В. Деятельность Тертуллиана, направленная к специальному раскрытию некоторых частных пунктов христианского учения и внутреннему устроению христианского общества

The Cainite view of baptism. The substance of the sacrament. The meaning of the substance is water, according to Tertullian. The method of performing and the grace-filled effect of the sacrament; bringing down the gifts of the Holy Spirit on the baptized person. Persons eligible to perform baptism; time of the sacrament; the uniqueness of baptism. Resolution of some misunderstandings regarding baptism. Among the Carthaginian Christians of Tertullian’s time there was a small sect, which, due to its insignificance, could not have attracted serious attention from the zealots of Christianity if it had not produced a bad influence on Christians and “slumbered in the simplicity of faith” and seduced them from the true path into their networks. This sect is Cainite 1247. Without mentioning its other features and religious views, let us present here only the major difference concerning the first Christian sacrament - baptism, to which Tertullian drew attention. One woman from the Cainite sect, “bad in her teaching,” “the most poisonous viper,” rebelled against the sacrament of baptism 1248. She found it incongruous that such a simple action as immersion in water should produce such great effects as Christians attribute to the sacrament of baptism 1249. As a priest, and even more so as an ardent zealot of Christianity, Tertullian decided to present a literary apology for the sacrament of baptism and thus “teach his catechumens” - on the one hand, on the other - “to convince those careless believers who, content with simple faith, do not try to delve into what the Holy Scriptures and tradition teach us, and through such negligence cannot know those the grounds on which the faith they profess is affirmed" 1250. The Cainite sect, with its teaching on baptism, determined for Tertullian the task of labor - to say a word to the church, and at the same time his own, about the substance, form, actions and performer of baptism and about those preparations that are required of adults who want to receive this sacrament. The substance of the sacrament is water. The Cainites did not consider water a necessary accessory to the sacrament of baptism - like real “echidnas, asps, etc. snakes, they “ran away from water, but sought and are seeking dry and barren places” 1251. They were especially and mainly struck by the disproportion between means as common as water and the actions of the sacrament, which “blots out the stains of past sins, makes us children of God, and opens for us the entrance to eternal life” 1252. Everything in baptism seems simple, there is no splendor, no splendor, no splendor,” from the font “a person comes out neither cleaner nor more neat” 1253. Tertullian does not see the inconsistency in the goal and means and, in the light of the idea of ​​​​God with His main properties - simplicity and power, eliminates any possibility of doubt about the power of the sacrament. The result of the sacrament is truly mysterious, but “for this reason one must believe it, because its effect is so miraculous” 1254. God, as omnipotent, can and does combine great actions with simple means. In addition, a simple element in itself, water is ranked very highly in terms of the important role it has played in world life and should play. “This element is blessed in its origin, famous from the very beginning of the world. Before the world received its complete structure, it hid under the veil of God’s omnipotence, - the Spirit of God hovered on top of the water.” While chaos reigned everywhere, “water, water alone, a perfect, elegant, pure substance, served as the throne, the seat of the Spirit of God, Who preferred it to all the elements.” In the world-forming process, it played a leading role, since God created everything “through water” - “water was the first to produce that which has life,” and thereby clearly indicated its high significance as a substance through which “eternal life and spiritual rebirth are given to our souls” 1255. The Spirit of God penetrated the water element and revived it, so that through this penetration the water received the power to sanctify a person and in the sacrament of baptism, all water, wherever it was taken - in the sea or pond, river or spring, lake or any other body of water, as long as the Holy Spirit was called upon it, sanctifying it with its presence and making it capable of sanctifying others in turn 1256. Water is of great importance in the hands of God as a tool for achieving high goals: it saved the Jews from the Egyptian army that was pursuing them, drowning Pharaoh - the ancient tormentor with all his army, and in this regard it completely prefigured the sacrament of baptism, since in baptism a person enters a new life through water, and the devil perishes for a person 1257. Water, according to the conviction of everyone, serves as a cleansing agent, and in all religions and mysteries it was considered a necessary component 1258. She is remarkable in her strength and fruitfulness: “what benefits, what abundance, what help the world receives from her!” 1259. Water healed people in the font of Jerusalem (Bethesda), when an angel disturbed it 1260. But what speaks most in favor of water is that the Lord Himself was baptized in the water of the Jordan, thus giving it special honor, preferring it to all the elements 1261, sanctifying it, so that after Him, when the grace of God was poured out on people more abundantly, the waters received greater power. “What formerly healed the body now heals the soul; what brought temporary health now brings eternal salvation; which formerly freed (in the Jerusalem font) one person from illness once a year; that now always saves many people from sin”... 1262. But it is not water itself that has such power to act on the soul, but due to the gracious presence of the Spirit of God in it, due to the fact that an Angel “presides over this water, cleansing us from crimes and preparing us to receive the Holy Spirit 1263. How is the sacrament of baptism performed? – Water, to which the grace of the Holy Spirit is called and which has therefore received sanctifying power, then only acts beneficially and savingly for the person being baptized when baptism is performed in a certain way. The body of the person being baptized is immersed in water; During this act, the invisible, completely spiritual action of the sacrament 1264 occurs. The waters of baptism wash and cleanse a person internally. When a person is immersed in water, he is reborn to a new, holy life, while the devil - that ancient tormentor, Pharaoh - loses all his pride and strength in the waters, which became saving by the divine power of I. Christ, nailed to the cross 1265; the baptized person receives healing of the soul from sins, eternal salvation, remission of all guilt and all punishment, is introduced, so to speak, into friendship with God, and becomes like the first man, created in the image of God. In baptism, the image comes into relationship with the original, which constitutes eternity; a person receives the Holy Spirit, breathed into him by God at the beginning of the world and lost by his disobedience” 1266. In baptism, a visible action is performed, but with this visible action and through it, sinful stains in the soul are washed away - due to the close connection of the soul with the body - “the soul is washed in water through the body, and the flesh is cleansed by the spirit” 1267. But all these fruits of the sacrament will then only be received by a person, the grace of baptism will pour down on him only if the person fulfills the required condition on his part: “the waters wash and cleanse us from sin no other way than by confessing our faith, sealed with the seal of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, all three of whom we call as witnesses 1268. As soon as the immersion in water is completed, another act immediately begins, immediately following the first, “holy anointing with oil according to the ancient rite.” By this act the baptized person is sanctified or dedicated to the service of God, like the ancient high priests and Christ, whom God the Father anointed and through this anointing filled with the Holy Spirit. Both in immersion and in anointing with oil a visible action is performed - the anointing is performed on the body; but “its effect extends to the soul” 1269. But the matter is not limited to this anointing. Although a person is baptized, that is, immersed in water, although his members are anointed with oil, nevertheless, he has not yet completely become an olive tree, grafted into the heavenly vine - I. Christ. Therefore, after baptism and anointing, another sacrament is performed, attached to the first: after anointing with oil, “hands are laid on us, calling and attracting the Holy Spirit to us with prayer, co-conducting this sacred rite” 1270. Then the Holy Spirit willingly descends from God the Father onto bodies thus purified and blessed, and rests on the waters of baptism, seeing in them as if his ancient seat... How soon will our earthly body be washed from previous sins by the saving waters of baptism; then the Holy Spirit, this heavenly dove, descends on us, proclaiming to us the peace of God” 1271. The right to perform baptism belongs, first of all, to the high priest, that is, the bishop; Priests and deacons can also perform it, but not without the permission of the bishop, “in order to preserve respect for the church in its primate and maintain peace through this subordination.” In extreme cases, when there are none of the ordinary performers of baptism, and yet there is a danger to the one seeking baptism, no one even from the laity should waive the right to “communicate the gift of the Lord” to the one who wishes to accept it, 1272 so that in such cases any layman who did not give him what he “could” give will be guilty. Women are the only exception to this general rule. Wives, who are forbidden even to teach, and whom the apostle scarcely permitted to be present at public teaching, should in no case decide to baptize others 1273 . But even those persons who have the right to perform baptism must act with caution and prudence. Although everyone can be baptized 1274, no one is deprived of this heavenly gift, however, the celebrant of the sacrament must pay strict attention to finding the person seeking baptism “in a religious frame of mind,” finding in him “the beginning of faith produced by reading the Holy Scriptures,” and only then should he baptize when the faith of the person seeking baptism no longer tolerates delay 1275. In these types, it is more beneficial to postpone baptism, especially for children; It is best for them to be baptized when they are mature enough to understand the doctrine, appreciate the dignity of the sacrament, and perform their duties. People usually act very carefully in relation to their estates, not trusting their management to their children until they reach maturity; If this is true in relation to earthly goods, then how can we give them heavenly goods? There are even reasons to postpone baptism for adults and young people, because they are subject to too strong passions: “let them either get married first, or strengthen themselves in faith and abstinence” 1276. Everyone who desires salvation must be baptized; without baptism no one can be saved (John 2:5); and if Jesus Christ Himself, being completely sinless, wanted to be baptized and was baptized, then how much more do sinful people need baptism 1277. But no matter how important baptism is for sinners, no matter what beneficial fruits it brings, it still washes away only past sins and cannot atone for future sins of a person - for the cleansing of sins committed after baptism, another sacrament was established in the Church of Christ - the sacrament of repentance 1278. Baptism is performed on a person once in his entire life, it is one, just as there is one faith and one Lord (Eph. 4:5); our sins are washed in the baptismal font only once, and this clearly reminds us that we, washed by the waters of baptism, should no longer sin 1279. There is, however, another baptism, baptism of blood, but it is also one and is - so to speak - a complement to water baptism, in it sins committed after the first baptism are atoneed. Both baptisms - baptism with water and baptism with blood - are indicated by the Lord: wanting to call us by water and make us elect by blood, He performed these two baptisms from His ribs - blood and water (John 19:34), therefore those who believe in His blood must be cleansed by water, and those who are cleansed by water must also drink His blood 1280. The best, most convenient and solemn time for baptism is Easter Day, when the Passion of the Lord, on which we are baptized, has already been completed. Another solemn day for baptism will be the day of Pentecost, when quite a long time has already passed for the disposition and teaching of those who are baptized. However, every day is the Lord's Day, every time, every hour is convenient for baptism - the grace of the sacrament does not need holidays 1281, if only the one who wants to be baptized prepares properly for the sacrament - with frequent prayers, fasting, kneeling, vigil and confession of all his past sins 1282. Discussing the sacrament of baptism, Tertullian touches on some other issues that are related to the main subject of his work. Judging by the fact that Tertullian did not lose sight of any almost modern movement of religious and moral thought, one can think that the issues he raised were current issues at that time and - perhaps - caused contradictory decisions. To clarify the matter and bring to unity of judgment on these issues, Tertullian takes this opportunity to give his views on them. In the first place, he raises the question of John's baptism: where does it come from - from heaven or from a person, and how to look at it - a question raised back in the time of I. Christ and not resolved in the Gospel (Matthew 21:25). Tertullian very well defines the nature of John's baptism, pointing out that this temporary rite only prepared, disposed to receive grace, but did not communicate it. John's baptism was from God, because God commanded it, although He did not impart any supernatural power to it. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance; repentance is something only human, therefore, the baptism of John was of the same nature, did not contain anything other than a human action, and - therefore - it was not heavenly, otherwise it would have granted remission of sins and brought down the Holy Spirit. It was only a step or ladder to the remission of sins and sanctification of the soul, which were to be received through Jesus Christ 1283. Another difficulty pointed out by Tertullian’s contemporaries: the Lord came and did not baptize anyone (John 4:2), while John prophesied about Him that He would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire 1284; He also does not see that the apostles received baptism, with the exception of Ap. Paul 1285; hence, the sacrament of baptism is not unconditionally necessary for everyone. Tertullian eliminates these difficulties by starting from the position that New Testament baptism could not have occurred before the time when the Holy Spirit descended. Looking at the matter from this side, Tertullian says that if Jesus Christ Himself baptized, then His baptism would be no more than the baptism of John, and, therefore, with the Forerunner it would be completely unnecessary, and that I. Christ, even without such baptism, could forgive sins, by His word alone; His disciples baptized Him, but they baptized again with the baptism of John; His disciples could not perform the baptism of Jesus during the Lord’s earthly life, because the Lord had not yet achieved His highest glory and had not yet confirmed the reality of baptism by His passion and His resurrection: “We could not otherwise destroy death in ourselves except by His passion, we could not restore life in ourselves otherwise than by His resurrection” 1286. As for the apostles, they, of course, received the baptism of John, and during the entire earthly life of the Lord they never spoke of another baptism. But whether the apostles were subsequently baptized with New Testament baptism, Tertullian does not say anything definite about this 1287, although he rejects the current opinion that the apostles were sufficiently baptized when they were covered by waves in a ship during a storm 1288. To resolve this issue categorically, Tertullian even considers it impudence on his part: whether the apostles were baptized or remained without baptism - it is not our business to decide - it would be obvious impudence to put ourselves as judges regarding the salvation of the apostles, as if the grace of their calling and their inseparable stay with Jesus Christ could not replace baptism itself for them, especially since they were beloved disciples of the One who promised salvation to all who believe in Him (Matt. 9:2; Luke 8:42) 1289. This, however, does not mean that faith alone without sacrament and for everyone is sufficient for salvation. Previously, faith alone was sufficient, and before the establishment of baptism by Jesus Christ one could be saved without baptism; but as soon as the sacrament was established, a new law appeared, it already has an advantage over the previous ones, and a new sacrament was added to the old saving faith, the sacrament of baptism, “the seal and beauty of our faith, the naked faith of old, fulfilled only through the observance of the law,” the sacrament established by the Lord when He said: go and teach all languages, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19), so that after the establishment of the sacrament, everyone who joins the number of believers must be baptized, as, for example, Apostle was baptized. Pavel and others) 1290 . The need and necessity of repentance. Sins are carnal and spiritual, which must be repented of. The repentant process: consciousness of sinfulness, oral confession - public and private and its meaning, determination to correct life and pious deeds. There is no need to postpone repentance and confession under any pretext. Tertullian's Montanistic view of sins, dividing them into forgivable and unforgivable; list of mortal sins; Is it possible and should one repent of them? In the treatise “de baptismo” Tertullian noted that just as the ancient world, purified and renewed by the flood, received, as it were, new life in the ark, subsequently sinned again, defiled itself with crimes and needed a new cleansing; so every person who is clean upon emerging from the waters of baptism, if