of the dictates of the law (and duty) coming from outside, erected intentionally or through misunderstanding on the part of other persons, one way or another interested in this case - (executive power). And so, thanks to this help of the legal law, an individual human personality becomes a powerful, strong being, even if by nature it was weak, sickly, unable to protect itself from the attacks of a strong and powerful neighbor by nature. By curbing wild, unreasonable arbitrariness, law gives a rationally moral person authority, power: yes, every right is power (potestas, έξονσία) 17. Hence the attractiveness of law, the thirst for acquiring rights. The action of law is not limited only to the sphere of base interests, although its beneficial influence is most noticeable here; with equal energy it contributes its construction work to the highest spheres of interest - educational, artistic, moral, religious. Depending on the degree of culture, the forms and nature of the influence of law change, are improved, refined, and ennobled. But the main task of law - to bring balance everywhere in the relations of duty and demand - remains the same sacred task. And, no matter how crude at times these forms and these means of action of law may be, its nature is spiritual. The life of the Church of Christ and its organization, no matter how hard we try to spiritualize its character, does not at all exclude the operation of law in it. On the contrary, law here becomes all the more necessary the more exalted its Interests, the more spiritual its essence, precisely so that the free moral sphere of the Church is not polluted, not vulgarized by the introduction into it of base elements of worldly life, not only tolerated, but, sometimes, even patronized in the civil and political spheres. This meaning and task of law in the ecclesiastical sphere is formulated by the following words of one church act of the 5th century. “Let not the rules (χανόνεξ) of the fathers be transgressed, let not the arrogance of worldly power creep in under the guise of sacredness, and let us not lose little by little, unnoticed, the freedom that our Lord Jesus Christ, the liberator of all men, gave us through His Blood.”18 “Without right there is no freedom” – Kant seems to be repeating the opinion of the Church Fathers of the 5th century! “Right, in its essence, is formal and conservative,” Zom objects, “meanwhile, the church adheres to the real truth; the word of God is recognized not by any form, but by its inner force... The essence of law is that it is formal, that is, that it is based on certain facts of the past, without the possibility of criticism, without taking into account whether it is justified at the present time or not... Is it possible that any teaching should be considered divine on the basis that the teacher, some time before, was correctly elected by the community?... If it is certain that the ecclesia can be governed not by human, but by divine word, then it is just as certain that no power can exist in it, no appointment to a position that would give, in relation to the community, legal powers.” This objection would have significance if it were proven that the formalism of law is hostile to the real truth, that the form of law excludes the action of the inner power of the word of God. Both theoretically and in fact, the opposite situation can be proven with great success. An ideal legal order requires precisely a synthesis of law, morality and religion. The antagonism between them is inevitably reflected by political relaxation and loose morals. Som's antithesis, that the Church adheres to the real truth, and the law, on the contrary, mainly adheres to the form, should be ranked, frankly, as a curiosity. After all, if you agree with its second half, then the question naturally arises: why does the state not only tolerate the law, but also spend enormous efforts on the prosperity of the law? Does he really not care about the real truth? Reality says just the opposite: it is the discovery of truth that constitutes the only goal of the judicial procedure; therefore, in a state organization, law is considered as a necessary means, a path to knowledge of the real truth. Without a doubt, the Church, when developing its formal court, pursues the same goal and it must do this, be concerned about this no less than the state. After all, she is called, according to Zom’s absolutely correct view, “to proclaim and implement the true word of God and the true Will of God.” But what if there is a difference of opinion among the church regarding what the true Will of God is in this case? How to resolve this dispute about truth? “With the suggestions of the moment,” Zom answers. But this means is hardly more reliable than a correctly staged process, with respect for the equality of the disputants, and with the presence of third parties in relation to it, i.e. judges. But, on the other hand, does this method of studying the truth exclude not only “suggestions of the moment,” but also direct suggestions of the Spirit of God, if persons prayerfully interested in the matter turn to him? Not only does it not exclude, but, as the history of Christian culture testifies, beyond doubt, such a combination of legal technology with religious sanctification permeates all aspects of the legal organization of the Church of the first centuries. From the Church, this synthesis of religion and law was then transferred to the state structure of both the Greco-Roman Empire and those peoples who organized their states under the influence of the Church. We will discuss this position in detail later, and now let us limit ourselves to the following remarks regarding Som’s thesis under consideration. 1) Zom’s objection is based not on the merits of the essence of law, but on rather ordinary shortcomings of the state of law at any given moment - its formalism and archaism. The first makes itself felt in excessive attachment to the letter of the law, especially in the preference for the evidence of documents to the evidence of living direct evidence of a person (the predominance of bureaucracy); the second is in attachment to rituals and institutions that have, at the moment, lost all meaning due to the disappearance of the conditions that caused them. Legislation, rituals and institutions must be changed, reformed: the goal of law must remain unchanged - the balance of duty and demand, technically expressed by the formula: suum cuique. 2) Zom asserts that “there should be no authority in the Church that would give, in relation to the community, legal powers. Strange desire! Is power not regulated by law better, more characteristic of the nature of the Church, than power regulated? After all, power without rights is despotism. Meanwhile, according to Zom himself, “the government of Christianity has from the very beginning an imperious monarchical character and the power of the teacher is so significant because it does not mean legal, disciplinary power, as is the case in secular unions, but a higher moral power that demands obedience on behalf of God. What powerful energy, but at the same time, what dangerous force, shaking the entire spiritual essence of the Church, will this organization develop as soon as such spiritual power is simultaneously raised to the level of legal, formally valid and formally binding power?!” (page 93). As is historically known, spiritual power developed powerful and dangerous energy not through respect for the law, but, on the contrary, through various kinds of usurpations, seizures, i.e., trampling on the law, and in this way it “introduced the smoky arrogance of worldly power under the guise of sacred rites, little by little, without notice.” Defending his idea of ​​“powerless power,” Zom, among other things, points to the following specific argument: “Is it possible that any teaching should be considered divine on the basis that the teacher was rightly chosen by the community some time before?” The argument wants to clarify the idea that someone who was once correctly elected may then lose the gift of teaching and will preach teachings that are only de jure divine, so to speak, officially divine, but de facto, in essence, their own, not having the power of grace. But does correct election eliminate the possibility of losing this gift, and does not the legal church organization give the Church the right to deprive a person of power who has lost this gift due to carelessness, negligence or a vicious life? Of course it does; and if it doesn’t, then it doesn’t deserve the name legal. Zom's argument is some kind of misunderstanding. Law is prone to coercion and gives rise to human domination, while the essence of the church hates any coercion. This is the third defect of the law. But, as was clarified earlier, and as Zom also argues, legal regulations, in principle, do not require coercion. The latter is an accident in law: for if every rule of law were enforced, then the legal organization would represent a continuous internecine struggle. But, if so, then why doesn’t the Church, whose nature is truly disgusted by any violence, try to introduce into its organization more perfect legislation that would completely eliminate this accidental lack of law? What determines or where does the need for enforcement of law come from? The answer to this question must be sought either in the subjective nature of some individuals in a given social environment, or in the very structure of law. Thus, there is no doubt that never before, nor now, has there been a state whose subjects did not include a more or less large percentage of individuals, so to speak, “innately criminal.” There is no other way to deal with these gentlemen than to force them to become citizens, or to completely isolate them from the environment of normal citizens, in special premises or territories. But even in addition to these naturally abnormal individuals, obviously evil will and “coincidence of circumstances” always produce a significant percentage of offenders: meanwhile, the exercise or realization of law is the very first duty, the sacred duty of the state as a legal system. It is precisely the thirst for law, the search for it by a disproportionate majority of subjects, that should serve as an impressive motive for the state to protect the rule of law and relentlessly prosecute every offense. Lack of respect for the law and weak guarantees of it are undoubted signs of state bankruptcy. But the reasons for the coerciveness of law can also lie outside the individual, in the imperfection of the design of the law itself, in imperfect formulation, obsolescence of forms, rituals of legal proceedings, imperfection of the executive organization, etc. This imperfection, of necessity, must be compensated for by coercion according to the principle: some kind of law and some kind of state is better than lawlessness and statelessness. Thus, improving the legal organization will undoubtedly reduce the percentage of cases of forced enforcement of law. That's how it is in the state. This is how it should be in the Church. Its task should not be alienation from the law, as an element that is supposedly not akin to its essence, but, on the contrary, take every possible care to educate in its members that spiritual disposition of the individual, which forms the basis of state law itself - that is, a sense of duty, namely the fulfillment of its commands not for fear of coercion, but for conscience and in the name of God. And, it goes without saying, by educating its individual members in this way, it must set an example, a model in its own organization of a free legal organization alien to the coercive apparatus. This is the actual attitude of the Church towards law. Such, indeed, was the church organization, which was revealed in its main features already in the apostolic age, continued to develop in subsequent times, and was forever imprinted in the canonical legislation of the universal Church. Delving into the antiquity of early Christianity, Zom noticed in its organization only one “moral right not to work,” which belonged, as a privilege, to persons gifted with the charisma of teaching. “They, and only they, are morally authorized not to work, but to receive support from the community” 19. “The development of the legal structure of the church began with the regulation of the Eucharistic celebration and the management of church property” 20. When you come across these lines in Zom’s book, you are involuntarily amazed at how they could come from the pen of such an apparently sincerely inspired admirer of pure early Christianity. How can they be reconciled with his following invitation addressed to a researcher of church life in the apostolic age: “Take off your shoes, for the ground on which you stand is holy ground. Christianity entered the super-earthly, super-worldly world. You will never understand this if you yourself have not drunk from a wonderful cup, the contents of which quench the thirst of the soul. Drink - and you will never thirst! Drink, and you will discover a new world, never seen before by you, a spiritual world that covers the earthly world like a vault, pouring rays of light on it.” 21 And after such an invitation - this is the “moral right not to work” - as a privilege of the “most spiritual Christians” of the apostolic age! But what is worse in this regard than any plump Protestant pastor who feeds at the expense of his community? Such a right was widely practiced long before the advent of early Christianity, was practiced after, and in no case can it be noted as a characteristic feature of the apostolic age, and especially in view of the following words of the Apostle: “Even to this day we suffer hunger and thirst, and nakedness, and beatings, and we wander and toil, working with our own hands” 22 . Roman jurists, not only contemporary with early Christianity, but also much later, without even taking off their shoes, found something incomparably more interesting and important, both in the organization of the church and in the private life of Christians. They were struck by the holiness of the rules of their lives and by living faithful to these rules, and, under their charm, they abandoned their rights and their profession and devoted themselves entirely to the church. The emperors followed them, recognizing the entire church system, which had developed without their knowledge or participation, as a divine creation, to change which they did not consider themselves competent to lay their omnipotent hand. “The development of the legal structure of the church began with the regulation of the Eucharistic celebration and the management of church property.” One can hardly congratulate oneself on this discovery! It is difficult to pinpoint this exact moment. So, with regard to church property, it is necessary to assume that some kind of ordering began from the moment church property appeared. And it appeared very early, even before the election of seven deacons: it was not conducted without order at that time. Meanwhile, Zom dates the formation of the legal system only to the end of the apostolic age: on what basis? When did the ordering of the Eucharistic celebration begin? The sending of it among Christians is mentioned as a common phenomenon simultaneously with the mention of church property (Acts 2: 44–55). As for the process of streamlining it, it lasted a very long time, centuries. When did the formation of the legal church system begin? However, this question is not at all important. It would be much more interesting to know what financial or economic theory was developed by early Christianity and left to subsequent centuries? But Zom’s book says nothing about her. Obviously, it was not property or economic interest that served as the impetus for the development of church law in the first centuries of Christianity, but something completely different. What exactly? You are no longer a slave, but a son. Gal. 4:7. “What should we do, men and brethren? “Peter said to them: Repent, and be baptized each of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” So those who gladly received this word were baptized, and about three thousand people were added that day. And they constantly continued in the teaching of the Apostles, in fellowship, breaking bread and prayers” 23. This is how the book of Acts depicts the result of the apostolic sermon on the day of the first Christian Pentecost. Characteristic here is a question and answer, and a brief depiction of the content of the further life of the church - this society of over 3000 people. Expressed in church language, this life seems to be a continuous spiritual activity in close internal communication of each individual with others. Its various stages: repentance, remaining