he is exposed to new sins, has a need for the saving action of divine grace, which would make the person clean and sinless again 1291. With this remark, Tertullian seemed to point in advance to another treatise devoted to a special presentation of thoughts on repentance. This treatise is “de poenitentia” 1292. This is the train of thought in this work by Tertullian. The need for repentance is - so to speak - the essence of nature, it is implanted in all people by nature itself; even people who are outside the light of supernatural divine revelation, guided only by the light of nature, recognize the existence of repentance or repentance, meaning by it some movement of the soul following a voluntarily and consciously done evil deed. Only their thought of repentance, not illuminated by the light of divine revelation, is too far from the nature of truth. Those who do not know God, do not know His works and His will, do not know what constitutes the divine law for human moral activity and what is a violation of this law or a sin, which only needs to be repented of. Hence, from the confusion of their concepts of holy activity and sin, it happens that pagans often repent of what constitutes good activity and what to repent of as sinful is contrary to the will of God. From here it turns out that “their repentance is almost always a sin” 1293, they repent inappropriately and forget to repent when it would be necessary. Even if their repentance was sometimes appropriate, and then it did not achieve the intended goal that God had in mind when establishing repentance, it remained fruitless, did not bring any benefit - the salvation of a person, because it was not imbued with the real principle of repentance - the fear of God and the desire associated with it to change one’s moral life, to leave sins, not to return to the path of vice and to lead a life in accordance with the will of God. Meanwhile, true repentance, which God demanded at all times and everywhere, is necessarily accompanied by sincere repentance, sadness and contrition for sins and moral change 1294; Moreover, to be complete, it must be expressed in external actions 1295. Sins are carnal and spiritual (spiritalia et corporalia vel carnalia), just as man himself consists of flesh and spirit. Although the body and spirit are different substances, nevertheless, it does not follow from this that sins differ in their essence and can be considered as sins of varying severity; they are equal to each other, since in both sins the soul and body interact - the guiding principle in the sins of the flesh and spirit is the same free will of man, this only source of moral human activity 1296. In these sins of the flesh and spirit, which constitute a violation of the commandments of God, the law of God, man must repent, and - God, who is not false in his promises, will accept the sincere repentance of the sinner, the just one will weigh repentance on the scales of his justice, as well as the moral activity of man, - and grant him forgiveness, - God, who pronounces punishment for sin, also promises forgiveness for repentance 1297. “Oh, you sinner like me,” exclaims Tertullian, “have refuge in repentance, and, like a shipwrecked person, attach yourself to this plank of salvation, which will carry you out of the stormy sea of ​​your evil passions to the pier of mercy. Grab joyfully at this unforeseen helm of happiness, so that you, being a drop of water, a speck of sandy dust, a worthless piece of clay, could become a beautiful tree, planted on the bank of a river, covered with leaves, bearing good fruits in a timely manner and not subject to either fire or axe. Repent, having recognized your errors, repent of the fact that you loved things hated by God” 1298. Once a person has repented and thus entered into the grace of God, he must make a firm intention not to offend God in the future by violating His will - “whoever repented began to fear God,” and in the fear of God he received a reliable guarantee and a means to avoid sin, since the beginning of sin lies precisely in the absence of the fear of God in a person. Repentant, i.e. he who has renounced the devil through repentance, won victory over him and trampled him down in the name of the Lord, should not again call him to himself by a new fall and give him new power over himself; “Whoever does otherwise puts the devil above God; such a person, wanting to make a comparison, leaves one and comes to the other, and thus, having recognized both, returns to the one whom he probably found better,” and as a result of this, “he, without a doubt, becomes as hateful to God as he is pleasing to Satan 1299. Thus, only with repentance and self-correction is forgiveness from God possible, because the price of forgiveness is repentance, and it is the essential condition for non-punishment; and if anyone expects to receive mercy without repentance, he is like a person who has not paid for the goods, but is already stretching out his hand to receive it. Only sincere repentance and internal correction bring forgiveness, and not the external act of confession and verbal resolution of sins - resolution is in connection with repentance, it is a subsequent act in the repentant process. “The sinner must wash himself with repentance before receiving forgiveness 1300,” and then be protected from sins, although there is a means to atone for these new sins through repentance. Hitherto Tertullian has spoken of repentance preceding baptism as a preparatory means for spiritual rebirth; His further reasoning relates to repentance after baptism. “I don’t know,” says Tertullian, “continuing my speech about those who again fall into sin after baptism, I don’t know whether I should talk about the reality of the second or final repentance: I’m afraid that I might open the way to sin, wanting to show the path of repentance.” True, the mercy and goodness of God are inexhaustible, His love for humanity is limitless, and God can forgive a person his sins many times; but because of this, it cannot be thought that one can sin as many times as He can forgive - “the time will come when we can still sin, but we will no longer escape His wrath”; Those who have once escaped from a shipwreck do not dare to expose themselves to a new danger - to be drowned by sea waves. But human weakness breaks the spiritual life of a Christian; the enemy of humanity, the devil, uses all sorts of ways and means to seduce a person onto the path of vice. God foresaw this, and in order not to leave man in a hopeless state, “after the doors of baptism were closed, He opened the doors of second repentance to the fallen sinner, into which the one who interprets them can enter, but - apparently - no more than once, precisely because this is already the second repentance.” Therefore, there is no need to despair when the need for a second repentance comes; “Avoid a new fall, but do not shy away from a second repentance; Beware of being exposed to danger again, but do not turn away from the helping hand that wants to save you another time. When someone becomes sick again, he should not be ashamed to resort to a doctor again. You will find favor with God if you do not reject His benefits. You have offended Him, but you can also be reconciled with Him. You know who to ask for forgiveness from; you also know that He will not refuse you this” 1301. The loving Lord does not desire the death of the sinner; He exhorts him to repentance and promises complete forgiveness to the repentant; It is bitter for Him to lose a sinner, which is why He rejoices at the conversion of one sinner more than the good behavior of those who were not separated from Him 1302. Sincere recognition of one's sins and confession constitute the first act in the repentance process. Further actions in the act of repentance indicate that finding the grace and state of innocence lost after baptism is much more difficult than gaining them for the first time - in the baptismal font. In baptism, gifts were communicated to man, a covenant was concluded between God and man and confirmed by the seal of faith and love. Through sinful life this union is dissolved, the seal of faith is broken, man chooses the demon over Christ; hence it is clear that the price of the second means of reconciliation with God should be higher than the price of the first; it is obvious why repentance is marked by features that are more humiliating and difficult for the repentant. In repentance, simple repentance is not enough, even sincere, as in baptism; it also needs to be evidenced by external exploits (aliquo actu). The external action of repentance is more often called the Greek term ἐξομολόγησις - confession; oral confession of sins - ἐξομολόγησις - is absolutely necessary in the repentance process - not because it is necessary so that God does not know the sins of the repentant, but because it is “the beginning of correction and satisfaction for sins. From confession, repentance is born, which pacifies the Lord. Confession crushes and humiliates a person, changes him and makes him worthy of divine mercy. It commands him to remain in ashes and sackcloth and to plunge his soul into sorrow in order to purify it through suffering. It forbids him all pleasure in food and drink, not only for the body, but also for the soul. It requires that the sinner nourish and strengthen his soul with prayer, fasting, sighs and tears, that he cries out to his God day and night, that he kneels before the priests, prostrates himself before the throne of God and asks his brothers to pray for him.” Such repentance, according to Tertullian, “raises the price of repentance that serves the honor given to God; it justifies the sinner, delivers him from divine wrath, and replaces for him with earthly and temporary suffering the eternal punishments of the next century. Humiliating a person to the dust of the earth, it raises him up again; showering him with ashes, cleanses his soul; blaming and condemning, allows. In general, the more strict a sinner is with himself, the more lenient God is with him” 1303. With such a high importance of confession - whether public or private 1304, it is completely in vain that some avoid it - “confession before the people is unpleasant for them,” which is why they put it off from day to day, ashamed to publicly reveal what they did secretly. Shame is completely inappropriate and unnecessary. If we weigh and impartially evaluate what the repentant experiences when confessing his sins and what he receives from God, then it turns out that shame should be completely obscured by divine mercy, especially since confession is performed in the circle of Christians, among their brethren, who have the same hopes and the same fear, living in the same way in sharing the same sorrows and suffering... Why should a sinner avoid and shun people just as sinful as he, as if they could approve or condemn his fall? The body cannot deal with or amuse itself with the pain of any one of its members; if one member is sick, it all suffers; in the same way in the body of the church: if one of its members is sick, this illness cannot but affect its entire body - all its members will take a living part in it, no matter how painful it may be for the suffering member. “It is painful to have a member of the body cut off or a wound that requires burning; it is disgusting to take bitter and caustic medicine; but if these means serve for recovery, then no one complains about their unpleasantness - the hope for future recovery makes one forget the present grief” 1305. And there are also people who put off confession not because of false shame, but because they do not want to perform bodily feats of repentance. Tertullian's caustic irony falls on such people. “They are afraid,” he says, “to appear in public in careless and ugly attire, to be deprived of various pleasures, to wear a coarse hair shirt, and to fast. They, perhaps, would rather repent in the attire of a Tyrian harlot, having a gold pin to pin their hair, using fragrant powder to clean their teeth and copper scissors to trim their nails, whitewash and rouge to tint their lips and cheeks. Go to the waters, take sea baths, increase your expenses, eat rich foods, drink old wines. If someone asks you why you spend so much, you can answer: I have sinned before God, my salvation is in danger, and therefore I decided to repent in this way and exhaust my body in order to reconcile with God, whom I offended with my sins.” People who are afraid of penitential deeds could be advised to take an example from the pagans: what means do they use to obtain government positions through elections! They are not ashamed of anything, nothing bothers them. Their clothes are rough; day and night they knock on many doors; how many bows and humiliations they make! They seem to decline in stature when meeting with a person who has any influence on the people, they do not give holidays, they do not even invite friends to their place, they deprive themselves of freedom and all pleasures. They endure all this, if only the people would choose them as rulers for one year. And Christians do not want to sacrifice any empty pleasures in order to receive eternal salvation 1306. The example of the pagans should convince people who chase fashion, value the voice of light and pamper their bodies; if he is powerless, then hellfire will be the strongest means of turning them to the path of truth and salvation. “When thinking about confession, also think about the hellish fire that confession can extinguish for you,” a fire whose faint reflections, only its sparks, constantly appear to our eyes in the form of volcanic phenomena; do not neglect the means that the Lord has given for your healing 1307. In his work de poenitentia, Tertullian spoke indifferently about all sins, opening the door of repentance for all sinners, although he once promised God’s mercy to all sinners, under the condition of sincere repentance and a firm determination to correct their lives. Later, after transitioning to Montanism, his view changed and became more rigorous. Tertullian's Montanist view of sin and repentance is expressed in his work “de pudicitia”. Exalting chastity 1308 and condemning adultery, Tertullian, in connection with the subject, speaks of other sins. The treatise de pudicitia 1309 was caused by the edict of the Roman bishop of 1310, in which (edict) the Roman bishop promised remission of sins to fornicators and adulterers when they repented 1311. This edict did not fit the view of Tertullian, a Montanist who looked rigoristically at the sins of people; therefore Tertullian, without any hesitation, calls it “edictum, cui adscribi non potent bonum factum”; he should not be in the church, this bride of Christ, true, chaste and holy; he opens the door to adultery, makes the church of God no longer a den of thieves (Matt. 21:13), but a den of fornicators and adulterers 1312. Let them refer to the fact that God is good, merciful, does not desire the death of the sinner, but repentance (Ezek. 18:23. 32; 33:11 He wants to be saved by all people, especially the faithful (1 Tim. 4:10); therefore, the remission of sins, even adultery, is in accordance with the goodness of God. This link, according to Tertullian, does not give the right to treat so leniently to all sinners, without exception. God is good, but at the same time he is holy, and demands holiness from people; God is by nature good and merciful, but another property is inextricably linked with His mercy - truth 1313. This truth does not allow such edicts to open the door to the church of God for adulterers. To better understand the matter and confirm his thought, Tertullian makes a distinction between sins: he considers some sins to be mortal sins, others not mortal 1314, some venial, others unforgivable 1315; Forgivable sins can be atoned for by sincere repentance, but for unforgivable sins, any repentance will be unnecessary, in vain 1316. He classifies as mortal or unforgivable sins murder, idolatry, deception, denial, blasphemy, fornication, adultery and any desecration of the church of God 1317, and according to another list - idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, fornication, false witness, deception 1318. But if there are mortal or unforgivable sins, then why repent of them? If there is no longer hope for their forgiveness, then repentance itself becomes fruitless and aimless. Such thoughts involuntarily appear when mortal sins are compared with repentance and its consequence. Tertullian puts these thoughts into the mouths of his opponents, psychics, and puts them in his work in the form of an objection, to which he responds in the sense that only God alone can give remission of these sins, just as He alone can resurrect the dead, and that their remission is all the more valuable because it brings not only human reconciliation. “Repentance turned to the Lord and expressed before Him deserves forgiveness all the better because a person asks for it from God alone, looks at the world given by people as insufficient for his sin - prefers to blush before the church than to be in visible communion with it... Look - he is at the door; he serves as a warning to others, thanks to the example of humility; he calls to his aid the tears of his brothers and through this he returns richer than through visible communication returned to him. If he does not receive peace here on earth, he sows it with hope for the future, prepares its harvest. No, repentance of this kind cannot be in vain" 1319. Thus, according to Tertullian, the so-called mortal sins do not exclude the possibility of their forgiveness, only this forgiveness no longer belongs to the church, but to God alone. Speaking in this way, Tertullian, according to Freppel’s fair remark, does not open the door of forgiveness at all, nor closes it, but leaves it half-open: one can always, says Tertullian, “can” hope for the forgiveness of mortal sins from God, although the church itself cannot grant peace to mortal sinners; hence, repentance, repentance for mortal sins is not useless 1320. Tertullian's polemic on the question of marriage against the Marcionites and psychics. The Marcionite and Montanist view of marriage and its recurrence. The duality of Tertullian’s view of marriage in the pre-Monttanist and Montanist periods of his literary activity (the assumption of the repetition of marriage in the first period and the condemnation of even the first marriage in the second). Marriage of Christians with pagans. On the issue of marriage, Tertullian is of two minds. Having accepted Montanism, Tertullian differed on this issue from the view of the church; contrary to the apostle and church practice, he recognized only monogamy and, of course, denied the repetition of marriage. Tertullian expressed his views on marriage in the works “de monogamia”, “exhertatio ad castitatem” and “ad uxorem libri 2”. The first essay is polemical in nature, the second and third bear the imprint of advice from a loved one, intending to give freedom from marriage bonds and bring benefit to another. Tertullian's polemic on the issue of marriage is directed against the Marcionites and those members of the Christian society, to which he himself once belonged and whom, upon his transition to Montanism, he began to call nothing less than soul people, psychichi - a joint and simultaneous polemic against heretics and the church. Starting from the position that all the works of the Demiurge, whose works it is the direct duty of the followers of the Christian God to counteract, must be rejected, the Marcionites completely rejected marriage as a work of the flesh, an institution of the Old Testament God 1321. The Christian Church, based on the apostolic sayings, on the contrary, even allowed the repetition of marriage 1322. Rigoristic Montanism, true to its principles, looked at the matter completely differently. Having appeared as a rebuff to the willful whim of the then Roman and Carthaginian society - to enter into and dissolve marriages at any time, Montanism, of course, condemned second marriages on a par with adultery or fornication, appeared with the character of exalted puritanism, which allowed only monogamy, and even monogamy - as a small thing for weak humanity. He thus appeared as a middle direction. Having become a follower of the Phrygian sectarian, Tertullian, of course, began to defend Montanistic views on marriage and deny truly ecclesiastical and heretical ones as extremes; in his opinion, heretics do not use what they are given to use; psychics, on the contrary, abuse what is provided 1323 - both cannot meet with approval 1324. According to Tertullian, only in Montanism are permissiveness (licentia) and abstinence (continentia) in complete harmony; Denying the extremes of psychics and heretics, Montanism advocates only monogamy 1325 and the indissolubility of marriage in any case, even mortal. This point of Montanist teaching was defended with greater zeal by the Carthaginian presbyter because it was completely consistent with his mental mood. For Tertullian, with his gloomy character who did not like embarrassment, marriage did not have any particular charm, and even if he himself once entered into marriage, he later tried to put an end to the responsibilities that marriage imposed on him, to remain a completely free person and to raise his voice against the permissibility of a second marriage, which allegedly disagreed with the nature of Christianity 1326. Upon his transition to Montanism, he even developed an aversion to second marriages. In Montanism, this is how it should have happened. Believing in the imminent end of the world and seeing moral debauchery, the Montanists were burdened by marriage ties - they only wanted to quickly - without any hindrance - give up their lives through martyrdom. Hence, it was a mercy on the part of the Montanists that they allowed at least one marriage, leaving a person at least a little freedom in this case. Knowing the character of Tertullian - ardent and decisive, his attachment to Montanism, deep dislike of obstacles, it is easy to understand how Tertullian should have treated the church teaching on marriage and the teaching of the Marcionites on the same subject. The Marcionites made too strong and unfavorable an impression on Tertullian for him to be condescending towards their teaching on anything; This explains his intransigence to Marcionite theses. Through a series of experiments, Tertullian became convinced that the church teaching on marriage and its recurrence leaves a lot of room for human freedom; Therefore, it is not surprising that Tertullian insisted on the need for reform in the doctrine of marriage according to the plans of Montanus and his prophetesses - the organs of the Holy Spirit. “This fatal idea, sank into the soul, where anger was seething, poured out of it like burning lava, ready to cover everything that came along the way with a stream of battle” 1327. Skillful sophistry in the hands of Tertullian was a powerful weapon in the fight against psychics, a weapon that he skillfully used 1328; strained explanations of biblical passages, exegetical arbitrariness 1329 gave Tertullian the opportunity to prove his favorite thought and carry out the Montanistic view of marriage to the end. But alongside this, Tertullian also has excellent thoughts based on serious data. Disputing second marriages, Tertullian presents two great types of marriage union: natural, this is Adam, the husband of one wife, and supernatural, this is Christ, who has a union with only one church; He exposes these two types everywhere in his discussion of marriage, repeats this argument in various ways and determines that the example of these two prototypes of the human race - created and reborn - limits marriage to one, does not allow the dissolution and repetition of marriages. The works “exhortatio ad castitatem” and “ad uxorem” are identical with the polemical treatise in content, but different in character and tone. In the essence of the matter, without expressing anything new, in these works Tertullian nevertheless presents some particulars that are not found in the treatise “de monogamia”. As the fruit of Tertullian’s calm prudence, and not the ardor of a hot polemicist, advice to close people, and not rebuff to opponents, these works, so to speak, summarize what Tertullian expressed in the treatise “de monogamia”, summarize in a soft form. The first essay was written by Tertullian as advice to a Christian on what he should do after losing his (deceased) wife, the second is something like Tertullian’s spiritual testament to his wife, how best to act for her when she remains a widow after the death of her husband, Tertullian. The death of a person generally evokes thoughts of this or that nature; The death of a loved one—his wife—brings up even greater thoughts, thoughts about, among other things, how to settle in life after the death of a dear person. With this, and perhaps also a request, in mind, Tertullian writes an entire treatise and devotes it to a well-known, specific person, perhaps hesitant about his future life and languishing over the resolution of the question: to marry again after the death of his wife or to remain a widower forever. Assuming that he himself would die before his wife, and not wanting to put her on the path of hesitation regarding the same issue, Tertullian dedicated to her - as if a spiritual testament - an essay in two books resolving the marriage issue in the sense of monogamy. “I have no doubt, dear brother, that after the death of your wife you decided how to achieve peace for your soul, which cannot be achieved otherwise than by remaining a widower for the future. Pay attention to this" 1330. “My dear friend in the service of the Lord! I found it useful to think about what you should do if I leave this world before you. I bequeath to you my advice and invite you to follow them" 1331. This is how Tertullian begins both his works. The main idea in the further reasoning of the Carthaginian presbyter is that Christians should strive for the height of moral perfection, likeness to God, and as a result, eliminate what may hinder this striving. Let us now present Tertullian’s main provisions on the issue of marriage with a detailed disclosure of his thoughts. “We,” says Tertullian, “know one marriage, as well as one God, and we find that that marriage law is more honorable in which the natural law of modesty is not overlooked.” If psychics allow a repetition of marriage, it is because they have not accepted the Spirit; hence - they do not like what pleases the Spirit, but what pleases the flesh (Gen. 6:3; Gal. 5:17) 1332; monogamy is denied only by those who do not listen to the suggestions of the Paraclete, which teaches only the truth, according to the word of the Lord, proclaims to people what they could not accept from the teachings of the Savior 1333, which in no case can convey something contrary to Catholic tradition and impose a new, unbearable burden, contrary to the light burden of the Lord 1334. God wants man, created in His image, to strive to be like God, to be as holy as God is holy. “He established different degrees of holiness for people. The first degree is virginity, observed from birth. The second degree of virginity after baptism is that during marriage we purify ourselves by voluntary separation between husband and wife, or maintain chastity, remaining constantly, as it were, in a celibate state. Finally, the third degree consists of monogamy, when, after the death of our first wife, we refuse to enter into a new marriage. The first happiness, the first virginity is not knowing at all what you can later regret having known it. The second degree is to despise what we know too well. The third is also worthy of praise; because abstinence is a virtue" 1335. While extolling virginity, Tertullian does not deny the marital union of husband and wife: according to Tertullian, only heretics can recognize marriage as unclean; to dissolve an existing marriage means to rebel against the One who created the wife and blessed the marriage 1336; first marriage is a legal matter 1337. This is not what second marriages represent; Tertullian denies them. If we open the Old Testament books of Holy Scripture, then in them we will see the teaching about monogamy, we will be convinced that monogamy is not new, is not alien to the Church of God and is actually a Christian teaching, so that the Paraclete is in this case not so much an establisher as a restorer and interpreter of monogamy. Adam was the husband of one wife, the Lord created for him only one wife 1338, and added the marriage law: and there will be two in one flesh (Gen. 2:18.24), two, and not three and not many in one flesh, so that the violation of this divine law will already be an atrocity, scelus 1339. Abraham serves as an example of monogamy. Before circumcision he was the husband of one wife, and although after circumcision he was not monogamous, this does not prove anything: Abraham before circumcision serves as our example in this case. Abraham “began to be bigamous with circumcision, monogamous with uncircumcision. Are you thinking about accepting bigamy? allow circumcision. Are you defending uncircumcision? follow monogamy too. And then you will be the son of Abraham - monogamous as uncircumcised; so if you are circumcised, you are no longer a son, since you are not of faith, but of the sign of faith (ex signaculo fidei), justified by circumcision.” In support of this thought, Tertullian refers to chapter 3 of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians. Gives other examples of monogamy from the Bible 1340. At the same time, Tertullian could not help but come across some Old Testament examples that ran counter to monogamy. First of all, he focuses his attention on the law of cohabitation and gives it such explanations that do not subvert his main thoughts about monogamy, but explain and prove. The law of life was necessary - it flowed from the blessing of God: grow and multiply (Gen. 1:28); it was necessary because eunuchs and barrens were considered inglorious - in order to save them from ignominy, it was necessary to restore their seed 1341. In the New Testament, all this has lost its meaning: disgrace does not cover those who died childless and eunuchs, since eunuchs even deserved mercy, being called into the kingdom of heaven; the Old Testament law has passed away, and what has passed away no longer has force and does not matter; death does not dissolve a marriage - “our only Father lives - God and our mother - the church, we who live for God are not dead, and we do not bury the dead, since they are alive in Christ.” Tertullian comes to a similar conclusion, drawing attention to the example of the Old Testament patriarchs, who had not only several wives, but also concubines. Their example, apparently, gives the right to marry several times. Without denying polygamy and concubinage, Tertullian explains such Old Testament examples in the sense of an assumption, not a command. Tertullian looks at polygamy and concubinage of the patriarchs as a permission arising from the commandment: grow and multiply (Gen. 1:28); This Old Testament permission was abolished in the New Testament, as were many other things. By allowing polygamy, God acted like a man who plants trees with the goal of later cutting them down for buildings. The Old Testament had the purpose of planting trees, the New provides an ax for cutting them down 1342. Polygamy is found in the Old Testament; but it also contains an unconditional limitation: the priests were allowed to marry no more than one wife (Lev. 21:13; Deut. 17:17). A similar prohibition - to marry a second time - applies to Christians, and not only to Old Testament priests, and not only to New Testament priests, but also to laity - Christians are all priests, in Christianity every believer is a priest for himself and some others: he can make sacrifices to God in prayers, genuflections, vigils, he can even baptize in extreme cases 1343. It is true that in the church there are boundaries between the laity and the priests; but they have the same essential Christian duties; therefore, laymen, like priests, must marry one day. Moreover, if the laity enter into a second marriage, where will they get monogamous priests from? 1344 And the New Testament presents many examples, from which both monogamy and abstinence from marriage are visible: the monogamous priest Zechariah, the unmarried John the Baptist. Speaking about the apostles, Tertullian mentions only one Ap. Peter as a married man; all the other apostles, according to him, were either eunuchs or people who abstained from marriage. If, says Tertullian, the apostle says: food is not the imams of power to take a sister to his wife, like the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas (1 Cor. 9:5), then here he does not mean the wives of the apostles - in the proper sense of the word, but in general the women who were with the apostles for the purpose of serving them in listening to the gospel sermon, as in the time of I. Christ, for in Greek the wife and the woman are called by the same name - γυννή 1345. Monogamy should also be due to the high importance that the Apostle Paul attaches to marriage. Marriage represents the mysterious union of Christ with the church, and just as this union is one, so marriage must be one, unrepeatable 1346. In proving monogamy, Tertullian also refers to the pagans. Not to mention the pagan priests - monogamists by position 1347, and among ordinary people at various festivals and ceremonies, monogamous people have preference over second-weds. If this is the case with the pagans, then all the more so should it be with the Christians, lest they become inferior to the pagans 1348. The extent to which monogamy is natural is evident from the animal kingdom 1349. Closely and inextricably linked with the question of the unity of marriage is the question of the indissolubility of marriage. According to Tertullian, marriage is indissoluble in any case; even the death of one of those united in marriage does not break the marriage bond and does not give the survivor the right to re-enter the marriage union. The original basic marriage law says: God has joined together, let not man separate (Matthew 19:6.8). Thus, “there is only one God who separates, God who also unites.” By dissolving a marriage by the death of one of the couple, God thereby imposes a moral obligation on the survivor not to enter into a new marriage: such a combination will be contrary to the will of God and will be considered adultery 1350. We should not regret that we have lost a wife or husband through death: the Lord gave, the Lord is taken away: as the Lord willed, so it was (Job 1:21). If God wanted us to remain married, He would not have deprived us of our first wife or first husband; since he deprives, it means that it pleases Him and it is a sin to go against it. It is true that man is given the freedom to act one way or another; but man must conform this freedom to the will of God, to act as God wishes; if a person does not do what is pleasing to God, then he does what is pleasing to the devil and becomes his slave 1351. Hence, it is necessary to carefully recognize the will of God, not only the manifest will, known to everyone, but also the hidden will. Anything else seems to be in accordance with the will of God, because it is permitted by God; But permission does not yet constitute the direct will of the person who allows it; it is sometimes caused by necessity. The will of God in its proper sense consists in what is directly and unconditionally prescribed by God, and not in what is permitted by condescension. The permission of one thing presupposes another, better one, and encourages us to follow this best, as pleasing to God and in accordance with His will; therefore, what is permitted, as preferred, will be lower than what it is preferred; a person, doing what is only permitted, sins. Second marriages are based on the will of God, which allows them through leniency (as follows from the very concept of marriage and its establishment, there is only one marriage union); therefore, as a result not of unconditional will, but caused by indulgence, they do not constitute an unconditional good - the best is preferred - abstinence 1352. Hence, the surviving spouse, taking advantage of the presented freedom from the bonds of marriage, must take care to moderate his passions and desires, devote himself to abstinence 1353, take care that the flesh does not take precedence over the spirit - the weakest over the strongest (Matthew 26:41) 1354. Here is the fullest opportunity for that. Without a wife, a man feels as if reborn: “when he prays, he seems to see himself closer to heaven; he spends his nights thinking about St. Scriptures; his heart is filled with bliss; By fighting the devil, he gains confidence in himself”; he maintains bodily cleanliness; unbound by marriage ties and the responsibilities associated with them, he can pray at any time and everywhere. His prayer then flows from the soul, untainted by shame and timidity, and the Holy Spirit lifts it directly to God 1355. Moreover, there is also a psychological reason to avoid second marriages. A person who has not married a second time does not experience the same states and inner unrest that a bigamist inevitably experiences. A bigamist’s “soul is troubled by two wives: one in memory, the other in reality.” The first wife cannot be hated, because her memory is