in the teaching of the Apostles, in fellowship, etc. are the essence of the life program of both early Christianity and the church of subsequent centuries: there is no difference. What does repent (μετανοήσατε) mean? This means change the entire structure of your spiritual life (ѵоυς) and, accordingly, the entire way of your life, your behavior. It is worthy of note that Christ’s first sermon to the human race also began with a call to repentance 24 . And did the stay “in the teaching of the apostles” that followed baptism exclude repentance—a change of life? It is natural to assume that this was mainly the case. What exactly was this change? Without a doubt, it consisted in the assimilation of the Gospel teaching and the Divine law contained in it, as well as the Divine law revealed in the Scriptures of the Old Testament prophets, and in organizing personal life in accordance with this law, completely regardless of whether such behavior would be consistent with the existing social structure and even with political laws. Yes, the gospel law is unconditional. He does not make concessions or adaptations to national, social and political conditions, but dominates them, ennobling them, elevating them to himself. He is open to all humanity, called into a new covenant or union with God the Father, into a union of sonship and love. “You are no longer a slave, but a son.” “To those who received Him He gave power (έξoυσiα) to become children of God.” This is the deep, mysterious foundation on which the entire edifice of the Christian Church, as an autonomous religious union, rests. Humanity is called into this union and is protected in it directly by Christ, the Apostles and their successors until the end of the world. Response to the call and entry into the union is required to be voluntary, just as the conditions of being in the union are then fulfilled voluntarily, to the extent of individual strength and zeal for perfection. Both from this passage in Acts and from other books of New Testament Scripture, one gets the impression that baptism seemed to follow directly on the promise of repentance on the part of those wishing to join the church. A change in lifestyle followed: “and they (those who were baptized) continued constantly in the teaching of the Apostles, in fellowship, in the breaking of bread and in prayer.” Perhaps this was the case in the apostolic age. But, as for the subsequent time, there is no doubt that from the moment of declaring the desire to join the church and before baptism, a fairly significant period passed, the so-called “catechumen”, which, in its content, can be considered nothing other than continuous repentance. The Apostolic Constitutions describe the process of a new member joining the church as follows. “Whoever comes to the mystery of piety (the church) for the first time, let the deacons bring them to the bishop or elders and let them examine the reasons why they came to the word of the Lord, and let those who brought them testify about them, having precisely examined what concerns them. Let them also examine their behavior and their lives, whether they are slaves or free. And if someone is a slave of a believer, then let him ask his master whether he testifies about him, and if he does not testify, let him be rejected until he appears to the master worthy, and if he testifies about him, let him be accepted. If he is a servant of a pagan, then let him learn to please his master, so that the word of God is not blasphemed. Again, if he has a wife, or the wife of a husband, then let him learn to be content with himself, and if they are not married, then let him learn not to commit fornication, but to marry according to the law... If he keeps harlots, let him either stop pimping, or let him be rejected... If a warrior comes, then let him learn not to offend, not to slander, but to be content with the salary given, if he obeys, let him be accepted, and if he contradicts, he will be rejected. The vile carnivore, the dissolute, the lustful, the wizard, the sorceress, the fortuneteller by the stars, the soothsayer, the beggar tramp, the charlatan, etc., are tested throughout the year: for one cannot quickly give up on evil. Those who stop doing this will be accepted, and those who do not obey will be rejected..." 25. If the test ends favorably for the subject, then he is enrolled in the “rank of catechumens.” “Whoever wants to come out, let him go public for three years; but if anyone is diligent and has a good disposition for the matter, let him be accepted: for it is not time that is valued, but behavior.” 26 Having entered the class of catechumens, he receives the right to enter the house of the Lord and participate in liturgical meetings until a certain moment, after which he leaves the meeting. The period of announcement consists of studying the truths of Divine revelation and conforming to it throughout life, in the gradual actual negation of Satan and his works and alignment with Christ. This is a process, i.e., grafting a wild branch into the living Vine - Christ, the gradual rebirth of the old man into the new. The period of catechumen is divided into two parts: those who go through the first half are called “catechumens”, the second – “enlightened”, or “those preparing for baptism”. The latter differ from the former in that, in preparation for baptism, they observe intense fasting and prayer. It is possible that, being in this period of catechumen, the “enlightened” one falls into a more or less grave sin: then he is relegated again to the class of simply catechumens 27 . It is further possible that the catechumen will suffer a serious illness, and out of fear of death he will ask for baptism. His request can be fulfilled, but a person baptized in illness, in case of recovery, can no longer be admitted to the clergy: for his faith, says the Rule, is not from will, but from need.” 28 The free will of the spiritual and moral activity of the person announced is so highly valued! During the entire period of the catechumen, in its liturgical meetings, the entire local church prays for its catechumens, so that the Lord will help them to pass the path worthily preparing for baptism and will deign to include them among his chosen flock.” 29 The third moment, which ends the path of joining the church, is entirely of a religious, mysterious nature. In the meeting of the whole church, the catechumen is brought to the baptismal font, immersed in it “according to the institution of the Lord” 30, and anointed by St. the world and, immediately after that, at the liturgy he is rewarded with eating the Lord's Table. The spiritual consequences of baptism are depicted in the Apostolic Constitutions as follows: “Let him who is baptized be free from all ungodliness, free from sin, a friend of God, an enemy of the devil, an heir of God the Father, and a joint heir with His Son, having renounced Satan and demons and his deceptions, blameless, pure, righteous, loving God, a son of God, praying as a son to the Father and speaking as a member of the general assembly of the faithful thus: Our Father, who art on heaven" 31. This is how entry into the church is accomplished, this is how the right of sonship and member of the church is acquired. Having become a full member of the church, the baptized person participates in the entire life of the church, in all its meetings. In the language of church law, this provision is called the right of church communication (χοινωνία, communicatio). This is how the complex act of joining the church is depicted in the Apostolic Constitutions, a monument of uncertain ecclesiastical antiquity. It took shape gradually and in the edition in which we presented our excerpts from it, perhaps it appeared in the second half of the 4th century. But this distant distance from early Christianity is decidedly irrelevant in this case. The importance lies in the very content of the monument. It gives us a statement of the ecclesiastical discipline to which everyone who came “to the sacrament of piety” or to the church was to be subject. Where did the church borrow this discipline of the catechumens? The answer to this question is not difficult. It will happen by itself if you compare this discipline with the Epistles of St. Apostles included in the New Testament canon. What do these messages say? They teach most of all how Christian members of the church “should walk worthy of their calling,” that is, how to behave in order to be worthy of it. This topic is discussed here in great detail. It reveals both the positive ideal of Christian life and the negative phenomena of the life of paganism of that time, which should not have taken place in the church environment. A Christian, a Christian, having entered the church, becomes the “temple of the Holy Spirit”; his heart must be pure for Christ entering into him. But not only his entire spiritual nature, but also his very body, a Christian must transform into the dwelling of God. He must reason within himself: “whether he worthily partakes of the Body and Blood of the Lord, so as not to taste eternal condemnation instead of bliss.” This moral and practical direction of the apostolic epistles, which so clearly depicts to us the life of early Christianity, is irrefutable proof that the introduction of evangelical discipline in the life of the church and the broad significance of “pastoral activity” was the task of the first church organizers no less than evangelism and prophecy. For the essence of the matter, it makes no difference whether baptism was preceded by a lengthy disciplinary test of the catechumen, as was the rule of later church practice, or whether baptism was performed following a declaration of readiness for repentance on the part of the convert, as was the case in the apostolic age, 32 - our interest is that “inner work,” the development in oneself of a new moral character, is the duty of each member of the church, which determines his right of communication, the right to remain in church communion. Once instability in the fulfillment of this duty is discovered in any member of the church, his “brotherly” relations with others, which constitute the essence of the right of communication, begin to fluctuate: such an unstable brother is threatened with “reproof” in private, in front of two or three, and if ineffective - “in front of the whole church” - and then either repentance and correction will occur, or the cessation of fraternal relations - communication not only in prayer, but even in private, everyday life relations. 33 Followers of Luther and the newest historians of early Christianity lose sight of this side of his life and, highlighting the gospel and prophecy, see in the apostolic church either moral theological schools, or mystical communities, like Montan's, the entire content of whose life was exhausted by competition in the gift of prophecy. But such a devastation of the content of early Christianity is very far from a truly historical reconstruction of it. It is tantamount to denying all the apostolic epistles and replacing them with the products of one’s own imagination. In order to clearly imagine how deeply and in detail church discipline changed the views and way of life that prevailed in paganism, we will present some of its rules. Let's take the most everyday, so to speak, sphere of early Christian life. This is how marital relations are formulated in the Apostolic Constitutions: “Let the husband be neither arrogant nor vain towards his wife, but condescending, generous, only desiring to please his wife and caress her with respect, trying to be unanimous with her, without adorning himself exquisitely in order to captivate another. For if, being forced by the latter, you sin with her, then eternal death from God will come upon you, severely tormented by your conscience. But, although you will not commit a bad act by pushing her away, you will still sin, although not by deed, but only by the fact that with your attire you attracted (someone else’s) wife to lust for you. But you are not so guilty, because you were not deceived by what was caught by you: for you did not desire it and, without giving yourself up to it, you will have mercy from the Lord God, who said; “Thou shalt not commit adultery” and “Thou shalt not covet.” But if she, having fallen in love with you and untimely meeting you, was struck by the thought and was seduced by you, and you, as a pious person, rejected her, restrained yourself and did not sin with her, and she, on the contrary, was wounded in her heart, so that she fell in love with you, a handsome young man, exquisitely dressed: then you turned out to be guilty of her crime, as having become the cause of her temptation and inherited “grief” (Matthew 18:7.). Therefore, pray to the Lord God so that no evil befalls you for this. For you owe it not to men to sin, but to God through the righteousness of life. Do not embellish the beauty given to you by nature, but modestly moderate it for people: for example, do not grow the hair on your head into a braid, but cut it off, so that otherwise, by keeping the hair on your head intact, well-groomed, or soaked in fragrant oils, you will not attract women who are attracted and attracted in such ways” 34. “Do not be idle and wander through the streets, untimely observing those living poorly; but, while practicing your craft and your deeds, be zealous to do what is pleasing to God and, remembering the sayings (λόγια) of Christ, study unceasingly. For the Scripture says: “Study in His law day and night, walking in the field and sitting in the house, and going to sleep and rising, so that you may have understanding in everything” 35. If you are rich, so that you do not need a craft for food, then, nevertheless, do not be a wanderer and idle, but either come to the faithful and like-minded and engage in life-giving conversations with them; or, sitting at home, read the law of God, the kingdom, the prophets, sing psalms, carefully go through the Gospel - completing them” 36. These are the duties of a Christian husband towards his wife and his way of life. But here are the duties of a Christian wife towards a Christian and a pagan husband. “Let the wife submit to her husband, because the head of the wife is the husband, but the head of the husband who walks in the way of righteousness is Christ, and the head of Christ, who is God and His Father above all. So, after the Almighty God our and Father, the present and future age of the Lord, all the breath and power of the Creator and His beloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ, fear your husband, wife, and honor him, pleasing him alone, pleasing him with your services, so that through you the husband may be happy, according to the word of wisdom who says: “If anyone finds a virtuous wife, she is more valuable than precious stones: her husband’s heart is confident in her and he will not be left without profit: she repays him with good and not with evil all the days of her life.” 37 “If you want, wife, to be naughty and pleasing to God, do not dress up so that other people’s husbands will like you, do not imitate those who lead a dissolute life, wearing hair, clothes or garters in order to attract those who are caught by this. And even if you did these abominations not in order to sin, but, solely, in order to look better, you will not escape punishment later by inducing someone to be carried away by your desire, and you will not be protected from either falling into sin yourself or seducing another. And if you sin yourself by surrendering, then you will sin personally and will be guilty for the soul of another” 38. “Do not be quarrelsome towards everyone, especially your husband, lest your husband, if he is an unbeliever or a pagan, being tempted by you, blaspheme God, and you do not end up with God as an heir of grief: for woe to him for whose sake my name is blasphemed among the nations (Isa. 52:5).” 39. This is the relationship between spouses. It is impossible not to note the following characteristic features. 1) The duties of a husband in relation to his wife and vice versa are almost identical: both are obliged to equally show love and fidelity to each other and respect for the individual. 