sacred, especially since she has already passed into the kingdom of God; the second wife cannot be hated, because she is constantly before our eyes. The conclusion is again the same: in order to be calm and maintain chastity, it is necessary to abandon second marriages 1356. – If a marriage is not dissolved by death, it should not be dissolved during life. In the first case: death is the work of God, in the second, the dissolution of marriage during life is a purely human matter, arising from various everyday reasons: disagreement, anger, hatred, slander, etc., as a result of which husband and wife sometimes become mutual enemies 1357. Psychics, defending the repeatability of marriage, refer to 1 Cor. 7:39: a woman is bound by law, while her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is free to eat for what she wants, to encroach, just in the Lord 1358. Tertullian finds the understanding of this reference by psychics incorrect. If, he says, we allow second marriages, then we must allow third, fourth, etc., that is, allow polygamy, which has no place in Christianity 1359. Quoted passage from 1 Cor. 7:39, according to Tertullian, does not at all speak of the recurrence of marriage. The Apostle wrote: Has ecu become attached to his wife? don't look for permission. Has the wife's ecu abandoned itself? don't look for a wife. Even though he was married, he has not sinned; and even if a virgin commits violence, she has not sinned; but such will they have tribulation in the flesh (1 Cor. 7:27, 28). The apostle's point here comes down to monogamy in Christianity. The life of a Christian begins in Christianity itself 1360, therefore “one who is freed from a wife before faith is not considered a second wife after faith, the one who is the first after faith.” In the light of the thought that our life actually begins with the adoption of Christianity, it is easy to understand the words of the apostle in v. 39: a wife is bound by the law, while her husband lives; The Apostle considers a wife to be free after the death of her husband (“he did not allow those who were divorced to marry, contrary to the ancient commandment”); if she marries (after the death of her first husband), she will not sin, because the first husband by faith will not be the second.” As if to clarify this thought, the apostle added: specifically about the Lord 1361. In exactly the same way, we must understand the following words of the Apostle: I want to encroach upon young widows, to give birth to children, to build a house, but not to give a single blasphemy to the other for the sake of blasphemy (1 Tim. 5:14). The Apostle here does not want marriage to be repeated in Christianity; Regarding young widows, his idea is completely different, “that they should get married as many times as they become widows” 1362. Finally, if the apostle allows them to marry, this permission is not a command 1363 - it is a temporary permission due to the weakness of the flesh, just as divorce was allowed by Moses due to hardness of heart (Matt. 19:8). As a temporary measure necessitated by necessity, it could not exist forever. With the appearance of Christ and the Paraclete, it lost its meaning. Hard-heartedness, which was the cause of divorce, prevailed before Christ; in the same way, the weakness of the flesh, as a result of which the second marriage was allowed, took place only before the Paraclete. Hence, with the appearance of Christ and the Paraclete, there were no reasons for divorce and remarriage (divorce and remarriage are in a close and inextricable connection with each other) - “the new law denies divorce, the new prophecy denies second marriage” 1364. Tertullian's explanation of the passage from 1 Cor. is original from the sophistic side. 7:1. The apostle says: what is good for a man not to touch his wife. Tertullian concludes: touching a wife is therefore evil; for there is nothing opposite to good except evil. Hence, in view of the fact that Christians must strive for the height of moral perfection, for goodness, it follows that those who have wives should be as if they did not have them, and even more so those who do not have them should not have them. The Apostle also gives reasons for this, namely, unmarried people think more about God (1 Cor. 7:32). If the apostle allows marriage, then this, according to Tertullian, is not a reason to necessarily enter into marriage: “what is allowed is no longer good, for perfect good is not allowed, but is already allowed” 1365. Assumption is not an affirmation of something better - assumption is sometimes forced not by will, but by necessity 1366, and - obviously - it will no longer be a perfect good. The Apostle says: it is better to get married than to become thin (1 Cor. 7:9). How should this good (better), which is better than punishment, be understood? It is good only in comparison with the worst. An absolute good is one that is good without comparison even with another good; comparative good will no longer be good, but only a lower degree of evil, perhaps with the name of good. The apostle's comparison: it is better to get married than to lose life is similar to this: it is better to lose one eye than both. And just as the loss of one eye cannot be called a good (although in comparison with the deprivation of both eyes it can be called something like a good), in the same way, getting married cannot be called an unconditional good - it is a good only in comparison with becoming thinner 1367. In addition, the words: it is better to get married than to get married, according to Tertullian, “the apostle uttered on his own behalf in the name of the Lord”: the imam does not command the Lord (about this), but I give advice (v. 25) 1368 ; therefore, they do not constitute the will of the Lord, but only the condescension or reasoning of the apostle himself; they apply not to widowers, but to unmarried and single people 1369; Having pointed out his advice, the apostle further, as it were, advises against fulfilling what he previously permitted, advises against entering into the first marriage, and even more so in the second, as if rejecting his advice in order to give place to the commandment of God 1370. Arguing in this way, Tertullian comes to the conclusion that marriage in general is disapproved, there is tolerable fornication - an extreme arising from his view of life in general, of the flesh and its demands, etc. He bases his conclusion on the words of the Apostle, who says that spouses are concerned with how to please themselves. The Apostle, according to Tertullian, here does not mean mutual gratification through purity of morals, but everything with which spouses excite each other to voluptuousness, often appearance; and “the desire to please outwardly is the very essence of carnal lust, which in its turn is the cause of fornication. Isn’t marriage similar to fornication, isn’t it the goal of satisfying the same desires?” He who wishes to marry commits fornication with his bride before marriage - before marriage, every woman is a stranger to him, every woman marries after fornication has already been committed with her. Thus, the difference between fornication and marriage is not in essence, but only in name, in the sanctioning of one by law and the denial of the other: “marriage and fornication constitute one union, one carnal combination, the desire of which the Lord called adultery” 1371. In view of this, the best thing for a person is to completely distance himself from the female sex, to prefer unconditional virginity. But if so, then we need to thank God for the fact that He allowed us to get married at least once, and not want to repeat the marriage, since repetition, no longer limited by anything, can naturally lead to polygamy 1372 and will serve as an obstacle to moral improvement 1373. In previous discussions Tertullian presented various arguments in favor of monogamy and against bigamy; but defenders of remarriage, not without reason, support their view of the possibility and - sometimes - necessity of a second marriage; they give various incentives for entering into a second marriage. In order to carry his view to the end, Tertullian in this case needed to touch upon and analyze those motives that were presented in favor of the repetition of marriages; Tertullian did just that. How are second marriages justified? Some excuse them as the lust of weak flesh; others refer to the need to win friends, to have someone to manage the house and family, to maintain order in the household, supervise the servants, economic economy, in order to have children - heirs of property, etc. 1374. None of these motives, according to Tertullian, justifies second marriage with the correct view of the matter. In contrast to the first argument, Tertullian points to his main idea about the triumph of the spirit over the flesh: the flesh must submit to the spirit, a person must not be carried away by the demands of the flesh, especially illegal ones; against the first argument, he points to Christian virgins, who, in order to achieve the height of moral perfection, renounce marriage, become spouses and daughters of God, live and talk with Him; they refuse to be mistresses of someone else's house, to enjoy their husband's wealth, etc., and use only what is necessary for decency and moderation 1375. They say that a wife is needed to maintain the household and for the sake of saving money. But is it really true that only family men’s houses are good, while bachelors’ houses must certainly be ruined? Eunuchs and warriors do without wives and, as a result of this alone, do not lose anything in their household. If the soldiers lose nothing, it is not clear why Christians, soldiers of Christ, obliged to submit to the discipline of the heavenly Leader, will suffer loss. Travelers do without wives; Can’t Christians, travelers in this world, get along without them? But let a Christian need a friend for home life; for this you do not need to get married - you can choose some elderly widow, adorned with virtues... Do you need children - heirs, do you need offspring? But why does a Christian have such a desire? He has renounced the inheritance of worldly pleasures, and again wants to have heirs; he does not have children from his first marriage, so he is trying to get them from his second; he wants to live longer, whereas a Christian should not have such a desire (Phil. 1:23); a Christian wants to have children, while in this iron age for Christianity, torture and torment give a Christian a completely different purpose, where offspring can serve as a hindrance: without offspring, without children, nothing can tie a Christian to earthly things, prevent him from being persecuted and accepting the crown of martyrdom, he will pay more attention to his salvation 1376. In conclusion, Tertullian points out who is most eager to remarry. True, he speaks only about women, but this can also partly be attributed to men. “Lazy, talkative wives, drunkards, coquettes make up a bad society that opposes the state of widowhood. Their frivolous tongues utter words harmful to chastity; laziness is at war with dignity; vanity leads to debauchery; drunkenness is the mother of all vices. Not one of the women of this kind will approve of monogamy, because they created a god for themselves from their womb" 1377. In a word, only moral ugliness requires repeat marriages, and people with strong morals never seek it. Tertullian, a Montanist, certainly denied second marriages. Before switching to Montanism, his view of marriage was more lenient; Tertullian also allowed second marriages, specifically about the Lord. It is difficult to endure widowhood, Tertullian recognized this in the past. What should those widowers and widows do who are unable to remain in the state of widowhood? Getting married is the natural answer. But with whom? There were examples of widows getting married, widowers getting married. Without condemning them, Tertullian only demands that their marriage be about the Lord 1378, the union of a believing husband with a believing wife. Bearing in mind the passage from the Epistle of St. Paul (1 Cor. 7:12 – 15) and based on it, some married pagans. Tertullian finds that this understanding of the indicated apostolic passage is incorrect: the Apostle speaks here only of those “whom the grace of God found already married to infidels 1379 - for them the marriage remains indissoluble, even if one of the spouses remained in paganism. Tertullian confirms the correctness of this understanding of the indicated passage with further verses of the same chapter (15 and 16): in the world the Lord God has called us; What should you weigh, wife, if you saved your husband, or what should you weigh, your husband, if you saved your wife? A Christian marrying a pagan or a Christian marrying a pagan is not permitted; This follows from the words of the apostle: a wife, even if her husband dies, is free to eat, but wants to commit violence for no good, but in the Lord (1 Cor. 7:39); in order to avoid abuse, the Apostle says about second marriages that they, as soon as there is a need for them, should be performed in the Lord, that is, between a Christian and a Christian woman and according to Christian rites. “The word exactly gives great power to the law and makes it absolutely binding; this word commands and convinces, commands and exhorts, obliges and threatens” 1380. However, Tertullian here also looks at such marriages as a condescending admission on the part of the Apostle. By allowing marriages only about the Lord, the Apostle had in mind to eliminate 1) the desecration of the flesh of a Christian from contact with the flesh of a pagan 1381, as a result of which those who marry pagans or pagans are not exempt from accusations of fornication and, like fornicators, should be deprived of communication with believers; 2) the danger for a Christian from marriage with pagans. The constant conversion of a Christian spouse with a pagan spouse or a Christian wife with a pagan spouse can lead to the fact that a Christian or Christian woman will necessarily have to either work for two masters at the same time, God and a pagan husband or wife, or finally switch to one side or the other. In this case, Tertullian means only one woman, as a weaker creature, he speaks only about her alone; It is clear that Tertullian’s arguments apply to men as well. “Every Christian woman should try to please God. How can she work for two masters - God and her husband - a pagan? Trying to please (in the person of her husband) idolatry, she must conform to the customs of the pagans: she must take care of her beauty, her attire, her toilet; must indulge in his shameful caresses, which defile the marriage bed itself. These spouses, who are so little alike, will not fulfill the duty assigned by nature to both sexes with the same moderation and decency as Christians who act with the fear of God” 1382. The marriage of a Christian woman with a pagan will not be consistent in religious and moral terms. “Is a wife able to fulfill Christian duties when she has near her a servant of the devil, who has made it his duty to interfere with him? Do I need to show up for standing? The husband will make an appointment at the bathhouse for this time. Will the day of fasting come? The husband will invite his friends to a feast on this day. Will there be a religious procession in the church? Never will so much care and activity appear in idolatry. What kind of idolater husband would allow his wife to freely visit his brothers, go around villages, and visit the sick in their huts? What kind of husband would want to separate from his wife at night so that she could go and pray with the brethren during all-night vigils? Will he tolerate her spending the whole night in church on the feast of the Resurrection of Christ, and for her to appear to partake of the Holy Mysteries, which he neglects and abhors? Will he watch with indifference that she goes into dungeons to kiss the shackles of martyrs? And what will He say when he learns that his wife must give the brothers the kiss of peace, must offer water to wash the feet of believers, share bread and wine with them during supper, spend time in contemplation and prayer? If a Christian traveler comes, what kind of hospitality will he have in the house of a pagan? When it is time to give bread to the poor, will not the wife of the unbeliever find her barn locked?” 1383 – Let there also be pagans who treat Christians well and, as it were, patronize them. And in this case, Christian women cannot avoid condemnation: the patronage of pagans always reflects unfavorably on Christians. Let a Christian woman hide her religious and moral virtues; this will further arouse the curiosity and suspicion of the pagan. “Can you,” says Tertullian, addressing a Christian wife, “cover yourself when you baptize your bed or your body, or when you spit on unclean things? If you get up at night to pray, will your husband suspect you of magic? Will He not notice that you seem to be tasting something in secret before dinner? And when he finds out that this is nothing more than bread, what will he think about you in his ignorance? Will he complain about all such secrets? Maybe he will even begin to suspect you that you want to poison him” 1384. All the patronage of a pagan can then be reflected in a joke and desecration of what is most sacred for a Christian, or even in the betrayal of a Christian or Christian woman to torture and torment 1385. The very situation of home life in any pagan environment is such that it can very easily influence a Christian or Christian woman and little by little seduce him into paganism and idolatry. “The servant of the Lord must live among the gods - the Lares, be present at the holidays and celebrations of idols, swallow the smoke of aromas at the beginning of the year and on the first day of each month. She leaves the house through doors decorated with laurel wreaths and lamps, as if from a den of debauchery. Lying continuously at the table with her husband and his feasting friends, won’t she cleave to their opinions? She will need to serve the wicked, whereas she previously served only the saints. Does she not feel condemned, thus serving those whom she herself will one day have to judge? Hearing her husband sing, what will she hear? And what would she herself sing in front of him? Probably some poems from comedies or a song in honor of Bacchus that she learned in a drinking house or gambling house. Will she dare to speak the name of the Lord, to cry out to Jesus Christ? Where will the spiritual food go, strengthening the faith of those spouses whose leisure time is devoted to pious reading, which they generally do? Will such discordant spouses begin to bless each other in the name of God? No; for a woman in this position, everything is alien, hostile, everything condemns her, everything strives to remove her from the path of salvation” 1386. True, all this can happen to a wife who married a pagan while still in paganism; but will not God strengthen her? Will He really not provide her with His help? It’s not the same with a Christian wife who marries a pagan. This marriage is a forbidden marriage, not pleasing to God; and what is displeasing to God offends Him, and what offends Him only brings misfortune 1387. Why do Christian women sometimes marry pagans? It happens that the motivating reason is sometimes vain ambition: you need a luxurious home, rich furnishings. But ambition does not agree with the spirit of Christian teaching. The passion to marry for wealth often finds no justification even among the most pagans. “Many idolatrous wives, noble and rich, sometimes unite with poor and ignoble people; others marry their freedmen and slaves.” Should Christians then pursue wealth? And why do Christians need it, when their destiny is the kingdom of heaven, the totality of all blessings? 1388 4. Against luxury and excesses in external decoration Jewelry in furnishings and clothing. Noble metals, like other metals, precious stones, do not bring direct benefits. The common consciousness of all people and the will of God speaks against the use of precious metals and stones. Ambition is the source of luxury. Cosmetics and coiffure and their inapplicability in Christianity. On the topic of purity of morals and reprehensibility to pay special attention to appearance, Tertullian speaks in a special essay “de cultu foeminarum” (in 2 books); in it, Tertullian examined in detail the issue of women's jewelry. He posed this question in some connection with the question of the relationship between a man and a woman. Tertullian recognizes external adornment as indecent for Christian wives. The consciousness of every Christian woman in her own person of the fallen Eve does not predispose her to having fun and decorating herself 1389, Christian humility and meekness do not allow vain vanity and the desire to please - a sign of moral depravity 1390; the genesis of jewelry teaches us to avoid them: legend attributes the invention of jewelry and expensive clothing to those seducers of the daughters of men who are spoken of in the Book of Genesis, i.e., the fallen angels - they pointed out to women exquisite clothes and precious jewelry and through this they incited and incite the innate curiosity and vanity of women 1391. Considering, further, the jewelry that vanity uses, Tertullian finds that these jewelry are expensive and so valuable because they are difficult to obtain, sometimes costing several lives of the miners (for example, miners, divers). Meanwhile, what is special about these jewels? Gold and other noble metals could successfully be replaced by copper or iron - it is known that the rings with which women adorn their hands were previously used in iron, and wedding rings were also used in the age of Tertullian. Iron is more useful and practical than gold. “Let people who are attached to gold and silver show me,” says Tertullian, “what useful and necessary use can be made of them, like the use of iron and copper. The land was never cultivated with gold, ships were never built of silver; never did a golden sword protect anyone’s life, and silver walls did not serve as a stronghold for people either against bad weather or against enemy attacks. Finally, gold and silver have never been used for the extraction and processing of iron, while they themselves cannot be mined and processed without the help of iron. From all this I do not see that gold and silver receive from nature any advantage over other metals” 1392. The same must be said about precious stones. “Can anything better be said in favor of precious stones, which are considered more valuable than gold and silver? Aren’t they the same substance as simple flints and ordinary stones?” Like noble metals, precious stones do not bring any direct benefit. “They cannot be used either for the foundations of houses, or for the construction of fortress walls, or for roofing buildings, or for constructing terraces. They serve solely to satisfy the ambition of women and to increase their pride,” for which purpose they are trimmed as beautifully and gracefully as possible 1393. The general consensus of all peoples speaks against the use of noble metals and precious stones; it shows that these jewels are only expensive there, where they are not, while where they are mined, they instill indifference there: “among the Parthians, Medes and other peoples, abounding in gold mines, chains for slaves and criminals are often forged from gold, so that these latter, burdened by what we call wealth, are the more unhappy the richer they are, and thereby prove the truth that gold can sometimes be pretext of contempt" 1394; Among these peoples, local jewelry is worn only in places where it is impossible to see them 1395 - such is the contempt for them among these peoples! Various mixtures of colors in clothes, coloring are disgusting to God; they only show that “God seemed unable or forgot to create such sheep, on which the wool would be crimson or other shiny color, in which it is now dyed. And since it is known that He could have done this, we must agree that it was displeasing to Him, because He did not do it; therefore, changing His will is nothing more than insolence 1396, a perversion of the natural, and as such, it is incongruous with the will of God 1397. External adornment in women sometimes reaches the point of passion, and this passion takes possession of a person to such an extent that it turns out to be impossible for him to restrain himself - this is a disease, and an incurable disease, if it is allowed to more or less develop, it can lead to complete ruin. “We see the ruin of the most noble families from the acquisition of some boxes and caskets; we see veils costing up to 25,000 gold coins; we see the cost of entire forests and islands that adorn the delicate head; we see countless incomes hanging on the ears of an ambitious beauty; We see on our fingers the cost of several bags of gold. Is it possible to say after this that ambition should not triumph when such incredible costs are spent on women? 1398 Just as Tertullian spoke about the clothes and jewelry of women, he speaks similarly about cosmetics, coiffure, etc. What is the purpose of cosmetics? To maintain beauty and decency is the usual answer. But what is this for? To please their husbands, as women say? This is just a pretense; Most likely, cosmetics, as well as outfits, are used to attract the gaze of strangers 1399 and ignite the passions of others. And if so, then cosmetics should not be used by Christian wives. “The desire to please through artificial embellishments can only come from a spoiled and depraved heart,” embellishments pave the way for temptations and can disturb the peace of mind of others. It must be borne in mind that the moral law condemns not only for deeds, but also for desires; hence, one must avoid not only bad deeds, but also bad desires, such as the desire to deceive one’s neighbor and thereby destroy him, to deceive through artificial embellishments. Because of this, wanting to keep their hearts pure and not lead their neighbors into temptation, Christian women must “not only reject all kinds of decorations that inflame our passions, but even diminish or erase the shine of natural beauty through a certain kind of negligence, the source of which would be God” 1400. Speaking in this way, Tertullian does not condemn natural beauty in general, as the work of the hands of God, - he condemns only that beauty and that prettiness, from which there can be harm 1401, finds that this beauty for Christians as brides of Christ is completely useless, as providing only a reason for voluptuousness 1402, it is vain, and, as such, should have no place or application among Christians - Christians should not care about the physical beauty, but about spiritual beauty, in the interests of spiritual beauty, to exhaust one’s flesh with repentance and exploits in order to bring triumph to the spirit 1403. Excessive cosmetic decoration, like clothes, is offensive to the Creator - “the immense tendency of many women to use various kinds of drugs to make their skin white and glossy, to paint their faces and cheeks with rouge, to blacken their eyebrows with black paint” - offends the Creator. “Apparently, they do not like God’s simple creation (plastica), they find shortcomings in it and use different arts. They condemn the Supreme Creator of everything, for to correct or remake what was created by God means precisely to condemn Him”; Moreover, it means following the advice of the devil. He wages war against God, he disturbs everything, and he teaches to do what is contrary to Him. “Whatever we accept from birth is God’s creation, and whatever we add to it is from Satan.” Hence the conclusion is that Christian women, wishing to remain Christians, must maintain simplicity in both clothing and cosmetics in order to maintain strict chastity both in themselves and in others 1404. After clothes and cosmetics, Tertullian touches on the coiffure, which must have existed at that time and caused the protest of the Carthaginian moralist. Regarding the latter, Tertullian says, addressing Christian women: “some of you dye your hair with saffron, trying to give your hair the color that nature deprived them of.” Tertullian finds these tinting and oilings of hair - among other things - harmful even from a hygienic point of view: they cause hair to come out, the brain weakens, etc. 1405, finds it inconsistent with Christianity: “a Christian woman puts saffron on her head as on an altar”; to whom does she make this sacrifice? Obviously, an unclean (immundo) spirit. A Christian woman dyes her hair; why is this? To change your age, your summer? It is incongruous to be ashamed of the age that many so desire. They tint their hair as if they are looking younger; but this is only for a while 1406: the time will come when no touch-ups will help; and if so, then why, first of all, to put on make-up until old age? 1407 Fashion requires that hair be combed or smoothed in one way or another. Tertullian finds this fashion inconsistent with Holy Scripture. It is interesting how the rigorist Tertullian describes this excessive zeal of women for their coiffure. “Why don’t you want to leave your hair alone? You curl them, then unravel them, then fluff them, then smooth them, today you braid them, and tomorrow you leave them to worry carelessly; sometimes you attach, in addition to your hair, I don’t know what masses of stitched and woven wigs, you attach them in the form of a priestly pointed hat (galeri), as if a cover is only for the head and a cover for the crown of the head, other times you attach them almost to the back of the head”... This fashion, according to Tertullian, is a direct contradiction with the passage from the Gospel of Matthew (6:27), which Tertullian calls a commandment (praecepta): who cares about you can add one cubit to his age? Thus says the Lord; is this how Christian women fulfill His word? They “add some kind of headdresses to burden (their heads) or add something like shields to the back of their heads (scuotorum umbilicos cervicibus).” False hair should not be worn on the heads of Christian women. “Do not place on your head, consecrated by baptism, the hair of someone else’s head, perhaps an unclean person, perhaps a villain and condemned to hell. A free head should be free from all these burdensome decorations.” And why should wives decorate their heads when, according to the word of the Apostle, praying or prophesying with an open head disgraces their head 1408, therefore, they must be under a veil 1409, when in the resurrection and on the day of judgment they appear without these headdresses 1410? True, men also have similar embellishments - and they want and try to please women, just as women do men, and they, in order to artificially decorate themselves, “love to shave their beard, pull out hair from it, curl it, remove their hair and even tint their gray hair, give their body the appearance of youth, even blush like women, smooth their skin with a special powder, constantly look in the mirror, not paying attention to the fact that that it reflects them too truly.” Just as in women and men, all these embellishments are useless and harm chastity and sedateness 1411; and in men they must be rejected, just as lenones et prostitures are rejected by Christians. If gender or dignity requires certain attire and adornment, then modesty must be observed, modest splendor inspired by the Gospel, and not overstepping the boundaries of moderation 1412; if there is wealth, its use must be moderated and keep in mind the saving rules of Christ’s teaching, indicating that Christians are circumcised from everything, impartial to the worldly and bodily 1413. 5. Against the remnants of idolatry Remains of idolatry in the life of Christians in Carthaginian society; their expression in promoting the idolatrous cult by fabricating idols, delivering the necessary materials for the pagan cult. Astrology and magic, school teaching of literature, trade, theatrical and circus shows, festivals in honor of the gods and in memory of the dead, public service and the external benefits associated with it, pronunciation of the names of pagan gods. Tertullian's view of all this. In an age, although covered in the darkness of paganism, nevertheless representing the dawn of the future dominance of the Christian religion, it was natural to talk about idolatry - adjacent to paganism and the attitude of Christians towards it. A person like Tertullian, especially, could not ignore the question of idolatry and the attitude of Christians towards it. From his rigoristic point of view, Tertullian, who imagined hated paganism everywhere and everywhere, and who wanted to provide Christians with more or less definite rules of life, to put their lives in a frame, to accurately determine where Christians come into contact with paganism, where there is a danger for them to violate the law of conscience, etc., fixes his gaze on this issue and solves it with inexorable severity. Idolatry is the greatest evil, under which other atrocities are hidden - the motive for condemning a person at the righteous court of God - it unites all crimes. All crimes are committed by idolaters: murder (physical and moral - mainly) is a matter of idolatry; adultery, like violence to the truth, lives in him; theft - stealing due honors from God and transferring them to another - in idolatry. “If theft, adultery and shame cause death, then this is enough to accuse idolatry of murder.” And all other sins, except these mortal sins, are in idolatry - idolatry contains everything that is displeasing to God - it is a lie, it is the work of demons 1414. Idolatry is vast in its scope: there is no way to define its boundaries and limits, especially since “it knows how to hide, pretend in a thousand ways, just to lead the servants of God astray.” In most cases, it does not consist in visible burning of incense, not in visible worship of pagan gods, but in worship of a different kind. “The majority of people believe that only he is an idolater who goes to churches to burn incense, who makes sacrifices there and makes libations there, or who is a priest himself. This is the same as if someone decided to assert that adultery consists solely of kisses, hugs and carnal intercourse, or that murder only happens where blood is shed and death is caused.” And just as adultery does not consist only in external adultery, but mainly in internal, murder also occurs when someone hates his neighbor - moral murder; Likewise, idolatry must be understood not in only external and visible actions of worship of gods 1415, but also in other cases where in one way or another the service of alien gods is reflected. Christians, called in the truth, must fight against idolatry and counteract it, as one of the types of unrighteousness 1416. Hence, the task of the moralist was to determine what, where idolatry is visible, and in what particular cases of life one must beware of it. Idolatry has existed for a long time. True, in the old days there were no idols, pagan temples were empty, the walls of the temples were exposed (as the ruins of ancient temples show), nevertheless, idolatry existed even then, but it did not have a name. It got its name from idols, which began to be fabricated relatively late. Tertullian considers idolatry too broadly in content; according to him, idolatry can exist in all spheres of human art. “It makes no difference whether the image comes from the hands of a sculptor, engraver or seamstress, whether it is composed of plaster, paints, stone, bronze, silver or fabrics... The image already exists, whatever kind and form it may be and whatever material it is made of.” Hence, one cannot think that only statues that resemble humans in appearance are idols. An idol - a diminutive of the Greek word ειδος - is any image, and just as service and worship of idols is idolatry, so any service, any work in favor of an idol will also be idolatry, and every manufacturer who makes images of this kind participates in the sin of idolatry 1417; It is not only those who worship idols who are guilty of idolatry, but also those who fabricate them - the latter are responsible for the evil that they cause by their fabrication. Tertullian confirms all these thoughts with references to Holy Scripture (Ex. 20:4; Jude 1, 14, 15; Isa. 2:7, 8; Ps. 113:12–17) 1418. Is the harm really so great for artisans working in favor of an idolatrous cult? Craftsmen - and precisely craftsmen - are especially guilty of what? If they work, it’s because they have to get income from somewhere; If they don’t make idols, they will have nothing to live on; fabrication provides them with material means of subsistence. Against this, Tertullian says that another work can be found, work worthy of God and not causing moral harm to anyone. They refer to the words of the Apostle Paul: everyone in the rank in which he was quickly called, let him abide in it (1 Cor. 7:20). But justifying the fabrication of idols with this apostolic saying is the same as justifying any sin in which a person was found at the time of his calling to the Church of Christ. Others are based on the fact that the Lord Himself set an example for us to eat from the labor of our hands. To justify the fabrication of idols as the work of one’s hands with this is the same as justifying the work of a thief, a rogue, a counterfeit coiner, or any indiscriminate work as the work of one’s hands. Not all work is