2) True, the wife is commanded to obey her husband and, therefore, in a relative way, as it were, the husband is given power over his wife. But the very duty of obedience is not offered to the wife as unconditional, but is left to her will: “if she wants to be pleasing to God.” Here is a characteristic example of the synthesis of religion and law, which distinguishes the entire church discipline, as well as all church law. Here, the duty of one person in relation to another is certainly combined with a personal religious disposition. The highest guiding principle, the light illuminating the consciousness of obligation, is the law or the Will of God, its feasible understanding. The following conclusion is interesting, with which the author of the apostolic decrees ends his instructions to Christian women: “With respect and meekness, express your piety to increase and encourage the faith of all external (i.e., pagan) men and women. And if we, while instructing you, have taught you little, our sisters, daughters and members! You, as wise people, without being slandered for your life, try to learn the instructions through which you could approach the kingdom of our Lord in a godly manner and find eternal peace” 40. And such views were put into practice in an era of deep humiliation of women, both in Judaism and educated paganism, carried out everywhere in the environment of savagery and barbarism, wherever the voices of the evangelists of the Gospel penetrated... And here are some instructions from the same apostolic decrees regarding the communication of rich and poor Christians. “When a Christian, a boy or a girl, becomes an orphan, it will be wonderful if one of the brothers 41 who has no children takes the boy and has him instead of a son, and the girl, if he has a son her age and ripe for marriage, marries him: for those who do this accomplish a great deed, becoming fathers of orphans and will receive a reward from the Lord God for such service. If any rich man, living according to man-pleasing, is ashamed of the members of the orphanage, then the Father of the orphans and the Judge of widows will take care of the orphan (Is. 67:6), and the rich man will be attacked by one who will exhaust everything that he spared, and what was said to him will come true: “What the saints did not eat, the Assyrians will eat,” just as Isaiah says: “Your country is before you.” strangers devour (Isa. 1:7).” “So you, bishops, take care of what is necessary for their sustenance, without at all abandoning them, but care for orphans as parents, and for widows as husbands, marry adults, provide employment for the master, show compassion for the weak, provide shelter for strangers, hungry for food, thirsty for drink, clothing for the naked, visitation for the sick, help for the prisoners. Moreover, take even more care of the orphans, so that they do not lack anything: give the girl, as soon as she reaches marriageable age, to her brother in marriage 42, and provide the boy with the means so that he can study his skills and be nourished from their abundance, and when he successfully studies the skills, he can buy himself workshop tools, so as not to burden his unfeigned love for himself. brothers, but be content with yourself. For truly blessed is the one who, being able to help himself, does not embarrass the place of an orphan, a stranger, a widow. And the Lord said that he who gives is more blessed than the one who receives (Acts 20:35)” 43. Very few touches, but, in our opinion, extremely interesting ones, are given by Ap. Regulations regarding slavery, an institution considered the cornerstone of ancient culture. “A slave concubina (concubina) of some unbeliever, who is in communion with him alone, let her be accepted, 44 and if she commits fornication with others, let her be rejected. If a believer has a slave as a concubine, then let him stop having her as a concubine and marry her according to the law, but if she is free, then let him marry her according to the law, and if not, let him be rejected.” “Let slaves work five days, and on the Sabbath and on the Lord’s Day let them remain in church for the sake of teaching piety. During the entire Great Week (Passion Week) and the week following it (Easter), let slaves not work...", etc. 45 In a word, they work only on working days for Christians and are equally free from work on holidays. The examples presented clearly show the path that the church followed in its mission of renewing humanity, in spreading and establishing the kingdom of the “children of God” and “brothers” not only according to theoretical convictions, but according to morals. The idea of ​​fraternity united every Christian community into an internally and externally related union, which is incomparably stronger than political and contractual ones. Without acting as reformers of the state and social system, Christians, through individual improvement, introduced a completely new spirit and content into the existing political and social foundations, and were representatives of a completely new order of life (πολιτεία χριστιιίνων). Naturally, the question is possible: where did Christians borrow their discipline and the right to communicate? If for an answer to this question we turn to the source from which the above tirades were presented, we will receive only one thing - from Scripture, both the Old Testament and the New Testament. It is the only source of the disciplinary instructions contained herein. Non-involvement in sources outside of Scripture author Ap. Resolutions expressed rather naively in the unflattering recommendation regarding pagan literature (poetry, law, history) that he gives, not advising reading it at all, since it absolutely does not give anything better that is not contained in Scripture: The Bible contains everything a Christian needs to know and every Christian and every Christian woman should study it during all their free time from work. 46 And that the rules of life, borrowed by Christians of the first centuries from Scripture, had the meaning of disciplinary rules, a sharp violation of which was accompanied by the usual punishment - excommunication - this is expressively attested to by such an authoritative, in this case, writer as the famous Tertullian. “We gather,” he says in his apology, “to read the Holy Scriptures, from which, depending on the circumstances, we draw the information and instructions we need. With holy words we cultivate faith, strengthen hope, affirm courage, without any strife, without interfering with the teaching of mentors. Immediately there are admonitions, corrections and divine sentences (censura divina). For the judgment is carried out with all the rigor of investigation and with confidence in the presence of God, and therefore already serves as a clear omen of future condemnation, if anyone by his misdeeds deserves to be excommunicated from communication in prayers, in meetings and other sacred relationships. The elders preside, achieving such honor not by purchase, but by testing their dignity: for divine right 47 is not sold at the price of gold” 48 . From the half of the 3rd century, the experience of disciplinary rules was preserved, which later became part of the general nomocanon with the name of the rules of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea, built like the discipline of Ap. Decrees on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments 49. So, what is the discipline of the church if not the experience of applying divine law to life? Yes, the Church is not only a liturgical assembly and community, but also an organ or bearer of Divine right. The formation of disciplinary rules (χανόνες) goes back to the depths of the apostolic period, takes place throughout the existence of the Church of Christ, and, over time, introduced elements of human law into the original sphere of Christ and the apostolic commandments. This introduction, of course, was the reason for the great diversity of church discipline both in formal and material terms, depending on place and time. Changeability is one of the essential properties of church discipline 50. But isn’t such an introduction of human rights into its sphere contrary to the nature of the church? A positive basis for resolving this issue is given by Ap. Paul in his letter to the Romans. Here the psychological and historical sources of law are established: conscience or natural law, living in the soul of every person; the positive law given to the Jewish people and the New Testament law brought by Christ to all humanity. In what relation do the norms emanating from these sources stand among themselves? Are not the principles of Old Testament and natural law, under the influence of which civil law is formed, contrary to New Testament law? The answer to this question is this: they can be disgusting or not disgusting, depending on their quality. For even those who do not follow the positive law “create the lawful nature.” Nature itself prompts man to the dictates of duty or the dictates of the Divine law. In this regard, the church legal consciousness of the first centuries was close to the principle: what is not contrary to nature or natural law is not contrary to divine law: for all nature is the creation of the Creator. Therefore, the divine law is natural 51. However, this harmony is not always observed: for the sin of the first man damaged all of nature and, above all, the spiritual nature of man himself. The consequence of this was the antagonism of two laws in human nature itself: the law of the mind (or spirit) and the law of the flesh (σαρξ). The task of Christian inner work is to subordinate the flesh to the spirit. But where is the criterion for recognizing which of the prescriptions of the natural law is in accordance with the divine law and which is contrary to it? In response to this question, the first Christians pointed, firstly, to the Gospel, and secondly, to the 10 commandments of Moses and the moral teaching of the great Old Testament prophets. With these criteria they approached the assessment of both the Old Testament ritual law and the existing state and civil law. And what in both, in their understanding, did not contradict the specified criteria, they boldly accepted into their discipline. 52 In essence, this principle has always been maintained in church legislation, as it is maintained at the present time, although, perhaps de facto, not always strictly consistently and with sufficient zeal 53 . So, not only is the nature of law not contrary to the nature of the Church of Christ, but, on the contrary, human law finds its improvement in the divine law of the Church. Improving human legal consciousness is one of the callings of the Church. This is clear from the messages of the Holy Apostles, and it becomes positively inexplicable to us how Zom did not notice this church mission in the Apostolic Age. By virtue of this mission, the church becomes not a random meeting of two or three who theoretically confess Christ as the Son of God, which can be formed by chance and disintegrate by chance, but is an internally connected whole, made up of free persons tested in faith and life, awarded baptism according to the “institution of the Lord.” Baptism gives birth to a new life, transforms a slave into a son of God. The assimilation of this grace-filled right of sonship, accomplished through continuous spiritual activity or observance of the commandments of church discipline, binds him with fraternal bonds of communication with other members of the church. This gracious right of sonship is the mysterious, mystical basis of ecclesiastical union or communion, and ecclesiastical discipline is its external connection (jus), its right. Hierarchical principle in church organization If the nature of the church is not contrary to the nature of law - as was clarified earlier 54, but, on the contrary, human law finds improvement in the divine law of the church: then is not the principle of power alien to the nature of the church - the hierarchical principle, without which the implementation of law is unthinkable? For a very long time, as an unshakable dogma not only of church law, but also of theology in general, there was the position that the church hierarchy in the form of three degrees is the same divine institution as dogmas, morality and cult, and represents a necessary element in the concept of the church: “without hierarchy there is no church.” Since the Reformation, this position has begun to be subject to fluctuations, and now to an energetic, open attack for two reasons: a) it contradicts the latest scientific studies of early Christianity, according to which it turns out that the church hierarchy was formed by itself, a rather long historical process, and no one established it; b) the existence of a special class of priesthood contradicts the teaching of Christianity about the universal priesthood (the motive is quite old). As a scientifically and historically substantiated theory, the following theory of the origin of the church hierarchy is proposed: “The kingdom for the coming of which the Savior 55 lived, suffered and died, according to His own testimony, is not of this world. And yet, Jesus Christ marks a turning point in history and for law. His teaching gave impetus to the disintegration of the hitherto unified order of life: the church appeared next to the state, of course, not yet in the form of the Jerusalem community. True, its members were closely united under the leadership of James, the brother of the Lord, not without special regulations (“seven” Acts 6). But they did not separate themselves from the law and society of the Jews, just like the rest of the believers in the Jewish country (they called themselves “saints” until about 150). The Jerusalem community, until its early death (the eviction to Pella around 68), “was always a spiritual community.” “The disappearance of the itinerant charismatic mission makes room for communal authorities, the emergence of which occurs due to the same relationships and needs for the same essential things. Their roots go back to apostolic times; since there were non-Christian starting points here - can be left aside: since the originality of the final result is beyond doubt. From among the Christians of the area or district, a small number of first converts usually emerge (1 Cor. 16:15) and especially reliable ones, who in post-apostolic times were still distinguished by the memory of the apostles, or simply by respect for their old age (πρεοσβύτεροι). They are entrusted by the apostle - the founder of the community (Acts 14:23; Tim. 1:5) with the highest care (έπισχοπή Phil. 1:1; Acts 20:28, 1 Pet. 5:1) about their fellow believers in place (προϊσταμενοι Rom. 12:8; 1 Thess. 5:12), or they themselves take leadership (ήγούμενοί Heb. 13:7); in the matter of caring for the poor, they use the help of serving brothers (διάχονοι. Phil. 1:1, Δισ. 15). The elders, strengthening their prominent position (1 Clement around 90) become a committee of elders (πρεοσβύτεροι 1 Tim. 4:14), from which they soon stand out as επίσχοποι in a closer sense, those who, as successors of the dying apostles, prophets and teachers, take upon themselves the performance of prayer, the offering of sacrifice, and gradually teaching (Δισ. 15, Herm., cf. 1 Tim. 5:17). In the same way, the local, Christian (έχχλησία in apostolic usage = the union of Christians and all Christianity) society, which even in post-apostolic times did not yet include all local Christians (Heb. 10:25; Barnabas, Herm) and, in any case, was formed completely by accident, acquires legal significance due to the fact that it usually speaks out regarding the exclusion (Christians) and reverse acceptance, regarding the reception of primates, etc. (1 Cor. 5:1–4), 2 Cor. 1:23 ; sl. 2, 5, words. 