pleasing to God and befits a Christian; some work is directly prohibited by God. They refer to the example of Moses, who made a copper serpent in the desert, and on this example they base the permission to make images. But the serpent of Moses does not serve as an excuse for idolatry and fabrication of images. “Images made for a special and mysterious purpose are an exception to the rule, but do not destroy it.” The copper serpent was a symbol of the crucified Lord, who had the power to deliver people from various snakes - evil demons. It was made according to a special command of God. And since the serpent was made according to the special command of God, then for the fabrication of idols one must expect that God Himself would give a special command for that, in addition to the general command: do not make an idol 1419. God did not make a special command, therefore, we must be guided by the general command: do not create an idol. This general command, even if it had not been expressed in such a sharp form, and if there had not been equal condemnation of both idolaters and idol-makers, and then Christians must remove themselves from everything that comes into contact with the idolatrous cult: they are obliged to do this by accepted baptism, where a person is denied Satan and all his works and service to him. But “do we deny Satan and all his works, knowingly preparing idols? How can we say that we reject them, living not only by them, but also with them? Do we refuse their vestments when we acquire clothing for ourselves through them? Do you not recognize with your tongue the one you recognize with your hands, so to speak? Can you destroy with words what you create with deeds? Can you profess faith in one God while making many gods?” Even if the makers of idols do not worship them, it is all the same - the insult to God is the same; in the fabrication of idols, a person devotes all his strength and abilities to them and thereby makes a better sacrifice for them than the pagans themselves. “You,” says Tertullian, “turning to the maker of idols, you worship them, because without you they would not exist. You kindle with them not the fire of a despicable sacrifice, but the fire of your genius; you give them not the life of any animal, but your own soul; you sacrifice to them your talent, your labor; You make libation offerings for them after your face. You are more important than the priest among the false gods, because through you they get priests; your labor is their glory. You think that by doing them you are not bowing to them; and they consider you their admirer, because you bring them the richest, fattest sacrifice, the sacrifice of your salvation” 1420. “It is bitter to see how Christians, leaving idols for a while, come to our church, from the demon’s workshop come to the house of God, raise their hands to their Creator, who recently made idols, fold before God their hands, defiled outside the church by touching them, stretch out their hands to the body of the Lord, creating the bodies of demons, desecrate holy gifts, accepting them from others and even distributing them to others” 1421. This again shows the betrayal of the Savior; here again - and not just once, but every day - sacrilegious hands are stretched out to crucify the Son of God. “It would be better to cut off these sacrilegious hands!..” 1422. Many crafts, according to Tertullian, come into contact with idolatry, many of them serve idolatry; If we take into account that all crafts are in contact with each other, then we can directly say that all crafts can serve idolatry - the plasterer, the painter, the sculptor, and the sculptor - all can bring their labor and time to the service of idols. Such service to idols should not be among Christian artisans. If artisans refer in this case to material benefits, then they can be advised to turn their work to the needs of private individuals, and not idols. With the prevailing general luxury, one cannot expect a shortage of sales of works of art; on the contrary, artisans will receive more material benefits from working for private people than from working for idols 1423. Among the occupations favorable to idolatry, Tertullian includes many professions as being in contact with idolatry; he condemns: a) Astrology and Magic. Astrology is of pagan origin, and it is impossible to continue studying it in Christianity. Tertullian argues that astrologers in their astrological studies are likened to fallen angels who withdrew from God to deceive the human race and were cursed by God. Astrologers did not find any special favor among people: they were expelled from the Roman Empire, they were prohibited from entering not only Rome, but also the whole of Italy. Magic and astrology - related to each other - came from the East and with the appearance of the Savior in the world they lost their meaning and authority - the gifts of magicians to the born Savior indicated the end of the existence of magic and the beginning for magicians of a new life, a different path (Matthew 2:12), i.e. the path of good and true teaching. Magic, in the person of some of its followers, was already punished by the apostles and therefore astrology, as a part of magic, was also condemned. “And so, from the time the Gospel appeared, all kinds of sophists, astrologers, charmers, magicians, sorcerers must inevitably be given up to exemplary execution” 1424. b) School teaching of literature. School teachers and literature professors in general are close to idolatry: by studying and teaching pagan mythology, explaining it and pagan festivals and celebrations, they naturally must take one or another attitude towards mythology and paganism; the first payment received from students should be dedicated to Minerva; further receiving money or further earning bread in this way (from paganism and idolatry) defiles them; teachers are obliged to take part in many pagan celebrations, etc. In a word, teachers everywhere come into contact with paganism and partly take part in its cult. But is it really necessary to completely abandon literature, despite the fact that it gives education to a person? Tertullian finds that studying literature and teaching it are two completely different things. You can study it. Here the Christian, by studying it on his own, is safe from everything from which he cannot be safe as a teacher. And in this case, however, Tertullian advises, first of all, to study the truth, and then begin to study everything else - then paganism will not affect him in a harmful way, then the Christian will be like a learned man who takes poison from others and knows what to do with it without harming himself and others 1425. c) Trade. The motivation for trade is the love of money and the passion for profit (and the love of money and covetousness, according to the Apostle, is idolatry and the root of all evil) 1426, the means are lies and perjury; both are forbidden by God. Then, trade is reprehensible because merchants are suppliers of everything that is needed for the idolatrous cult and thus promote idolatry, they contribute even more than the makers of idols - idolatry can be performed without idols, by simply burning incense, just as it was in ancient times, when there were no idols yet, and the smoking of incense already existed; Consequently, for idolatry, the goods of the merchant are more necessary than the idols themselves, and, consequently, the merchant or seller of them turns out to be most guilty here. Finally, the very conscience, the moral consciousness of a Christian does not allow him to engage in trade. So, “no art, no knowledge, no trade that contributes to the making of idols and to the establishment of their dominion is exempt from the charge of idolatry - idolatry is nothing more than serving idols, or providing services to them.” 1427. All this, after accepting Christianity, must be abandoned and, out of love for God, endure everything that may be encountered in life 1428. hoping, in any case, for the mercy of God and praying to God that our needs will not bring us closer to idolatry 1429. Along with the above, Tertullian condemns many other things that were pagan in nature or even a shadow of it, and warns Christians against participating in various rites, ceremonies, etc., related to paganism. He stops his gaze and examines in more or less detail: a) Spectacles 1430. The spectacles were especially popular in the world of that time; as it seems, Christians sometimes appeared in theaters and circuses and were present in them, if not as actors, then as spectators. Realizing the harm of Christians visiting spectacles and seeing in them a reflection of paganism and serving idols, Tertullian devotes a special treatise to spectacles “de spectaculis”, in which he indicates the various motives given by Christians to justify their presence at spectacles, refuting them and explaining the behavior of Christians regarding spectacles, so that the impossibility of Christians to attend spectacles is more clearly visible, Tertullian indicates the source of the origin of spectacles, their nature - is visible everywhere in them idolatry, service to Satan and his minions. Christians, by their very name and by virtue of the vows given at baptism, must live and act in accordance with Christian teaching and their moral consciousness, in accordance with the will of God; they must avoid everything that could, in one way or another, disturb their conscience; following the rules of faith and the principles of truth and due to the requirements of decorum, we must move away from spectacles, as well as from all the madness of this age, so as not to sin either out of ignorance or out of pretense 1431. Various considerations were cited to justify visiting shows - circus and theater. Some said that spectacles produce an impression only on the eyes and ears; no harm can come from them to the soul: “God cannot be offended by such amusement, in the midst of which a person retains fear and due respect for his Lord,” - spectacles are innocent entertainment for a person. Tertullian calls such a justification a dream that does not meet the requirements of true religion, a dangerous delusion that drowns out obedience to the true God 1432. Others pointed out that Christians, who must constantly remember death, withdraw from spectacles out of cowardice, for fear that the entertainment they receive should not chain them excessively to life and deprive them of that courageous patience for which the martyrs were famous; By refusing spectacles, as well as any entertainment in general, Christians insensitively broke ties with the world; it was easier for them to part with it later: it is known that for those who enjoyed these amusements for a long time, it was extremely difficult to die for Christ. – Tertullian finds such a thought not useless for a Christian, but at the same time considers it simple human forethought 1433. These should not be the motives of Christian life and activity 1434. Still others said that spectacles can be enjoyed without offending God the Creator. God created everything in the world and gave it to man for use; and since everything created by God is good, therefore the use of God’s creation, and, consequently, spectacles, cannot be considered contrary to the will of God. It is true that God created everything, His creatures are good; but it is not always good to use them; the natural purpose and use of everything is good, but improper use cannot be considered in agreement with the will of God - there is a great difference between normal and abnormal. A sword, poison, etc. may be useful, but if used incorrectly and unnaturally, they can cause significant harm (a sword, poison, etc. are creations of God, therefore, good; the same sword and poison used for murder are certainly harmful) “Things are bad only by their bad use” 1435. And just as the righteous use of everything is good, in accordance with the will of the Creator, so the bad use is not good, contrary to the will of God, committed to please the devil. “The devil was indignant that man had received power over creatures, and therefore decided to snatch this power from his hands in order to use it to make man guilty 1436. To confirm his thought, Tertullian refers to St. Scripture, precisely on the 1st verse of the 1st Psalm, explains this place in the application to the spectacles of 1437; refers to the vows Christians made in the baptismal font. At baptism, a person professes the Christian faith and promises to renounce Satan and all his works. Satan's chief reign is in idolatry; and since the spectacles are based on idolatry and are completely imbued with an idolatrous cult, it is clear that Satan reigns in them - “of the spectacles, idolatry was like a sacrifice to Satan and his angels; here is the throne of the unclean spirit and the seat of wickedness.” The origin of each spectacle, the name of each of them, their structure, accompanied by many superstitions, the various circumstances of their dedication to any deity, their very ideas, etc. - everything confirms this idea of ​​their identity with the idolatrous cult 1438. The beginning of the spectacles lies in deep pagan antiquity, their origin is connected with the establishment of some kind of festival, the dedication of a temple to a deity or any other religious motives (the fact that each of the spectacles is dedicated to a deity is indicated by their very names) 1439. Other spectacles are set in memory of one or another event in political or social life. There are spectacles that are established by private individuals and for private reasons, for example, in memory of deceased relatives to express reverence for them and to show that they are fulfilling their duty towards them. In a word, whatever the spectacles may be, whether they are celebrated in honor of the gods or in memory of the dead, they all represent idolatry in their genesis and name 1440. Performances in circuses, theaters, etc. and their environment indicate the same idolatry 1441 and outrage the moral consciousness of a Christian. For example, the theater: dedicated to Venus and Bacchus, these inseparable companions, it is a school of drunkenness and debauchery 1442. Both the amphitheater and the arena for athletic competitions in 1443 were marked with an idolatrous character. Hence, having renounced everything idolatrous, Christians should not take part in these spectacles and be present at them, so as not only to keep their soul, but also their external senses pure and undefiled by such spectacles, since all the impressions received by the external senses are transmitted to the soul and produce one or another influence on it 1444, disturbing the spirit of the believer. It is impossible to imagine that a person, being present at the spectacles, remained an indifferent spectator of them, did not experience emotional disturbances - “where there is pleasure, there is passion, otherwise the pleasure will not be pleasant,” and without pleasant pleasures there is nothing for a person to do at the spectacles 1445. This can be said about all spectacles in general, whether they are in a theater, or a circus, or an amphitheater 1446. Tertullian makes several comments about the attitude of the pagans themselves towards the characters in the performances, and from here he again draws the same conclusion that Christians do not need to get carried away by spectacles. The inconsistency of the pagans, by the way, in their attitude towards artists is amazing: they condemn what in other cases they approve, and vice versa. “The rulers of the republic, judges and managers of games deprive circus actors, athletes, comedians, gladiators of any honorary title (that is, those same merrymakers to whom noble Roman ladies sacrifice their hearts, and often their very bodies, entering into shameful relationships with them, although such relationships are publicly condemned), do not give them any rights and dignity either in the courts or in the Senate, neither in patricianship, nor in any other positions. They declare them dishonest, and yet willingly attend their games; they love those they punish; they despise those whom they approve of; the work is praised, but the doer is disgraced. What a strange judgment - to dishonor a person for the very thing for which he is honored, or better to say, what a silent consciousness of an evil deed, when the one who carries out it, no matter how much pleasure he gives, indulges in dishonor! 1447. Is it to this impermanence that a Christian will turn? And won't he then become like a warrior - a defector from one camp - his own - to another - the enemy's? What harm to man, what an insult to God this transition represents! 