7, 12; Δισ. 15) and becomes a general meeting representing the given union and deciding with consequences for it.” “The result of the process of penetration of law into the church is not a community, but a form of episcopal church, at first, in any case, still strongly imbued with an admixture of the corporate element. A Christian society living in a hostile environment needs precisely a unified leadership and, the local mission now beginning, can make conquests only if its threads converge into one hand. The development of religious doctrine also leads to unity. Young Christianity overcomes the attacks of the pagans by the exemplary life, the courageous confession of its followers and the victorious death of its martyrs; against creeping destruction, through internal decay, through philosophical interpretation (gnosis), it can have a real weapon only in a simple reference to the word of the Lord and the Apostles (the New Testament canon with the rule of faith), and where this is impossible, to the living authority that originates from this word. “Therefore, in the east, where thinking Christianity first felt the need for clarity of faith (the Epistles of Ignatius, shortly after 100), the idea of apostolic succession that appeared towards the end of the apostolic period (in Rome 1 Epistle of Clement) is transformed and acquires practical significance in the sense that there is now a single bishop (έπισχοπος, but still Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria are also πρεοσβύτερος, since he can build his office - through an unbroken chain of lawfully appointed predecessors to the apostles (ordo episcoporum per successionem ab initio decurrens) for this reason, ensures the uncorrupted apostolic content of the faith (χαϑολιχή έχχλησία is now also an orthodox church). Soon (at least since 150), Rome and, in general, the organized West, perceives this development in order to accelerate and strengthen it by completely transferring it to the legal field. Since here, too, internal difficulties, such as, for example, the untimely severity of the communities against those who fell during the persecution, could only be overcome under the condition that the Roman bishops (Callistus 217 - 222 and Cornelius 251 - 253) and the Carthaginian bishop took the reins of government in one hand, which could unite mercy with firmness. Cyprian 56 This is the process of formation of the church hierarchy. It is not difficult to distinguish the following points in it: a) the period of dominance of the itinerant charismatic mission - a state close to anarchy; b) the performance of elders with a leadership role in communities; c) a committee of elders, from which d) a personal or monarchical episcopate arises. How much does this scientific theory shake the traditional belief of the church in the divine origin of the hierarchy? To answer this question correctly, it is necessary to weigh how firmly the theory itself is 57. At first glance, it is based on a very solid foundation: exclusively on the written monuments of early Christianity, the authenticity and comparative antiquity of which have been verified and established by scientific and historical criticism. These sources are the following: the book of Acts of the Holy Apostles, the Epistles of St. Paul, not excluding even the pastoral epistles, the Epistles of Peter and James, 1st Epistle of Clement, Barnabas, Didache, St. Ignatius, Hermas, Irenaeus. 58 Are these sources sufficient to, based only on them alone, reconstruct the exact history of a fact that is decisively contrary to the general church tradition? A negative answer to this question necessarily follows from the very nature of the sources under consideration: all of them, not excluding the book of Acts, do not contain legends about the origin of the hierarchy, but only in passing, fragmentarily, touch on this subject, precisely assuming it actually exists. Due to the lack of other sources, of course, these fragmentary data are valuable and a thorough study of them is mandatory for the historian. They verify the tradition: this meaning is undeniable and has always been recognized by the Church 59 . But to recognize them as the only materials for an entire historical construction means either completely abandoning the possibility of having it, or admitting the need to supplement them with one’s own creativity, opening up space for various hypothetical constructions. But can a hypothesis shake a legend?! But this is not enough. The hypothetical process of hierarchy formation (presented above) is also in contradiction with those few historical sources that are recognized by the creators of the hypothesis themselves. Thus, in obvious contradiction with them stands the hypothesis of the anarchic moment, which supposedly constituted the first moment of church history. Where and when was such a moment? In Jerusalem, from the day of Pentecost, when the evangelistic activity of the Apostles began? But it is here that the Christian community appears united, more than anywhere else. Here the church organization, which later becomes accepted in all other communities, appears quite clearly: here the outstanding position of James, the brother of the Lord, is very noticeable, whose successor Simeon, the son of Cleopas, is directly called the bishop elected by “everyone” 60, here the “presbyters” appear, together with James, the apostles and the whole church, discussing ecclesiastical issues of not only local, but also general church significance. This is where the deacons got their start. Yes, there was no anarchic moment in the history of the Jerusalem church. There was no such moment in the churches founded by Ap. Paul and Barnabas in Antioch, Lystra, Hyponia, Ephesus (elders were ordained there (Acts 14:23, 20:28) for each church. The only exception in the entire Apostolic history is the Church of Corinth where, as can be judged from the 1st letter of the Apostle, there was disorder for some time. And it is this moment, which probably lasted very short, that the theory clings to and elevates it to the general law of the development of church organization. To what extent such a technique is scientific from a historical point of view is unnecessary to explain. But, as for the legal significance of this only, one might say, negative authority in the series of positive facts of apostolic history, it is really important, but not from the side in which it is presented by historians, but, precisely, from the opposite. The fact is that the period of anarchy, or the dominance of a wandering charismatic mission, is put forward by Zom, and after him by the above-mentioned theory, not just as a historical moment, but as an ideal moment, as a moment of direct Divine rule, which was later replaced by the dominance of law and hierarchy. Does the Apostle Paul look at this state the same way as Zom? Far from it... It is in 1 Corinthians that the Apostle very energetically rebels against church disorder, condemns the division into parties and deeply grieves about it, reproaches for disorder and unworthy behavior during the celebration of the Eucharist and the Supper of Love, grieves that the Corinthians tolerate a fornicator in their midst, and do not take measures to correct him and prescribes a very energetic measure; reproaches the fact that Christians have litigation among themselves and do not know how to organize their own court, but turn to the pagan court for the analysis of their litigation, gives detailed instructions on how to conduct church meetings, how to conduct monetary collections in favor of the poor. To top it all off, in hardly any other epistle does the Apostle expose his position of power in the church with such energy as in the Epistle to the Corinthians, for example, in the following words: “For this reason I write this not to you, lest I come mercilessly to do according to the power that the Lord has given me to build up, and not to destroy.” 61 And it is remarkable that the Corinthian enthusiasts did not express any “protest” against such a statement, but, on the contrary, humbled themselves and did everything that the Apostle ordered or pointed out. Anarchy was not recognized as an ideal system here either. In place of this moment of anarchy, noted by historians as “democratic” or “enthusiastic,” 62 we must recognize, according to the indisputable testimony of the Scriptures, a moment of rather firm authority of the Apostles, which they received from the Lord. And only the Apostles? Are there not traces of the actions of other church-communal authorities in the very apostolic age noticeable in Scripture? That such traces exist is not completely denied by the theory under consideration. And she admits, on the one hand, “special institutions” in the Jerusalem Church, and on the other, she also expresses a more general position that “the roots of those communal authorities that arose after the disappearance of the itinerant charismatic mission go back to apostolic times.” But why such uncertainty and restraint? If there is no doubt that “the roots go back to the apostolic age,” then what obstacle remains to admit that these roots were planted by the Apostles? And so, it is natural to suspect that such indecisiveness is explained by a very simple reason - the desire to save, at all costs, the integrity of the theory of the gradual development of the hierarchy, not from the essence of “pure (“spiritual”) Christianity,” but from the conditions and circumstances of the time. 63 We do not undertake to judge how well-founded this suspicion is, but that the attempt to create such a theory is not very fruitful - this is clear from the disagreements and mutual contradictions that are observed between the luminaries - the creators of this theory. These disagreements and contradictions are the best answer to the question we posed: is such a theory capable of shaking the church’s faith in the institution of God and the apostolic origin of the church hierarchy... We are far from the idea of ​​writing an apology for the divine origin of the New Testament hierarchy and, for this purpose, entering into detailed exegetical research into places of Holy Scripture, considering them as historical evidence or materials on which it would be possible to compile an accurate history of the hierarchy during the 1st and 2nd centuries. churches. For church legal or canonical science, it is incomparably more important to consider the teachings and testimonies of Holy Scripture from the fundamental side of their content, since they illuminate and reveal the meaning and significance of the hierarchical principle in the church organization and since they resolve the question - does this principle correspond to the nature of the Church of Christ, or is it, like law in general, alien to the Church and introduced into it from the outside under the pressure of the conditions of the time? In this regard, in our opinion, the following words from the Epistles of Ap. should be put in first place. Petra: “I beg your elders (πρεσβυτέρους οὖν ἐν ὑμῖν), co-presbyter and witness of the sufferings of Christ: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, overseeing it not under compulsion, but willingly and pleasing to God, not for vile gain, but out of diligence, and not lording it over the inheritance of God, but being an example to the flock, and when the chief shepherd appears, you will receive a crown of glory” (1 Pet. 5:1-4). What deserves attention here, first of all, is the attitude in which the Apostle places the shepherds of the “Dispersal Christians” in relation to themselves and the Lord. In relation to the Apostle, they - co-workers, his co-workers, bear the same burden as he - their co-presbyter - and will receive a reward for their diligent shepherding from the Archpastor himself - the Lord. There is no hint that these were those authorized by the community, or those who took upon themselves pastoral care, or, much less, simply older people - old people 64. In the establishment of the elders of the community, we see, therefore, the moment of isolating from the general content of the apostolic ministry a certain part of the shepherding, just as from the establishment of the “deacons” - the allocation of service to the poor, which, like shepherding, was originally included in the content of the apostolic ministry: “it is not convenient for us, having left the word of God, to take care of the tables: therefore, choose men... we will put them in this service.” The Apostle denotes the content of the ministry of elders with the general expression “shepherd”, without revealing individual aspects of this ministry. But the fact that this term denotes the leadership, commanding position of those who are given the title of “shepherd” cannot raise doubts, if only in view of the fact that the terms “shepherd”, “shepherd” are usually used not only in the specifically spiritual, but also in the state sphere, to characterize humane and wise rulers. History knows both “the shepherd of the peoples, Atrid,” and “the good princes who laid waste to the Russian land.” But, without clarifying the content of the duty of shepherding, the Apostle quite fully and energetically (“I beg”) instructs the elders - how should church pastors act? Presbyters must shepherd the flock: a) not under compulsion, but willingly, that is, not officially, out of “duty of service” - in modern language, but giving themselves completely: loving their duty as their own business: b) not out of self-interest, but out of jealousy; c) not dominating God’s inheritance, but setting an example for the flock. Thinking carefully about each of these negative and positive features that characterize the type of church pastor, leader and leader of a religious community (“flock”, or “God’s inheritance”), we see in them both a historical, temporary imprint, and eternal fundamental features. Philologically and historically, the terms “elders” and “shepherd,” of course, did not represent anything new in the eyes of the readers of the epistle. Both Jews and pagans had elders and shepherds. What new does the Apostle introduce into Christian presbytery and shepherding, what distinguishes it to the contrary from Jewish and pagan shepherding? This is new - the spirit of love, which should characterize the relationship of the shepherd to the flock. In this news of pastoral action lies the originality of the new type of presbytery that was already taking shape in the church at the time of the composition of the epistle (approximately 63). The Apostle addresses his message to the strangers of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia. But, of course, the matter would not have changed at all if the Apostle had sent his message on this subject not here, but, for example, to Rome, Corinth, and not in the year 63, but much earlier. In the newly created religious union created by the Apostles, the types of leadership, under the forms of presbytery and shepherding, let us assume, borrowed from outside, developed not depending on temporary and local conditions, but, first of all, depending on the principles that were presented in the minds of the founders. Ap. Paul conducted his conversation with the Ephesian elders and wrote his pastoral epistles, no doubt, under the influence of different conditions in which the churches were located, whose shepherds he instructed, and, however, it would be a vain effort to find a fundamental difference in the types of shepherds outlined by these apostles. The main positive means of pastoral action revealed in all these messages is the personal feat of the shepherd. “(Shepherd) without lording it over God’s inheritance, but set an example for the flock,” begs Ap. Peter. “Pay attention to yourself and to the whole flock,” “whoever desires the episcopacy desires a good deed,” St. Ap. instructs the shepherds. Paul. That this type of shepherding, or presbytery, was completely new and unheard of for that time is evident from the very form of speech in which Ap. Peter outlines this type. This form is an antithesis; features of ordinary shepherding: official coldness, self-interest, domineering attitude towards the flock, are presented here as negative; This is not how a Christian or church pastor should act; traits of the opposite character should distinguish him. The question now is: where did the apostles get this idea of ​​shepherding? What conditions of the time suggested to them this, to use legal language, construction of pastoral ministry? The question is unsolvable if we strive to find an answer to it in the conditions of time among which the apostles acted, in general, if we begin to strive to prove the origin of the hierarchical principle not from the very nature of the Church of Christ, but as an appendage to the teaching of Christ: introduced after, for example, at the beginning of the 11th century, or later. But how easily it is resolved if we direct our attention not to the end of apostolic history, but to its very beginning, precisely to the moment of the calling of the apostles themselves and to their gradual preparation for the calling in humanity by those who called them! “Seeing the crowds of people, He took pity on them because they were weary and scattered, like sheep without a shepherd... and, calling his twelve disciples, He gave them power over unclean spirits to cast them out and heal every disease and every infirmity” (Matthew 9:36, 10:1). Shepherding, according to this testimony of the Gospel, was outlined as the task of the apostles at their very calling to the apostleship, as a work of God’s love for “the weary and scattered.” Pastoral care was entrusted three times by Christ, after the Resurrection, to Peter, with the latter three times confessing his love for Christ (John 21:15–17): “Feed My sheep, feed My lambs.” It is clear that Ap. Peter, turning to the elders with the words “shepherd the flock of God,” entrusted them with the pastoral authority that he himself had once received directly from Christ. Hence, from here the hierarchical ecclesiastical principle originates, since it takes on the form of shepherding. How should it be applied? Where to look for principles and examples of its application? And we will not find anywhere a more accurate answer to these questions than the one given by the Gospel. “He said to them: kings 65 rule (κυριαρχείυουσιν) 66 over nations and those who own 67 them are called benefactors. But you are not so: but whoever is the greatest (μείςων έν ύμϊϒ) 68 among you, be like the youngest (μικρότερος) 69 , and the ruler (ηγούμενος) like an employee (Lk. 22:26–27). Comparing these words of Christ with the above instructions of Apostle. Peter to the shepherds-presbyters, we find a striking similarity not only in thought, but also in its very external expression. And here, as there, there is an antithesis: a, in the state there are kings and rulers; in the church - greater and lesser, or elder (Πρεσβύτερος) and younger (νεώτερος); in the state - the beginning of power; in the church - supervision (επίσχοπούντες) and edification, or service (δυίχονος) by example. What especially catches the eye here, so to speak, is the persistent elimination of the nature of power, namely, state power through kings and princes (βασιλείς και άρχωνίες) in a religious union, the single connecting center and basis of which is Christ (One Lord - Κύριος) the elimination of human rule is further confirmed by the Lord’s own example: “You call Me Teacher and Lord and say correctly: for I am exactly that. So, if I, the Lord and Teacher, washed your feet, then you should wash each other’s feet. For I have given you an example, so that you also should do the same as I have done to you” (John 13:13–15). But what is being introduced in place of power in the religious area? The principle of shepherding is introduced, dividing the flock of Christ into “elder” or “greater” and “younger” or lesser members, or better yet, brothers or “fathers” and “children”. The Church is “the Christian race.” In the sphere of the religious and moral Christian union, where the members are a “new creation” called into the freedom of the glory of the children of God, harsh and unyielding power (imperium), so necessary in the state, is not appropriate, but anarchy is even less appropriate. The high dignity of the Christian personality also requires measures of administrative influence that are more subtle and gentle than those to which state discipline is forced to resort. On the other hand, the sublime nature of church life, consisting of religious and moral activity, requires special authority from the leader. How is this latter achieved? “Do not lord it over God’s inheritance, but be an example to the flock.” Here is the answer to this question. Since the entire epistle deals mainly with life consistent with faith, and the main task of shepherding is to instill discipline, the Apostle points out the personal example of a shepherd as a positive means of pastoral action. An example is more convincing than a word and, precisely, in the moral and religious field and vice versa - there is nothing more tactless in the work of a pastor than an eloquent instruction or demand that does not correspond to the personal life of the instructor. In the field of state discipline there is another means of influence - fear of punishment: here bondage teaches decency and official righteousness; in the field of church discipline there is no bondage, here the free performance of duties is required and, if in fairness, it is considered naive to prescribe to a free person, for example, in the form of decrees or articles of the police charter, fasting, intense prayer, fear of God, etc. virtues, then to captivate the same free people with an example of a personal pious disposition towards the same virtues is considered a completely natural phenomenon. Exempla tragnut is a lever in the religious sphere that retains its energy even when the direct activity of the captivating personality has already ceased: the “holy” shepherd evokes imitation, perhaps even more strongly in death than during life. Because of this, the considered method of pastoral action cannot be viewed only as a moral maxim, which is highly desirable in every other area of ​​public service. No, in the sphere of religious discipline it is a practical necessity: a shepherd leading an unworthy life is something unthinkable. Here is the basis for the fragmentation of the prescriptions of church law, which differs in the calculation of moral shortcomings as obstacles to ordination. The church, by its nature, represents the highest level of the social system in comparison with the state, and accordingly the principle of church authority (ιεραρχία) is a higher level in comparison with the principle of state authority (imperium). This is the deep meaning of the patristic formula: “the priesthood is higher than the kingdom,” so absurdly distorted by the medieval papacy 70 . “Your venerable presbytery, worthy of God, is in agreement with the bishop, like the strings of a harp. That is why Christ is glorified by your like-mindedness and harmonious love. So you too, one and all, form a choir, so that in a concordant mood, through unanimity, having unanimously begun a song of praise to God, sing it in agreement” 71 . This is how St. depicted the inner life of the Ephesian Church. Ignatius the God-Bearer. Just as in a choir the natural individuality of voices requires free development by their personal labor and, however, with the indispensable influence of a regent animated by love and possessing a keen ear, so in religious and social (church) life. There cannot be a choir without a good director, but a good director cannot be a choir without talented and disciplined singers. The Apostle Paul praised and encouraged the zeal of the charismatics of the Corinthian church, but at the same time, he demanded that the manifestation of their gifts be done “in a manner and in order.” The principle of power in a state organization corresponds to the principle of hierarchical shepherding in the church. This idea is easily proven based on the exact meaning of Scripture; on the contrary, the justification of anarchy is a distortion of both the spirit and letter of Scripture. But can church shepherding be called a hierarchy? Is there an element of power in it: is it not only a duty, or a freely chosen feat of a Christian, for example, gifted with the charisma of prophecy or teaching? And to these questions we receive categorical answers in Scripture that eliminate all uncertainty. And, first of all, in the same message of Ap. Petra. Here, immediately following the depiction of the nature of the actions of the shepherds, there follows the following appeal to the younger ones: “Accordingly, you, the younger ones, submit to the elders. Nevertheless, be mutually adorned with humility: for God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” 72 The term “ὑποτάγητε” - “obey”, correlative to the term “graze” - is categorical; does not allow any uncertainty. The call to mutual humility in no way weakens either the authority of the shepherds or the duty of obedience of the flock. Pride and arrogance, in general, are not signs or characteristics of church leadership; Yes, they are hardly capable of strengthening the authority of any authorities, especially in a cultured state. The instructions of Ap. are also categorical. Paul: “Obey your leaders and be submissive.” 73 . “We ask you, brethren, to respect those who work among you, your leaders (προϊσταμένοι) in the Lord and admonish you, and to honor them, especially with love, for their work 74. Thus, the apostles unequivocally commanded the duty of obedience, subordination and respect for the elders-shepherds, leaders and primates in the Lord on the part of the brethren; that is, those persons within the church who, in later canonical language, are called laity. But - they will object to us - after all, these instructions of the apostles are only of a moral nature: the fulfillment of the duty of obedience and submission depends on the will of the “brotherhood”, just as the fulfillment of their pastoral duty depends on the will of the shepherds. Where is the guarantee that these and other duties will be fulfilled? Isn't it in everyone's personal conscience? And does the very tone of the apostles’ speeches sound like a tone of instruction, or simply advice, a request? We answer this objection: it is not enough to say about the instructions in question that they are only of a moral nature: they are of a religious and moral nature, i.e., non-fulfillment or poor fulfillment of pastoral duty entails responsibility not before the personal conscience of the shepherd, but before God 75 , and, conversely, zealous fulfillment of duty is combined with a reward from God 76 . This religious authority of the shepherd conveys the religious character and responsibility of the flock for disobedience, as well as the duty of shepherding - homogeneous and not distinguished by the apostles from a number of other duties that must be performed “for the sake of the Lord.” It is true that the tone of the speeches of the apostles is not the tone of the legislators. They do not demand, they do not prescribe, but they ask and beg. But does this external form of expression diminish the power of the apostolic commandment? Isn't it the opposite, doesn't it elevate? Indeed, even in the sphere of human law, the rough and harsh form of legal requirements has long ceased to be considered a sign and guarantee of firm power, especially since this must be said about truly church law, faithfully following the principles of the Gospel 77 . Here he begs for obedience to the shepherds “An Apostle of Jesus Christ, a witness of the sufferings of Christ and a sharer in the glory that is to be revealed,” one of those to whom Christ said: “Listen to you, He listens to Me”: what great value does this prayer of the Apostle have in the eyes of the believer? We do not think that it is less than any legal order emanating from any legislative institution. This religious value of the hierarchical principle of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer: “You must not neglect the age of the bishop, but, according to the will of God the Father, show him every respect, as I have learned and your holy presbyters do, who do not look at his apparently early appointment as a bishop, but obey him as God-wise. But they do not obey him, but the Father of Jesus Christ, the common bishop of all. So, in honor of Him who desired him, you must obey him without any hypocrisy: because such a one does not deceive this visible Bishop, but lies before the Invisible. In such matters, everything relates not to the flesh, but to God, who sees in secret” 78. What is a bishop, if not a person who has the main authority and power over everything, as much as possible an imitator of Christ God? What is the presbytery if not the sacred council, the councilors and collaborators of the bishop? What are deacons if not imitators of angelic powers? ... So, whoever does not obey them is a completely godless and wicked person; he despises Christ and his institution" 79 . Thanks to this religious motive of obedience, it becomes quite possible in the church sphere for the leadership of a person who is by nature meek and completely alien to the “thirst for power” and to maintain strict official subordination without any crude means of coercion. The canonical organization even positively demands that the hierarchical person must be distinguished by meekness (πραύς) 80 “quietness” 81 and considers pride, anger, irritability as not normal, 82 strictly condemning in general “the arrogance of worldly power creeping into the church under the guise of sacred rites” 83 . But this is not enough. Distinguished by its religious and moral character, church authorities (Ιεραρχία) are also imbued with a unique religious-legal element. It is clear how important it is in the interests of the science of church law to note this element in the hierarchy of the apostolic age. It is true that very little data on this subject has been preserved in Scripture, but it exists and is so clear that it cannot be erased by any exegetical retouching; their scarcity, on the contrary, obliges us to treat them with special attention. In the structure of the Apostolic Church, there were undoubtedly persons who carried out the public service of the Church, being called to this by a special act, called by two terms: χειροτονία and επίδεοίς ιών χειρων. What kind of act is this? It has now been firmly established that in classical usage the term χείροτονΐα denoted the people's election to a public position by casting votes (the same as suffragium), and those who cast votes for the elected one extended their hands upward, and, according to the number of outstretched hands, the number of votes was determined. The use of this generally accepted legal technique occurs repeatedly in the history of the church of the apostolic age, but here it is given a deeply religious and mysterious character - in the full sense of a sacred rite. This selective act was here performed in a deeply prayerful mood, which was sometimes aroused by “preliminary prayer and fasting”, and sometimes by direct reference to certain persons through an inspired prophet. This introduction of a religious element into a simple legal act was accomplished as a result of the general desire to find, in fact, not a public chosen one, but a chosen one of God. And it is not difficult, of course, to understand why, of all the usual methods of appointment to a position, it was this one that was adopted by Christians, and not any other, for example, the one that is called the administrative method of appointment to a position. This particular method answered most precisely to the call for unanimity and love that the Lord bequeathed to his disciples, promising to certainly be where even two or three would gather in His name. It is natural, therefore, to expect that the more important the position, the more desirable it would be to see it replaced by the person whom the Lord desires. It is deeply significant that the first experience of applying such a procedure for election to church service, the first Christian ordination, was undertaken to elect the twelfth apostle in the place of Judas the traitor. True, St. Luke does not call this act consecration. But, telling about the method of making the election, he clearly gives all its details. So, here we see the deeply prayerful mood of the 120 brothers (Article 14, Chapter 1). The act began with a heartfelt speech by Ap. Peter, who found out the importance of this event. Then, undoubtedly, a discussion followed - who exactly should be chosen from the personally present witnesses of the entire life and activity of the Lord, the result of which was the nomination of two persons: and “they appointed two.” The first moment of election has occurred. A further act had to be performed - the election of one of these two. And they prayed... “And they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles (1, v. 26). The same details are found in the depiction of the second ordination - 7 deacons. But here a new detail is encountered: the “laying on of hands” (επίϑεσις των χεριών) is added to the prayer that completed the act of election. When depicting the third case of ordination, prophetic assistance is noted, fasting (and prayer) preceding the laying on of hands on the chosen ones. (Acts 13:1–3). The term “ordination” (χείροτονΐα) refers to the establishment of elders for each church by the Apostle Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:23). Ap. mentions prophecy and the laying on of hands of the presbytery as moments of ordination. Paul in his letter to Timothy. (1 Tim. 4:15). These are the positive data of Scripture regarding the components of ordination, as an ecclesiastical, in the proper sense, act, by which a previously simple believer, a simple member of the church “brother” was elevated to a church position, or to church service (διaxovia). At present, even in Russian canonical literature, it is fully established that the order of ordination to various church positions, developed by the church during the first three centuries, and then sanctioned for Byzantium by imperial legislation, although with significant modification (See Nomocanon of Photius, Tit. 1:9), combines all the details we have indicated, preserved by Scripture. See Η. I. Aksakova: about the election of bishops in the ancient Christian Church (in the journal Church Voice for 1906), as well as: “The Tradition of the Church and the Tradition of the School.” Sergiev Posad, 1910 It is difficult to answer this question categorically to what exact positions were the members of the church elevated to by the act of consecration in the apostolic age. But the sources closest to Scripture clearly testify that by such an act bishops, 84 bishops and deacons, 85 and presbyters were appointed. 