1448 Can there be anything in common between light and darkness, life and death? A Christian cannot be at these meetings where the name of God is blasphemed, where there is visible concern about handing over Christians to be torn to pieces by wild beasts, etc. 1449. Let Christians be surrounded on all sides by idolatry; they must always and everywhere remember God and the high purpose and calling of man, mentally imagine an omniscient and just God, and turn away from idolatry, in whatever form it may appear 1450. Christians cannot have fun with the pagans - the time for fun and celebrations has not yet come for them: the pagans are now in joy and joy, Christians are in sadness. The time will come when the roles will change: Christians will rejoice, and pagans, together with their actors, athletes, gays, etc., who amused them, will sigh. The joy of this world is fleeting, so Christians do not need to chase pleasures and entertainment that bring this joy, but strive to achieve heavenly eternal joy 1451. It sometimes happens that good things are presented in theaters; but one cannot be deluded by this - poison is usually combined not with bitterness, but with sweet, tasty substances; pleasant sights are honey poisoned with poison 1452. True pleasures are brought not by these spectacles, but by Christianity: knowledge of the truth, withdrawal from the world, enjoyment of true freedom, holiness of life, trampling upon pagan gods, casting out demons, gifts of miraculous healing and heavenly revelations, etc. - these are a number of pleasures that cannot be replaced by entertainment with a pagan character. Need other pleasures and spectacles? And they are in Christianity. “If you are seduced by poetry, you have many other books besides the pagan ones, you have many beautiful poems, quite excellent teachings, quite hymns, quite musical choirs. Do you need battles, battles, victories? Christianity will present you with them in abundance: look how impurity is overthrown by chastity, deceit is overcome by faith, cruelty is overcome by mercy, violence is overthrown by humility - these are the battles characteristic of Christians! Do you want to see the blood shed? you have the saving blood of I. Christ" 1453. But especially, what a spectacle it will be when all the nations of the earth gather together and see the Lord filled with glory and majesty, when the glory of the saints is revealed, the reward of the righteous will be given - an eternal reign in the new Jerusalem, eternal punishment for the unbelievers and the wicked among the dark abysses of hell. “These spectacles infinitely surpass all the imaginary pleasures of the circus, theater, amphitheater, etc., which vanity has invented for spectacles” 1454. b) Festivals and celebrations. There were Christians who, in one way or another, took part in pagan celebrations of some sort. Tertullian, who set out to trace the entire life of a Christian, where it comes into contact with paganism, also touches on this side of it. He finds that the participation of Christians in such festivities, whether out of pleasure or out of fear of pagans, is contrary to the Christian religion and amounts to participation in idolatry. The general rule that there can be nothing in common between light and darkness, life and death applies here too - to all pagan celebrations in general, and to special cases where Christians came into contact with pagans. On certain days of the year, payments were made to debtors. Tertullian finds that timing the time of reckoning with the pagans to coincide with a certain day, combined with superstitions and arising from them, should not be allowed by Christians, so as not to participate in superstitions through this. “If you desecrate your conscience to please another, then you forget that you are a Christian,” says Tertullian, “and allow yourself to be tempted and carried away; if you seduce your neighbor, then you are not a Christian. All such twists and turns will not help you avoid condemnation" 1455. Christians argued that they were doing this to avoid blasphemy and censure from the pagans. Tertullian condemns this excuse: should we really stop being Christians so that people stop slandering us? Let them slander us better, if only we remain on the true path and do not deviate from it, if only we are subjected to testing and not rejection; Such censure serves to praise Christians; it only proves that a Christian is a Christian not only in name, but in reality. True, just as the Apostle himself was all things (1 Cor. 9:22), so we can be all things. But just as the Apostle himself, when dealing with the pagans, never became a pagan, so we, maintaining contact with the pagans, should not sin, should not violate our moral duty and sacrifice our religious and moral convictions. We are all brothers in humanity, similar in soul, but not in faith; We live in the world, but we do not share its delusions. We take part in pagan festivals - and we act illogically; pagans act much more thoroughly: they do not participate in Christian holidays. Are there really not enough Christian holidays? If we take only one Pentecost, then it will more than cover in number all the pagan annual holidays of 1456. During their festivals, the pagans decorated and illuminated their homes. Looking at them, the Christians did the same. Tertullian finds this illumination and this decoration of Christian houses to be in contact with paganism, since the decoration is done in honor of the gods to whom, for example, doors, jambs, etc. were dedicated in paganism. d.; if they are performed in honor of Caesars, then they cannot be justified: one must render the things that are Caesar’s that are Caesar’s, and the things that are God’s that are God’s (Matthew 22:21), that is, tribute to Caesar (and not divine honor), and to God the honor due to Him, in other words: to Caesar money, and to God oneself. An example of the attitude of Christians towards emperors is provided by the three Babylonian youths and Daniel, who combined their strong faith with submission to the king 1457. – Tertullian looks more condescendingly, not to say condescendingly, at family celebrations. He does not connect dressing in a white toga, conspiracies, weddings, celebrations on the occasion of naming a baby, etc. with idolatry, and considers all this to be innocent. Clothing this or that is an indifferent matter, therefore, dressing in a white toga does not represent anything special. God did not prohibit fun at weddings and when naming a baby; therefore, this fun can be allowed, as long as nothing idolatrous, for example, sacrifice, is brought in here on our part (and we don’t care about others - let them do whatever they want) 1458 . Even among pagans, Christians can accept invitations to such celebrations and participate in these celebrations, as long as they remain faithful to their duty and do not incline towards anything idolatrous 1459. c) The relationship of slaves and generally subordinate people to their pagan masters and the highest government positions. In the service of Christians to pagan higher officials, according to Tertullian, one must keep in mind the historical example of how the ancient patriarchs and New Testament believers behaved. Often occupying high positions under pagan kings, they remained faithful to the true God, fulfilling everything that was required by the highest authority, unless this all went against their religious beliefs. “A Christian can remain innocent, going through the path of honors and ranks (if these honors and ranks, or the highest government positions were granted to a Christian), as long as he does not make sacrifices, does not contribute to sacrifices, does not provide animals for this, does not make efforts to maintain churches either by himself or through others, does not collect income for their benefit, does not give games either at his own expense or at the expense of treasury, did not preside over them, did not institute feasts, did not pronounce oaths, did not pronounce sentences on anyone’s life or honor (except for criminals), did not judge, did not condemn, did not imprison anyone in chains or prisons, did not torture anyone innocently.” Having furnished the Christian invested with high power with such conditions, Tertullian leaves it to him to decide whether it is possible for a Christian to fulfill all this or not 1460. d) The question of the clothes and attire of the mighty of the earth. Since ancient times, various peoples have had special clothes and decorations corresponding to a certain rank or position of a person in a state or society. These clothes, in their meaning, did not represent anything special or reprehensible, and they could be used, as Daniel, Joseph and other biblical figures used them; but since subsequently they began to have a close connection with the idolatrous cult, therefore Christians cannot look at them with indifference. These clothes clothe idols and are thereby desecrated; some of them are appropriated to them as an inalienable accessory; can a Christian, therefore, make use of them? One cannot appear clean by wearing an unclean tunic; “If you put on an unclean tunic,” says Tertullian, addressing a Christian, “perhaps you won’t dirty it, but it will dirty you.” These clothes indicate power; the example of I. Christ shows that even with such a meaning, these clothes are indecent for Christians to use. “He (I. Christ) had simple, rough clothes, and He provided those living in the royal palaces to clothe themselves in luxurious attire. If He did not exercise authority over His disciples, whose feet, on the contrary, He washed, if He renounced the kingdom, knowing His rights to it, then He did this in order to show His disciples how to deal with celebrity, pomp and power”; if He removed from Himself all this external pomp and splendor, it means that He considered it alien and unnecessary for Himself and for His own. “Therefore, He rejected what He did not want; what he rejected, he condemned; and what he condemned, he handed over to Satan and his minions.” Hence, the conclusion is that a Christian should not wear such magnificent clothes and decorations that indicate power, should not strive for power and the honors associated with it, hostile and hostile to God - this is often used as a cover for the persecutors and tormentors of Christians 1461. e) Pronunciation of the names of pagan gods. It is allowed by Tertullian when the name of a pagan god is not combined with the idea of ​​his divine dignity (for example: I live at the crossroads of Isis, etc.); but when the same or similar concept of God that the pagans have is connected with the name of a pagan god, then it is certainly prohibited by Tertullian. Hence, an oath by pagan gods should not be allowed by a Christian 1462, just as listening to such an oath and anger at a person uttering a curse in the name or name of a pagan god should not be allowed (if we are angry for this curse, then we thereby already recognize the pagan god as God); a Christian should laugh at such impotent curses, and not be irritated by them 1463; Moreover, he must openly point out the unreasonableness of such a curse, even if through this he had to confess himself as a Christian and suffer 1464. A Christian should not come into contact with an idolatrous cult in mutual relations with pagans, for example, when borrowing money from pagans and signing a pledge document read according to a pagan formula. Even if the Christian himself does not read it, he listens to it in silence and with his signature expresses his consent to it. “Is it possible to sign something so that the soul does not dictate words, even if the tongue does not pronounce them?.. Intention, consciousness produces sin,” and not just words and deeds - you can do this or that, express your thoughts in one way or another, without resorting to pronouncing words orally (for example, Luke 1:63) 1465. In many ways, Tertullian found a pagan character, he found much in disagreement with Christian consciousness - everywhere there was darkness, everywhere there was danger from paganism. Where and what is the hope and means to avoid the danger and possibility of becoming infected with idolatry? “Among so many pitfalls and rocks, the ship of faith unfurls its sails and rushes forward, driven by the Holy Spirit. He swims safely when prudence and jealousy are his pilots; but as soon as you rise above the board, the inevitable whirlwind of idolatry is ready to overthrow you; every wave of it is deadly, every abyss brings it down to hell. Hence, it is better, if necessary, to renounce the world, it is better to leave it and remain a Christian, rather than live in the world and fall into idolatry... We must, therefore, turn all our efforts to removing ourselves from idolatry.” Christian consciousness demands this, the law of Christ demands the same, and it demands it the more powerfully and persistently; its fulfillment should be the stricter, the simpler the law itself and the more clearly it separates Christians from pagans. In order to have a stronger effect on his readers and to highlight more clearly the incompatibility of idolatry with Christianity, Tertullian draws a small parallel between Noah’s Ark and the Church of Christ. “Noah took a raven and a kite into his ark, he took a wolf, a dog, a tiger; but did not accept idolatry - idolatry has no prototype in nature. Whatever is not accepted into the ark should not be accepted into the church,” which Noah’s ark prefigured 1466. 6. Persecution, martyrdom and fasting The source of the origin of persecution and its significance in the life of Christians. Persecution should not be avoided under any circumstances, either directly or through bribery and patronage of influential persons. Martyrdom, its purpose, and meaning. Means for enduring torment: the gracious help of God, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, on the part of man - fasting, which gradually prepares a Christian for martyrdom, hence the special benefit of fasting during persecution. The third century of the Christian era, like the previous and subsequent centuries, was a century of persecution of Christians by pagans, with the only difference being that it absorbed more victims of pagan fanaticism than other centuries (each separately). The stronger the persecution, the more insistently the question was put forward and demanded its solution: how should Christians relate to the rage of the pagans? This question was all the more natural because there were examples of the unequal attitude of Christians to persecution: some steadfastly and courageously endured everything that they were subjected to by the persecutors, and were martyrs and confessors of the faith; others fainted under the weight of torture, weakened, and became apostates; or perhaps the apostasy of some of them was a consequence of the desire to receive some kind of mercies from the pagans, certain earthly benefits; still others, not relying on their strengths, without trying them, completely evaded persecution, either by fleeing to places safe from persecution, or thanks to bribery of the pagans and the patronage of the powers that be. The first considered their heroism to be consistent with the title of Christian, the fulfillment of their duty; those who departed from the faith for one reason or another, of course, tried to justify themselves only by the weakness of human nature; and those avoiding persecution looked for excuses for themselves both in their own eyes and their conscience, and in the eyes of other people. The example of the former, their heroism, of course, greatly influenced believers (it is enough to remember with what reverence Christians treated the martyrs and their remains, to point out what an impression the steadfastness of Christians in torment made even on unprejudiced pagans, to note the frequent cases of pagans converting to Christianity thanks to this very impression); the example of the latter aroused hesitation and doubt in the believers about the sincerity of the faith of those who shied away from confessing the faith and suffering; the apostates aroused at least regret, and perhaps that feeling of bitterness that a person has when his expectations and hopes are not fulfilled. Some had to be encouraged, others had to be consoled, and others had to be given instructions appropriate to the time and circumstances. The divergence of Christians’ attitudes towards persecution naturally created discord in their very views on persecution: whether due to their convictions, or some other excusable reasons, some sought torture and the crown of martyrdom, others refused in their negation even the crown of martyrdom, others shunned torture, were afraid of torture and ran away from it. What is the correct view of persecution? How to behave during persecution? what is the moral price of martyrdom? Does persecution agree with the will of God? etc. - these are the questions that, apparently, others have thought about and could not more or less definitely and categorically resolve them. A certain Fabius, whom Tertullian calls brother (of course, by faith) 1467, turned to Tertullian to resolve such and similar questions. For the first time, Fabius asked Tertullian two questions: how to deal with persecution, whether it should be avoided or not, and what is the significance of persecution in general? Sensitive to all movements of modern Christian thought, not leaving without attention a single question directly or indirectly proposed to him, Tertullian writes a whole treatise on these issues, lib. de fuga in persecutione. An answer to Fabius’s questions was all the more to be expected from Tertullian, since this answer could serve as an expression of Tertullian’s rigorism and coincided with his spiritual structure; here Tertullian could unfold all his strict demands from Christians in this iron age for believers, he could - on occasion - test himself in the dialectical art and apply it to business in solving a favorite question from his moral code. The question of how Christians should act during persecution, it can be reliably assumed, would have been resolved by Tertullian even without any special encouragement from Fabius. The general description of Tertullian as a moralist indicated Tertullian’s view of the world, the life of Christians among the paganism that surrounded them; Tertullian draws this world with unattractive features, looks at it as a kingdom of darkness, a kingdom of the devil, from which it is best to flee 1468, as long as there is a good and glorious outcome. In the age of persecution, martyrdom seemed to Tertullian the best way to move from the earthly vale to the heavenly abodes. This thought, firmly ingrained in Tertullian’s head, would no doubt have poured out even if Fabius had not asked him to do so; Fabius seemed to give one impetus to Tertullian expressing his thoughts. And Fabius’s very request, was it not a request to continue or reproduce some conversation that, perhaps, Tertullian had conducted before this and which, perhaps, Tertullian himself started to express his thoughts and views on the earthly world and persecution? About persecution in general, its purpose and significance in relation to Christians, Tertullian expressed his thoughts and expressed his views in the books “de fuga in persecutione” and “scorpiace”; he outlined encouragement and panegyric to the martyrs who had already been subjected to torture and torment in the book “ad martyres”; his thoughts in the essay “de jejuniis” are about the means to endure torment more easily and less sensitively. We will try to analyze the first three essays together; We will also add here the appropriate part from the book “de jejuniis”. In order to give a more or less accurate and definite answer to the question raised by life and proposed by Fabius, Tertullian, first of all, draws attention to the source of the origin of persecution and its significance in the life of Christians, decides the question of who the persecution comes from: from God or from the devil, since every matter is recognized and assessed when its source is known 1469. Nothing happens without God and the will of God - this is the main position from which one could emerge and on the basis of which the proposed question could be resolved. Tertullian accepts it, but not unconditionally, but with a limitation: if, he says, one accepts it unconditionally, then it is necessary to agree that both evil is from God and crimes (delicta) from God - nothing, therefore, comes from the devil, nothing comes from ourselves. From here - such a starting point alone will not lead to the correct conclusions - you need to pay attention to something else, to the nature of the persecution and their significance. Nothing happens without the will of God, and persecution corresponds to the will of God, is worthy of God, and, so to speak, is necessary for Christians, as are such phenomena where the faith of Christians receives a proper assessment: in them the believer either firmly reveals his faith, or renounces it 1470; in persecutions the church is cleansed: in them the grain heap is winnowed, the bread - martyrs - is separated from the chaff - the negators; persecution is the ladder seen by Jacob, along which some ascend to heaven, others descend to the underworld. Persecution is a struggle (Eph. 6:12); the law of the struggle is usually issued by those who award and give the reward; God awards and gives rewards to the martyrs, therefore, persecution comes from God. In persecution, the martyrs glorify God; and what relates to the glory of God happens according to the will of God. The faith of Christians grows stronger during persecution. Judging humanly, the church should hesitate under persecution; but if you look closer, such hesitation is not noticeable - then believers, on the contrary, are more sensitive to the requirements of religion: they observe fasts better, and perform standing (vigils), and offer prayers more diligently, and show humility more. Considering persecution from this side, one cannot help but admit that it produces the best servants of God and, therefore, comes from God 1471. On the other hand, in persecution one cannot deny the influence and activity of the devil. Persecution is based on untruth, and untruth, like evil, is the work of the devil; Therefore, it turns out that in persecution the active person is the devil, although his actions are not independent and independent. Nothing happens without the will of God; Therefore, we believe that persecution occurs through the devil, but not from the devil - for the true followers of God, the devil is powerless, cannot do anything significant to them on his own, with his power 1472. If the Lord allows the devil to act on people, to cause persecution, it is in order either to defeat the devil through the faith of his servants, to crush his power, or to separate those who have fallen under the power of the devil and belong to him; the devil is given rights or power to the extent necessary to achieve the goal 1473; in a word, the devil is only a tool for man to achieve moral goals 1474. Thus, it turns out that if persecution occurs according to the will and permission of God and pursues a high goal - a test of your faith, then you should not avoid them: you should not avoid what comes from God - on the one hand, on the other hand, it is impossible to avoid what is sent by God 1475. The purpose of persecution is good, and what is good is foolish to avoid. Let others consider persecution a disaster; this does not prove anything - everyone’s view may be erroneous: chastity, truth and truth are, of course, good and useful, and yet not everyone likes them. Even though persecution may be disasters, they have meaning, they lead to salvation, and, therefore, they should not be avoided, especially since they express the will of God, which no one can avoid. “Those who think that persecution should be avoided, or reproach God as the author of evil, if they avoid persecution as a disaster, or consider themselves stronger than God, imagining that they can avoid what should be according to the will of God” 1476. Having expressed general, basic thoughts, a basic view of persecution and the attitude of Christians towards them, Tertullian moves on to reveal the most specific ones. As one would expect from Tertullian the polemicist, judging by his polemical works outlined above, this disclosure of private thoughts is presented in him in the form of answers to objections - whether he actually heard them, or only supposed, possible ones. They say: a person avoids persecution so as not to perish through renunciation; and it is God’s job to keep him from fleeing, if only it pleases God. Analyzing the first half of this objection and relying on the close and inextricable connection between thought, word and deed, Tertullian comes to the conclusion that this objection has no fulcrum. “Are you sure,” says Tertullian, addressing the person offering such an objection, “are you sure that you will renounce if you do not run away, or are you not sure? If you are sure, then you have already renounced - in the very assumption that you will renounce, you have already renounced; hence, out of fear of renunciation and in confidence in it, you flee persecution in vain... If you are not sure, then why don’t you assume that you can openly confess your faith, that you can achieve salvation through this?” Therefore, in this case, you cannot run. If the choice - whether to become a confessor or turn out to be a fugitive, a negator - depends on us, then why not choose the best, confession of faith? What can keep you from doing this? Reluctance to suffer, reluctance to confess? But reluctance to confess faith is tantamount to renouncing it... Answer to the second half of the objection. Let everything depend on the will of God. Then why don’t we surrender ourselves entirely to this will, knowing that God can bring back those who flee and hide those who convert among people? It is better to stand firmly, submitting to the will of God, than to run away, guided by your own will... Tertullian confirms the latter with the example of Rutilius, the “holy martyr,” who moved from place to place several times to avoid torture, even paid off with money, but who was nevertheless captured, tortured and received the crown of martyrdom. “This example,” says Tertullian, “shows clearly that one should not avoid persecution, because flight will not bring any benefit if God does not want it” 1477. They refer to the commandment of the Lord given to the apostles: “When you are persecuted in this city, flee to another” (Matthew 10:22), and in flight from persecution they see only the fulfillment of this divine commandment. Tertullian says that when giving such a commandment, the Savior had in mind well-known persons, and a certain time, and certain deeds. The commandment applied to the Apostles, their time and the conditions of their preaching. The apostles ran, but not because they were afraid of persecution, but because persecution and torment did not delay the spread of the Gospel, they did not run aimlessly and silently, but with the preaching of the Gospel. The Savior's instruction about the flight of the Apostles from city to city concerned only the borders of Judea. How does it apply to Christians who do not have a mission in Judea? The apostles, faithful to the Savior’s commandments to flee to Judea, were persecuted outside Judea, and these persecutions bore abundant fruit 1478. The example of the Apostles in their attitude towards persecution teaches Christians not to shy away from persecution, but to endure it with joy and courage 1479. But did the Lord Himself sometimes withdraw from violence from enemies? True, He withdrew, but withdrew for the same purpose and in the same ways in which He commanded the Apostles to avoid danger. He withdrew until he had completed the work for which he had come to earth; when His mission was completed, He no longer avoided danger, did not ask the Heavenly Father for legions of angels, did not seek human protection, forbade Peter to raise the sword, voluntarily betrayed Himself, and thereby showed us in Himself an example to follow. The Lord cried out: Father, if it is possible, let the cup of suffering pass from Me; but he immediately added: still not as I want, but as You want (Matthew 26:39). Imitating the Lord, a Christian can ask God for freedom from persecution, but he must not forget to submit to the will of God: not as I will, but as You: Thy will be done 1480. Commanding us, as the sons of light, to shine in the world, Christianity thereby teaches us not to hide in flight, like the sons of darkness, but to stand firmly and unshakably in adversity, not to be afraid of persecution, as is characteristic of the weak nature of man 1481. Christianity preaches love; But will the discovery of love be visible if a person avoids persecution and martyrdom for the sake of Him who loved us all with boundless love? 1482 They refer to the well-known expression of pagan wisdom that must be suitable for the fugitives: ανήρ ό φεύγων κ αί παλιν μαχήσεται 1483. To this reference, Tertullian makes the comment in a joking tone: “will the fugitive fight again, so that perhaps he can escape again?” Applying this to Christians, Tertullian doubts that “he was a good soldier of Christ who, fully armed with the Apostle, hearing the trumpet sound of persecution, left the day of persecution.” – Since the opponents presented the basis for avoiding persecution from pagan wisdom, then Tertullian for a moment takes the same ground and, in rebuff to the above expression, presents another expression - from Virgil’s Aeneid: “When, finally, is it not a pity to die?” 1484. One way or another, you have to die; it is more desirable and natural to die in a better and more honorable manner. Let a Christian fall in persecution - and this fall in torment will still be given credit to him - he died in the struggle. A warrior lost in battle is more glorious than one who escapes. All Christians are recruited into the army of Christ; they must be true warriors, ready to endure anything for Christ, no matter what; in baptism they renounced the devil - they should not go over to his side again through flight; received the power to cast out demons, they should no longer fear them; destined to judge the world - they must not fear the world and flee it, even if they have to suffer in it, they must endure everything that is determined by God - you cannot escape God anywhere, as can be seen from one example of Jonah, who could not escape from the eyes of God... 1485 They refer to the fact that it is not only ordinary Christians (lay people) who avoid persecution - the shepherds of the church also avoid them 1486. - True, there are such shepherds; but shepherds who leave their flock are no longer shepherds, but mercenaries (John 10:12) - by their flight they already separate themselves from the flock; they have already been expelled from the house of God, like shepherds who leave their flock in the difficult times of its life to be plundered by spiritual wolves, condemned by the Lord, and, therefore, cannot serve as an example for the flock 1487. The issue of flight is resolved by Tertullian in a negative sense; One should not avoid persecution in any case - neither ordinary laity, nor, especially, hierarchical persons. But is it not possible to avoid persecution not by direct and open flight, but through patronage or money - ransom? The example of Rutilius presented above shows that there must have been cases when Christians, sparing their bellies, avoided persecution through various bribes and gifts to the powerful of this world and those with the power of physical life and death, and using connections with influential persons. Having set out to consider the issue of flight comprehensively, Tertullian dwells on the question posed and devotes a lot of space to resolving it. It is not difficult to foresee Tertullian's view of these ransoms and patronages. If persecution cannot be avoided under any circumstances, then one cannot free oneself from it through commercial transactions with the persecutors. A monetary ransom is the same as flight; the only difference is that flight is a free ransom, ransom is flight paid for in money 1488. A man redeems a man with money; Is it possible to redeem with money someone whom the Lord Himself redeemed with His blood? Is it possible to redeem Christ in a redeemed person? This ransom is simony, a sin equal to the sin of Simon the Magus. The ransom, like flight, is the result of reluctance or fear to confess Christ - on the one hand, on the other - the desire for profit (on the part of the pagans, who have the opportunity to bring Christians before the Areopagus tormentors), is a violation of the main idea underlying all persecution. The ransom is equal to a Christian’s recognition of himself as a Christian before one and the renunciation of Christ before many. The ransom - renunciation of martyrdom, renunciation of Christ - is possible as long as the Christian has money; and when there is no money? A Christian who redeems himself from torment is a slave serving God and wealth (and, according to the Savior’s word, it is impossible to serve God and wealth at the same time); Moreover, such a Christian shows by his ransom that he serves greater wealth, through it he hopes to receive and receives freedom from torment... How can a self-ransoming Christian justify himself? The example of the Apostles? but they never resorted to ransom, although they could not lack money - they did not allow ransom either for themselves or for their disciples who would like to free them from their bonds: may the will of God be done (Acts 21:14), the will of God - to endure for Christ, as He endured for us, to endure for our neighbors for His sake - this is how they treated persecution! Because with their ransom they bring benefit and fulfill the commandment to give what is due? But who benefits from ransom money? Exchequer? - she is already rich, she never has ransom money in her budget. For private individuals? - because of this, it is not worth spending money... No matter how many reasons and gospel passages are given to confirm the need to give what is demanded, they all do not confirm this necessity: you can and should give, but only as alms and due, and not forced by threats or forced, and, moreover, to give in the amount in which you can, and not in the amount that is demanded. Redeemed by Christ, Christians no longer have to pay a new ransom for themselves, or turn this ransom into some kind of tax; must render, according to the commandment of the Savior, God to the Gods, that is, surrender all of oneself to God, not sparing one’s life 1489. – An example of other Christians who resort to ransom? Such Christians cannot serve as an example for others, just as some Christians - industrialists, sometimes industrialists of a low and more or less shameful character - do not form an example 1490. - In no case should a Christian resort to ransom and place his trust in material means: He must be strong in faith, and not in money, prudent in wisdom, and not in the payment and services of others - money here is a superfluous matter 1491. Thus, if it is illegal and inconsistent with the will of God and the requirement of Christian common sense to both flee during persecution and evade them through patronage or monetary transactions with persecutors, then it is already clear how Christians should relate to persecution: if it turns out to be necessary, if they have to appear before the tormentors, they must appear as firm, unshakable confessors of faith in Christ, even if this confession had to be sealed with their blood 1492. Persecution, profession of faith, martyrdom are different moments of the same act: they all have the same meaning for Christianity, they pursue the same moral goal; all of them serve as a counterbalance, counteraction to paganism, idolatry, they represent examples of the battle against idolatry - with special supernatural grace-filled help, they free us from idolatry, and break off any Christian connection with them. In martyrdom lies life, in idolatry death; martyrdom through physical death leads to bliss, idolatry through the preservation of temporary life leads to eternal death. Hence, it is unreasonable to reject what saves (martyrdom) and accept what destroys (denial of martyrdom, idolatry). Martyrdom is the cure for modern ills. Even if it is a difficult medicine, the greater the freedom from moral illnesses it will bring. They do not deny the benefits and importance of healing, no matter how painful it may sometimes be; they are grateful to the doctor after recovery, no matter what painful operations he performs during treatment, operations for which patients sometimes almost curse the doctor. Why do they deny the benefits of martyrdom? – In martyrdom, the all-good will of God is expressed, wanting to save fallen man. Through disobedience to the will of God, man became ripe for death and deserved death; but the Lord comes to his aid, gives him the means to overcome sin, to trample on the power of the devil as the conqueror of man. One of these means, strong and effective means, is martyrdom 1493. Persecution, bringing torment to a person, thereby calls him to glory, and this glory, the reward for martyrdom, drowns out all suffering, encourages him to neglect these relatively minor tortures in order to receive eternal painlessness, eternal bliss outside the grave. This motive - glory and bliss - is a strong motive: it produces amazing heroism even in the sons of this age, and this heroism evokes thunderous applause from eyewitnesses. “Look with what zeal our cities celebrate battles and ceremonial battles, invented and supported by a passion for pleasure... All the surrounding villages still resound with their applause for Carthage, which was once awarded the championship at the Pythian games. Thus, at all times, people believed that in order to excite competition, give strength to the body and elevate the voice, it is appropriate to indicate the goal of a reward to athletes, appoint spectators as judges for them, and present pleasure as a bait. At this price, all the torment, all the wounds of the athletes are redeemed: they allow themselves to be beaten, twisted, tormented, torn into pieces, stained with blood. Is there even one who would think of reproaching judges for allowing people to commit such violence against each other? Outside of competition, they may demand redress for an insult; but here the blows and ulcers disappear under the dazzling charm of wreaths and applause, awards and public honors, images and statues, the hope of surviving oneself in the memory of people and the dreamy immortality of one’s name. Have you ever heard of an athlete complaining about his injuries? That's right, never, because he himself is looking for them. The wreath hides his wounds, the palm tree makes his blood invisible; he is excited (tumet) more by victory than by injustice. Do you really consider someone whom you see so cheerful (laetum) offended (laesum)? Mutilated, he will in no case reproach the chairman of the games - the judge (agonotheta) for his injuries. Is it not proper for God to offer us these instructions and exploits (artes et disciplinas), to open this arena of this century, a spectacle to people, angels and all authorities, to test body and soul in firmness and patience, to give one a palm, another honor, this citizenship, that other rewards, to condemn some, and those punished shall be expelled with disgrace." A