86 But it is noteworthy that neither prophets, nor teachers, nor other charismatics, who supposedly had a government function in early Christianity, are said to have been ordained. Why? Because these are only “gifts”, and not positions or ministries, and are given, according to the clear testimony of Scripture, directly by baptism and the laying on of apostolic hands (later by confirmation), like other gifts, for example, healings, discernment of spirits, etc., so that “of those who believed in God through Christ there is not a person who has not received a spiritual gift” 87 . Due to this, each of the believers becomes an active member of the church body, according to the gift received. The gifts are different: you received this, and he received some other thing, or a word of wisdom, or knowledge, or discernment of spirits, or foreknowledge of the future, or the ability to teach, or kindness, or legal abstinence 88 . But whether they discover their talents for the work of serving the church depends entirely on their goodwill, on their zeal. It is possible that someone who has received high gifts (for example, prophecy) will warm them up, do a lot of good and gain great respect and authority in the church. But it is possible that he will bury the talent he received in the ground: for this he is responsible only to the One who gave him the talent. Church officials are a different matter: they are obliged to fulfill the ministry entrusted to them and are responsible in fulfilling it not only before God, the Only Source of their spiritual gifts, but also before the church that elected them, entrusted them with a certain special ministry, and in the act of ordination asked for them the extraordinary grace of the Spirit. We dwell on these elementary explanations of the concepts of “duty” and “gift” (charisma) with the aim of pointing out the simple logical fallacy that underlies the theory that distinguishes in the history of early Christianity the periods of dominance of the “enthusiastic” and “legal hierarchy” and resolutely denies the institution of God and apostolic origin - the second. Charismatics have never been hierarchs solely because of their gifts; they became such only when the church assembly, headed by the hierarchs, was awarded ordination or consecration. If there were not 12 apostles, chosen directly by the Lord and receiving from Him all the fullness of church power, there would be no charismatics. Apostles (of the second order), prophets, teachers, evangelists acted in parallel with the hierarchs in the apostolic age, as they did in later centuries, although they did not appear in such abundant numbers as in the apostolic age. They appeared then, as later, as extraordinary bodies of Divine Providence about the church: as for the hierarchy, it represents an everlasting, necessary institution. Without it there can be no church; without it, Christ's followers would remain scattered, exhausted sheep, without a shepherd. An indication and analysis of the few passages of Scripture depicting the type of New Testament shepherd and the method of elevating him to this position, apparently provide sufficient grounds for the following general proposition: the hierarchical principle follows from the nature of the church; it is a necessary requirement of its organization as a religious union, corresponds to the principles and covenants of Christ, and at its root is His direct establishment. Christ received power from the Father (all power has been given to Me), gave it to the apostles whom He Himself chose, the Apostles transferred it to the elders - shepherds and other persons by a deliberate act of ordination; these latter to their successors, and so the continuity of the hierarchical principle in the church is preserved to this day. This is its genesis. From a historical point of view, there is no sufficient reason to refute this unbroken chain of succession. We said above that church consecration, as an act containing a legal element - election by the entire local church - also imparts a legal nature to the position to which the elected one is elevated, i.e., on the one hand, it invests the right (its bearer), on the other, it gives rise to the obligation to respect this right on the part of those elected. But, at the same time, this same act of consecration makes the official responsible not only before God, but also before the church. This point is very important. Without needing theoretical justification, as self-evident, it was actually justified in the life of Christians of the apostolic age and resulted in the positive commandment of the apostle. It is noteworthy that not some insignificant officials serving the church, but the supreme apostles themselves, Peter and Paul, found it necessary to bring an account and justification for their activities to the church. In 11 ch. Acts we read: “When Peter came to Jerusalem, the circumcision reproached him (διεχρΐνοντο), saying: “You went to the uncircumcised people and ate with them” (vv. 2-3). The apostle’s detailed report about his mission among the pagans completely satisfied those who condemned him and “having listened, they calmed down and glorified God, saying: it is clear that God has also given the pagans repentance that leads to life” (v. 18). An even more striking fact is conveyed by the book of Acts from the life of St. Paul: “Upon our arrival in Jerusalem, the brethren received us cordially. The next day Paul came with us to James; All the elders also came. Having greeted them, Paul told in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. Having listened, they glorified God and said to him: you see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealots of the law. And they have heard about you that you teach all the Jews who live among the pagans to deviate from Moses, saying that they should not circumcise their children and should not act according to the customs. So what? Surely the people will gather, for they will hear that you have come. Do what we tell you: we have four people who have a vow. Having taken them, be cleansed with them, and take upon yourself the cost of the sacrifice for them... and everyone will know that what they have heard about you is unjust” (Acts 21:17–24). And the apostle presented this factual refutation of the rumors about him to calm the Judaizing conscience (26-27). And here is the positive commandment of the apostle: “Do not accept accusations against an elder except in the presence of three or two witnesses.” (1 Tim. 5:19). The commandment is short, categorical, as if a fragment from a fully developed procedural statute. Despite, however, its brevity and, as it were, the accident of its appearance in the apostle’s epistle, it is important for us in that it expresses an indisputable statement of the principle of the responsibility of an official before the court of the church. Of course, it is hardly acceptable to assume that in this era there were persons who were ordained by the apostles, after being elected and approved by the entire existing local church, and who then turned out to be unworthy of their title. But that even at this time there were already possible cases of unfair criticism of such persons - this is clear from the evidence presented above from the book of Acts. And so, in order to restore their reputation, the apostle establishes their judicial protection. The dignity of the office requires that the validity of the accusation be guaranteed by the presence of three or two witnesses. Then, in the words of Christ, “tell the church.” 89 The same random injunction, of a completely procedural nature, appears in the famous 74th canon, among other apostolic canons and all apostolic decrees: “A bishop who is accused of something by people of worthy faith must necessarily be called by the bishops: and if he appears and is confessed or convicted, let penance be determined. If he does not listen to the call, he will be called a second time through the two bishops sent to him. If he does not listen even then, he will be called a third time through the two bishops sent to him. If he does not respect this, he will not appear: the council, according to its discretion, may pronounce a decision on him, so that he does not think he will gain by fleeing from the court.” 90 The rule contains a very clearly expressed principle of responsibility of the holder of the highest church position - the bishop - for a crime, the accusation of which is brought by a person worthy of credibility (άϒϑρωπος). The term άϒϑρωπος gives the right to assume that not only a Christian, but even a person standing outside the church can act as an accuser - which, in accordance with the commandment of the Apostle, commands the bishop to be impeccable from outsiders. As is known from the later legislation of the church, a non-Christian (or a heretic) was not allowed to be accused only in church matters, but if the case was of a personal or civil nature, he was sure to be heard and received satisfaction. The end of the rule, so that they do not think they are benefiting from running away from court, especially persistently emphasizes the bishop’s responsibility to the church. But, of course, the main content of the rule is procedural. Its direct task is to protect the dignity of an official who has been accused by sending him a three-time summons to court only through two persons of equal ecclesiastical rank with the defendant 91. In general, the responsibility of a hierarchical person to the church (the forms of organization of its representation allow for various modifications) is an essential feature of the church hierarchy and has always been an important subject of church legislation. There should be no irresponsible hierarchs in the church. The height of the hierarchical rank requires from the church court only appropriate respect for the rank, but does not provide the privilege of extrajudiciality and impunity in the event of proven guilt. Therefore, the notorious “monarchical episcopate”, presented by the newest theory of the origin of the hierarchy as the completion of the latter, is an unsuccessful generalization of particular historical phenomena. There could have been individual bishops - monarchs and even, frankly, despots and tyrants in the 3rd, as well as in subsequent centuries, but these are isolated phenomena - deviations from the apostolic norm, and not its development. They are also contrary to the spirit of the apostolic hierarchy, like the “infallible pope.” This is the content and significance of the hierarchical principle in the church organization according to early Christianity. It flows directly from the essence or nature of the church. Without him there is no church. But doesn’t this principle contradict the apostolic teaching about the universal priesthood of the church (1 Pet. 2:9) and the abolition of the Old Testament priesthood and the law about it, clearly expressed in the Epistle to Heb. 7:12–18 ? We will not consider in all the details this old question, which has been thoroughly exhausted by dogmatic studies of various faiths. The very meaning of this question is in close connection with another - should public prayer and, in particular, public bloodless sacrifice be performed in the church, or is only individual, purely spiritual and secret prayer - “in one’s cell” - permissible? Once the first is recognized in principle, then the special significance of hierarchy in it is necessary. A clear proof of this situation is the experience of sectarians of all kinds who allow public prayer meetings: while advocating against the church priesthood, these sectarians are sophisticated in inventing various surrogates for it, various parodies of the hierarchy. But public church prayer and public spiritual sacrifice, as a necessary side of church life and even its main task, are commanded by the apostles precisely in those places in their letters on which the so-called “spiritual” Christians who deny the church hierarchy rely “Coming to Him, a living stone, rejected by men, but chosen by God, precious, and like living stones, build yourselves into a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ... You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people taken for his own inheritance, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” ( 1 Pet. 2:4–5, 9). This is what Ap commands. Peter, who begged the shepherds to shepherd the flock of Christ, and the flock to obey the shepherds. Did he really contradict himself by calling everyone the royal priesthood, i.e., priests? No, the commandment of submission to shepherds is not a contradiction to the commandment about believers building themselves into a “spiritual house” and, even more so, a “royal priesthood” and a “holy nation,” but a necessary addition. For an ordinary stone building cannot be built without architects or builders, much less a spiritual building cannot be built and exist. In the same way, a holy people can not be made up of sheep “weary and scattered,” but only those gathered and protected by shepherds. This is how it turns out according to the Gospel, which the apostle exactly followed in this place. And here are the commandments of another apostle, who with perfect clarity revealed the abolition of the Old Testament cult, the priesthood and the law about it: “Having a great Priest over the house of God, let us approach with a sincere heart, with full faith, having cleansed our hearts from an evil conscience by sprinkling and having washed our bodies with clean water, let us hold on to our confession unswervingly.” (Heb. 10:21–23). “Let us not forsake our assembling together (ἐπισυναγωγὴν) as is the custom of some” (v. 25). “We have an altar (θυσιαστήριον) from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat” (13:10). And the commandments of this apostle testify that the Old Testament cult and priesthood, which had lost their meaning for the “New Israel,” did not remain unreplaced. On the contrary, New Israel also has a synagogue 92, an altar, and a Great Bishop. There are also “abbots,” or leaders, who shepherd the New Israel. II, understanding the commandments of the two supreme apostles considered in this way, we do not see any contradiction in the provisions: a) the church is a royal priesthood and b) in the church there is a special rank of priests - hierarchs, appointed to this rank by a special grace-filled mysterious act - consecration. However, we do not consider it necessary to make further efforts to defend the correctness of our view of the relationship of these apostolic commandments, but consider it more important to bring to mind one of the most ancient rites of performing the New Testament sacrifice, from which one can see how in reality, that is, by deed itself, the church fulfilled these apostolic commandments. When we say this, we mean the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions - a monument available in Russian translation, but, unfortunately, not nearly as famous as it deserves. The liturgy of this monument is divided into two parts: the first consists of a presentation of prayers for the catechumens, possessed by spirits and repentants, and is presented on behalf of the Apostle Andrew; the second, called Αναψορά = offering, depicts the rite of offering sacrifice and communion, and is set forth on behalf of the Apostle James. We will limit ourselves to presenting this second half, omitting the rather lengthy prayers said by the bishop. After the catechumens and penitents are removed from the church, when the clergy and faithful remain in the congregation, “the deacon says: let us attend! and let the bishop greet the Church and say: “The peace of God be with you all,” and let the people answer: “And with your spirit.” Let the deacon say to everyone: “kiss each other with the holy kiss.” And let the clergy kiss the bishop, the lay men kiss men, the women kiss women, and let the children stand at the pulpit, and let another deacon stand with them so that they do not create disorder. Let the other deacons go around and look after the men and women, so that there is no noise, and so that no one anoints, whispers, or dozes. Let the deacons stand at the doors of the men, and the subdeacons at the doors of the women, so that during the ascension ceremony no one leaves, and so that the door does not open, even if a believer comes. And let one subdeacon give the priests the washing of their hands - a sign of the purity of souls dedicated to God. And I, James, brother of John Zebedee, say that the deacon should immediately say: Yes, no one from the catechumens, and no one from those who listen, and no one from the unfaithful, and no one from the heterodox. Those who have completed the first prayer, depart. Mothers take the children. Yes, no one against anyone, and no one in hypocrisy. Forgiveness (δρϑοι) standing 93 to the Lord with fear and trembling we will begin to offer 94. After this has been completed, let the deacons bring gifts to the bishop to the altar, and let the presbyters stand on the right and left sides of it, like disciples standing before the teacher; let the two deacons, on either side of the altar, hold thin skins or peacock feathers or linen ripids and quietly drive away small flying animals so that they do not fall into the bowls. And so the bishop, together with the priests, dressed in light clothes and standing in front of the altar, making the sign of the cross on his forehead with his hand, let him say: - “The grace of Almighty God and the love of our Lord Jesus Christ and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” “And let everyone say in agreement: “And with your spirit.” - All: “We have to the Lord.” - And let the Arch-Priest say: “It is worthy and righteous, before all, to praise You, the truly existing God, before the existing creatures, from Him every fatherland in heaven and on earth is named, the One Unborn, the Beginningless, and the Lord, who has no need of someone else... Countless armies of angels worship You, crying out unceasingly.” “And all the people will say together: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts, heaven and earth are full of His glory, blessed forever, amen.” - And the arch priest says further: holy art thou truly, etc.). “And let all the people say: “Amen.” “And let the bishop say: “The peace of God be with you all.” “And let all the people say, “And with your spirit.” - And the deacon again proclaims: “Again and again let us pray to God through His Christ. Let us pray for this gift offered to the Lord God, so that the good God will accept it through the intercession of His Christ into His altar above heaven in the stench of fragrance. Let us pray for this church and people...” - And the bishop says: “Great and eminent God... look upon us and upon this flock of Yours...” - And when everyone says: “Amen,” the deacon says: “Let us hear!” Let the bishop invite the people: “The people obediently answer: “There is only one holy, one Lord, Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father, blessed forever, amen.” Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, good will to men. Hosanna to the Son of David, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, God the Lord, and having appeared to us, Hosanna is in the highest.” “After this, let the bishop receive communion, then the presbyters, deacons, subdeacons, readers, singers, ascetics, and among the women - deaconesses, virgins, widows, then children, and then all the people in order, with modesty and reverence without noise. Let the bishop present the offering, saying: “The Body of Christ,” and let the recipient say: “Amen.” Let the deacon hold the cup and, as he gives it, let him say: “The blood of Christ, the cup of life,” and let the one who drinks say, “Amen.” During the communion of all others, let them say Psalm 33. 95 And when all the men and women have received communion, the deacons take the remnants and bring them into the vestibule. At the end of the psalmody, let the deacon say: “those who have partaken of the honorable Body and the Honest Blood of Christ, let us give thanks to him who has made us worthy to partake of His holy mysteries, and let us pray—not for judgment, but for our salvation, for the benefit of soul and body, for the defense of piety, for the remission of sins, for the life of the next century. Let's rise. In the grace of Christ, let us commend ourselves to God, the One, Unbegotten God, and to Christ.” And let the Bishop thank: “Lord God Almighty... and so on. And let the deacon say: go out in peace." 96 This is the ritual of bringing the New Testament bloodless sacrifice; such is the New Testament church (επισυναγωγή), the New Testament altar and the image of the ministry of the New Testament priesthood. When was this ritual established? Science does not give a definite answer to this question: perhaps in the 4th–5th centuries, but, more likely, it took shape much earlier, gradually, and only by the indicated time was completed in the details with which it was recorded by the author of the 8th book of the Apostle. Resolutions. The interest here is not in the more or less ancient antiquity of this order of the liturgy, but in its exact correspondence to those principles that are formulated in the quoted words of the Epistles of St. Peter and the epistle to the Hebrews. This rank is a clear commentary of theirs. Let's start with the personnel involved in the offering and communion of the bloodless sacrifice. This includes: bishop, presbyters, deacons, subdeacons, readers, singers, ascetics, women deaconesses, virgins, widows, then children and faithful people - men and women 97. Carefully removed from this composition: catechumens (three categories: listening, preparing for baptism and kneeling), then those possessed by evil spirits and repentants. These persons have not yet received the right or have been temporarily eliminated - penitents) to participate in the offering and in the communion of the sacrifice, as well as “the servant of the canopy and all other faiths (pagans and heretics). Bearing in mind this composition of all ranks (τάγμα) of the church, it is natural to pose the question: who makes the New Testament sacrifice? The answer is not difficult: no one from the church is excluded from this act, therefore, each of those present in the meeting performs it, but in his own rank. The same answer can be obtained from considering the details of the priesthood. Before the ceremony begins, the congregation is invited to “stand upright before the Lord” (it is assumed that some, if not all, had previously sat); It is proposed to further delve into your spiritual mood - is it peaceful: “yes, no one is against anyone, but no one is in hypocrisy” 98. Only in this way can the congregation honorably make the offering. The very making of the offering consists of doxologies pronounced out loud by the bishop and the corresponding responses of the entire upcoming meeting: “Amen,” or more complex ones: “We thank the Lord,” “One is holy,” etc., as well as in the invitations and exclamations of the deacon, and the corresponding actions of the meeting. It is noteworthy that the actions of the bishop and the people are denoted by one term: “says” or “will say.” Yes, everyone who makes up the congregation actively participates in the performance of the New Testament sacrifice: there are no passive spectators here. This is how the liturgy was performed in the ancient church. But isn’t this how it happens today in all Eastern Orthodox churches? 99 Moreover, isn’t this how all public and private sacraments and prayers are performed in Orthodox churches? “The laity, as well as the priests, prayerfully call for the influx of the Holy Spirit into the water of baptism; they pray, like the priests, that this water will become a bath of rebirth for the baptized, so that the baptized will appear as a son of light and an heir of eternal blessings. In the sacrament of repentance, together with the priest, they ask the penitent to forgive his sins and return him to the church. They call on the grace of the Spirit on those who are getting married, and the grace of healing on the sick in the blessing of oil... As participants in all the sacred rites of the church, they also perform priestly service: for the priest, in turn, performs only prayers that are common with the church and sealed by it. That's why Ap. Peter calls all believers, all those taken into inheritance, the whole church, and not just the elders, the “royal priesthood.” That is why Tertullian’s exclamation is fundamentally true, as consistent with Scripture: Nonne et laici sacerdotes summus! 100 But it is fair only in its foundation and in substantiating it on the word of God, and not at all in its further development, which in itself is a confession of religious individualism and not a conscious denial of the church. “It is written,” says Tertullian, “and he made us kings and priests of his God and Father. The distinction between the clergy and the people established the power of the church and part of the clergy assembly. Therefore, where there is no meeting of the clergy (ubi ordines non sunt, consessus), be your own offering, and anointing, and priest. But where there are three, that is, the laity, there is a church” 101. The deep fallacy of the conclusion from the correct premise is that the generic sign of the collective whole is considered here to exclude the need for species and individual differences. Due to this thinking, it turns out that since an entire social unit, for example, a people, is recognized as rich and educated, it is necessary, as it were, to conclude that each individual that makes up this whole is equally rich and educated, like everyone else. Of course, you can’t think like that. The Jewish people were also destined to be a royal priesthood; but did this appointment exclude in him the distinction between the high priest, the Levitical priests and the people? The task of the church as a whole is to be the royal priesthood in the human race, or in all of humanity, and it precisely requires the harmonious combination of infinitely diverse individual spiritual gifts, formed by the unity of purpose - “to proclaim the perfections (of God), who called out of darkness into his wonderful light,” to bring their spiritual gifts as a “sacrifice of praise to God.” In the same way, the greatness and holiness of the work require the division of the common work into categories or ranks (τάγμα) of those doing it. Therefore, he brings the “sacrifice of praise” and proceeds “to the throne of glory,” to Mount Zion, to the church of the living God in heavenly Jerusalem, the visible image of which is the Christian “altar,” not only the bishop standing at the head of the church meeting (έπισιναγωγη), and the presbyters standing near him, not only the deacons, some of whom serve near the altar, others oversee the order in among the coming people, but also each of this class, renewed by the atoning Blood of Christ, each widow, herself representing the “altar of God,” 102 each young man, boy, girl, together with the adults, crying out “Hosanna to the Son of David; Gloria". Yes, all these persons, gathered into the New Testament church, and united in the confession of the name of God by the One Spirit of God given to the believer in Christ, fulfill their service to God, each to the extent of his strength and his gifts. They are all priests. But does this tribal spiritual unity exclude the difference in church and liturgical position when making a sacrifice? No and no. It is, on the contrary, that it demands it. Are all prophets, are all apostles? No, but “God appointed some apostles, others shepherds, others teachers, etc.” 103. “There are many members, but one body,” but if so, then “the eye cannot say to the hand: I don’t need you, or the head to the legs: I don’t need you” 104. This explains the absurdity of the question: if three laymen gather and, having separated from the church, break bread, will they form a church and make a bloodless sacrifice? Of course not; not only three, but if 30 or 300 of them had gathered, they would have formed not a church against the church, not the chosen people of God (ο λαός του Θεού) and the royal priesthood 105, but a rebellious crowd (δχλος). There was no church without apostles, there was no church without a hierarchy; without them there was no Christian sacrifice and Divine service, and there cannot be. But, in the same way, one hierarchy, one priests, without the people does not constitute a church: it is made up of both of them 106. But, after all, the religion of Christ is the religion of the Spirit, because Christ is the One Great Bishop, who once sacrificed Himself; Why more sacrifices? After all, “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24)? Why a new altar, a new church, a new priesthood? “Do this (i.e., the breaking of the bread and the blessing of the cup) in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:23–26). “I have given you an image, that as I have created for you, you also do it” (John 12:13) - said the Lord. This must be done “according to the institution of the Lord.” Precisely in order to worship the Spirit, it is required that the body, imbued with the Spirit, enslaved by it, also worship with it, and not remain indifferent to the life of the Spirit, so that, “believing in the heart,” and with the lips, offer the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. God the Wisdom Himself appeared in the flesh to the human race to deify us while still living in the body. And therefore, we must glorify Him not only in our souls, but also in our bodies; for the latter are also God’s, like the former, and they must be made temples of the Holy Spirit, and by no other means is it possible to achieve such a transformation of our bodily and spiritual nature as through the communion of the Bloodless Sacrifice. “Having given me food by Thy will, Thy fire and scorching of the unworthy, do not scorch me, my Creator: rather, go into my hearts, into all my parts, into my womb, into my heart: the thorns of all my sins have fallen. Cleanse your soul, sanctify your thoughts. Confirm the compositions with the bones together. Enlighten the simple five of feelings. Fill me with Thy fear. Always cover me, protect me and keep me from every deed and word that is choked. Cleanse and wash and adorn me, fertilize, enlighten and enlighten me. Show me Your village of the one Spirit and no one else’s village of sin. Yes, like Your house, the entrance of communion, like fire, every evildoer, every passion flees from me.” 107 This is the desired effect of the New Testament sacrifice, which the servants of the canopy do not have the right to eat, but only the “faithful”, that is, full members of the church from bishops and elders to infants, inclusive. So all-encompassing is the sociable power of the New Testament altar! Its design is so simple and universal! It would seem how easy it would be to erect these altars throughout the entire universe and unite all humanity with the spiritual kinship of brotherhood under the leadership of the One Intercessor and Priest before the Father - the Lord Jesus Christ. Meanwhile, what is Christian reality at the present time? What deep discord prevails in the very concept of Christian sacrifice! From what small details of the Eucharistic ritual entire churches diverge into wild hostility, and within churches there are strife and schisms about primacy - who is greater and who is older than the other; what are the rights and advantages of bishops, clergy, monastics and laity. We think that a significant portion of such discord within Christianity itself should be attributed to an ignorant, unreflective attitude towards church sacraments in general, and to the liturgy in particular. What a bitter truth the following words of the late N sound. P. Aksakova: “To our shame, it must be said that of our contemporary Christians (we are talking about Orthodox Christians, for why judge those outside who are judged by God?) the vast majority do not even know with complete certainty what, in fact, they renounced for the rest of their lives at baptism, what they were subjected to spitting on, what obligations they assumed, and again for the rest of their lives, and not for the time preceding immersion in the font and acceptance of the seals the gift of the Holy Spirit. And they think as little about the gift of the Holy Spirit as those who received the baptism of John, whom Apostle met on his way. Paul, and who have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit (Acts 19:2–4). The rite of baptism in all its details does not stand before the inner eyes of the baptized throughout their entire lives, for they do not delve into it, and in most cases they do not even know. It is not taught in school, is not included in textbooks, is not explained in full, and is not the subject of church teaching. Meanwhile, it should be studied by every baptized Christian, at least in the same way as it is studied, more precisely, as the rite of the Eucharist should be studied. We must know what we renounced, at least through the mouths of our successors, what we stretched out our hands to, as if trying to protect ourselves from him forever, what we subjected ourselves to spitting on, what we turned our back to so as not to return to him, leaving him forever. We must know what responsibilities we took upon ourselves, becoming, at least through our successors, facing the east, towards the new world that greeted us, which we intended to enter. We must know what full, triple measure of the grace of the Holy Spirit (Luke 6:38, John 3:34) God gives us at baptism, what “grace upon grace” we receive from Him. Those who baptize and anoint themselves do not give themselves a completely clear and definite account of what fullness of grace and gifts of the Holy Spirit they prayerfully bring down on the baptized and anointed, forgetting the testimony of Peter that the Spirit descended on Cornelius the centurion and on his whole house, just as it did on them, in the beginning, that is, on the day of Pentecost, and the same gift was given to them as to us (Acts. 11:15–17; 10:47), and, not without some arrogance and consciousness of superiority, they look at those baptized and anointed by them, if they remain in the rank and rank of laity, that is, members of the church people (λαίχοι). Hence all the discord in the church, hence the “arrogance of the rulers,” which should not have existed in the church, and the “separation from each other of those who should have been members of each other,” which caused repeated crying of Chrysostom himself, as he himself testified before us.” 108 If baptism, consecration and Eucharist were performed with the ancient canonical solemnity appropriate to them, with the active religious participation appropriate for each rank of the church composition, if at the same time the school provided Orthodox children with detailed information about these great sacraments, and, thus, each member of the Orthodox Church from “young nails” both theoretically and practically (in school and church) constantly knew and remembered how high his rank is bestowed the church, how not difficult and gratifying it is for him to use small, comparatively, efforts to walk worthy of his title during the hours of holiday rest: how high would then be the people's morality, respect for the individual, the skill of social discipline, inner peace, philanthropy and, in general, the nobility of morals!.. Yes, we cease to love our church as our ignorant attitude towards its institutions increases. We noted the essential features in the concept of church law, the most important, elementary forms of church organization (the composition of the church body), the significance of the hierarchical element, the relationship between its bearers and junior members. At the same time, we tried to be accurate and faithful to the primary sources, without reducing anything, without exaggerating anything, without hushing up anything, and most importantly, we tried to completely renounce the pressure of modernity in moments of eliminating our contemplation in deep early Christian antiquity. Contrary to Zom, we saw here an element of “law” (but not state law) and an element of “command” (and not power). These elements are not the fruit of our subjective idealization of the early Christian social system, but a living reality, as it was reflected forever in its surviving written monuments. Such a real organization of the visible church, founded by Christ and “ordained” by the Apostles and Prophets, faithfully fulfilled the high task of being a “royal priesthood” in the midst of a “world lying in evil,” and illuminated this world. In the 4th century, the Greco-Roman state recognized the church, its law, its hierarchy, its entire organization. After a persistent bloody struggle, peaceful coexistence of two forces associating the human race began - the church and the state, the result of such coexistence was the exchange of legal and hierarchical elements of both. The state began to be Christianized by the church, the church became worldized by the reception of the legal and authoritative elements of the state. Christian churches and charitable institutions that did not have property rights became privileged owners. Bishops and clergy, in addition to official powers and rights, began to receive honorary titles and rights, and, not rarely, the powers of government officials; the dogmas and canons of the church received the force and significance of state laws; administrative measures and judicial decisions of the church authorities began to be enforced with the help of the police power; church excommunication - accompanied by the defeat of civil rights, and sometimes criminal penalties. How to look at this exchange of legal elements between the state and the church, which necessarily occurs with their friendly union? Isn’t it possible that through it the moral purity of the principles of the Church on the one hand is lost, and doesn’t the state itself absorb elements that weaken its nature of impartial rule in the name of law? As long-standing experience shows, it is impossible to deny the unfavorable conditions of such an exchange, in many respects. Therefore, wouldn’t it be better to recognize as normal the completely separate existence of state and church? Currently, a positive answer to this question is often welcomed as the last word in historical science and the science of law. The slogan: “let there be a church free from the state in a state free from the church” is often welcomed from political platforms, as the flower of a political genius... For all its apparent wisdom and beauty, this formula, in essence, recommends only a crude method of dissecting tightly entangled religious and political relations, and by no means a masterful unraveling of them. Religion and politics may be thought of as existing separately, but in reality they are not separable just as in a living human personality the soul and body are not separable. A non-religious state is either a dying organization or simply unthinkable. In its form, it may not recognize any specific religion, but in essence, its constituent units certainly worship, in extreme cases, the “unknown God,” i.e. unconsciously subservient to principles whose roots are nested in one or another religion, or in several. The internal connection between religion and politics is precisely law, without whose dominance no human association and, above all, the state is unthinkable. Law is the basis of the state, but where is the basis of law? First of all - in religion. Where is the guarantee of rights? Again - first of all in religion, and only then, in exceptional cases, in armed force. Where religiosity is weak, the state must strengthen the police and troops to protect the law within its own territory. Therefore, the state, pushing away religion, undermines the foundation on which it stands. The Church, in its essence, cannot but be a social whole and even a very great whole: “Let them all be one. Even if I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everything to Myself.” Thousands of years of experience have shown that the sociable power of the Church is in no way inferior to the sociable political force. But the foundations of association and its means of sociability are foreign compared to the state. Due to this foreignness, the normal relationship between the state and the church is not competition and hostility, but a harmonious union. “It is good when the Altar and the Throne are united,” although, “The Altar is not afraid of falling even without this union”... How can this desired relationship be established? The task is complex and difficult, but not insurmountable. And, if the hitherto tested forms of unity between them seem unsatisfactory, then these unsuccessful experiences of the past should only serve as an incentive to find better means, and not at all to deny the very task of unity. The whole point is that in the mutual exchange of influences between two allies, one should not take over from the other what is not only unnecessary for him, but also positively harmful. To what extent in these types of matters a deep study of church law is necessary, which takes upon itself the task of clarifying precisely the social nature of the church, is unnecessary to explain. Wed. eg Richter: Lehrbuch d. Kirchenrechts § 1. A little further, in a note, Zom says: “in the words of the Lord: “tell the Church”, of course, that meeting (whether the whole community gathers at it or not) to which the guilty person belongs”, P. 41 rus. translation It is worthy of note here that Som’s reasoning about the teaching ability of bishops... Whenever possible, let the bishop also be gifted in teaching (“teachable”), however, without attaching decisive importance to this point, and without also requiring a special measure of giftedness in teaching” (p. 149). It is curious that a bishop should replace someone gifted with teaching, in the absence of one in the community: but since there is one in it, why should the community elect and ordain him as a bishop?.. According to Zom's theory, Timothy could not be a bishop, as Tradition teaches, because he had the gift of prophecy; on the same basis, Archdeacon Stephen and the other six deacons should be deprived of the diaconate. Wed. Matt. 16:13 On this rock I will build (οιχοδομήσω) My Church. Jus – right – from Sanskrit ju = to bind: hence jugum, jumentum and other words. "Das Recht ist der inbegriff der Bedingungen, unter dienen die Willkuhr des einen mit der Willkuhr des andern nach einem allgemeinen Gesetze der Freiheit zufammen vereinigt werden kann." Die Metaphysik der Sitten. I Theil. S. XXXIII. Konigsberg, 1793. Kuno Fischer. History of new philosophy. Transl. N. Strakhova T. IV. p. 174. St. Petersburg. 1865. In Kant’s definition of the concept of “right,” the thought of “coordination of arbitrariness” raises misunderstandings. How can arbitrariness be reconciled? The concept of arbitrariness is certainly associated with the idea of ​​a wild, blind force that does not want to hear about any coordination. Arbitrariness can be curbed by some force by opposing it with a stronger arbitrariness, but it is hardly possible to lead to any agreement with another arbitrariness. It seems that the misunderstanding will disappear if we replace the word “arbitrariness” with a softer one - “arbitrariness”, as generally meaning initiative, or self-determination for any action, and not necessarily - for the worse, which is thought in the concept of arbitrariness. Petrazhitsky: Essays on the Philosophy of Law. 1900 p. 11. By what authority (έξονσία) did you do this? OK. 20:2. In. 1:12. Sohm, § 5 s. 50. Sie, und sie allein, sind sittlich berechtigt nicht zu arbeiten, sondern sich ·vοη der Gemeinde erchalten zu lassen. Apostle Messages book 8, chapter 32 Apostle Decree III, ch. 18. And as for the most part happens at the present time: since baptism is performed in infancy Apostle Fast. 1.4; Wed. Clementa Alexander. Teacher II. 8, III. 11. Apostle Fast. End of the 1st book. Common name for church members. That is, if he wants to join the church Apostle Fast. book 8, 32–33 Res Dei = actually, a thing of God, or an object of Divine right, which is the presidency of the elders of the church. See Kiparisov: on church discipline. This idea is quite persistently revealed in the Apostolic Constitutions. See Biekell Geschichte des Kirchenrecht B.1. This point of view is held by such teachers of the Church as St. Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and the Apostolic Constitution. See my book: Historical Review of the Sources of Church Law. So, for example, in the Spiritual Regulations, civil laws are counted among the grounds for church government, provided “if they agree with the word of God.” Meanwhile, in the first articles of the Charter of the D. Consistory, for some reason, this condition is omitted. Theologian. Bulletin 1910, April, p. 613. On the essence of church law. There is silence about the resurrection. W. Sturz, Church Law. § 1–4, pp. 4–10. Russian trans., edited by K. Temnikovsky. Yaroslavl 1905 A full development of this theory with a precise indication of the scientific authorities on which it is based and a detailed criticism of them is presented in the book of Prof. V. I. Myshtsyna: The structure of the Christian Church in the first two centuries. Sergiev Posad 1909. The Gospel was not included in a number of written sources, probably due to the view that the teachings and deeds of Christ stand outside the history of the formation of the visible church and its hierarchy. After all, the teaching (and not only the teaching) of Christ gave impetus to the church acting as an autonomous religious union next to the state. But on what is this view based? This idea was especially persistently defended by St. Cyprian of Carthage. Σνμεών τού Κλεοπα χλνίσταται επίσχοπος, ηροεϑενίο πάνίες όντα άνεψιοντοί Κύριον δεύτεροϒ. Eusebius, c. n. III Myshtsyn, cit. book, page 17 note. Interesting efforts to bring this theory of gradual development on the basis of an analysis of sources are presented in the above-mentioned book by Prof. Myshtsyna. Old age itself is hardly always a desirable condition, even for the shepherd of a dumb flock, especially if this flock is large or poorly disciplined. Matt. 20:25 ; princes (άρχωνίες). Ibid: 26: and who wants to be a big μεϒά among you. If we are not mistaken, the honor of inventing this formula, which is not at all scary in political terms, belongs to St. John Chrysostom in his words about the priesthood. St. Ignatius. Last to Ephesus. Ch. 4. 1 Pet. 5:5: ἀλλήλοις τὴν ταπεινοφροσύνην ἐγκομβώσασθε ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν. 1 Thess. 5:12–13; Wed Rome. 12:6; 1 Tim. 5:17. Like I want to repay the word for you. Heb. 13:17. When the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive an unfading crown of glory. 1 Pet. 5 It is noteworthy that the first experience of written church legislation, the so-called Apostolic Decrees, took the form of apostolic conciliar epistles. Likewise, the definitions of local and ecumenical councils have the same form. One cannot look at this form as an accident; it is an exact correspondence to the spirit of church law, or, more precisely, to the spirit of the New Testament, which reveals the Will of God not to slaves or subjects, but to the sons of freedom, the sons of Light. Forms of state law, state justice penetrated into the sphere of c. right, relatively late, as a direct result of the influence of the state on the church. Epistle to the Magnesians, ch. 2 and 3. Epistle to the Trillians, ch. 7. 3 Ecumenical Council, right.8 Clear evidence is already in the book of Acts, 14:23: πρεσβυτέρους Apostle Resolution 8.1 (p. 249, Russian translation) Sp. and right. 75. When was this rule born? Science does not give a definite answer to this question: maybe in the 5th century, maybe much earlier. This uncertainty of the historical moment of its origin does not in the least undermine its fundamental value. For the latter, it is even better if it appeared later, precisely in that era when the “smoky arrogance” of state power began to penetrate very strongly into hierarchical relations. Accordingly, as church judicial practice shows, two archimandrites were sent to the accused archimandrite. See our book: Church court in the first centuries of Christianity. This term refers to the place of prayer meetings, also found in the writings of the Apostolic men. "Standing Right Before the Lord" “Let us become kind, let us become fearful, let us understand, and bring holy offerings to the world,” says the modern rite of the Liturgy. I will bless the Lord at all times. Apostle Regulation 8, 12. According to Russian. ver. 267–281. This composition comes close to the composition of the Church of the half of the 3rd century, depicted in the letter of Cornelius to Bishop. Rimsky (Eusebius: Ts. History, 6, 43). In Διδ. Ap. “Having gathered together, break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure” (chapter 14). According to some ancient monastic rites, at this moment the brethren made confession of sins and mutually asked for forgiveness. True, in modern rites and the method of celebrating the liturgy, some modifications of the prototype recorded in Ap. Decrees, thanks to which the laity present at the liturgy are, as it were, doomed to passive contemplation of what and how the serving clergy does. But how easy it is to eliminate these modifications in order to restore the character of the apostolic liturgy! All one has to do is say the prayers, now read in secret, out loud, perform the liturgy with the royal doors open (as is done during Easter week) and introduce popular singing. “Aren’t the laity also priests?” De exhort, castit. 7). N. Π. Aksakov: The tradition of the church and the tradition of the school. Page 234–235. A strange concept about the church: a church is an assembly, but does three constitute an assembly? A strange concept about a priest - for yourself! Following to Holy Communion. Prayer (3) Metaphrastus. N. P. Aksakov: Tradition of the Church and Tradition of the School, p. 187. Note. Sergiev Posad 1910 You might be interested in: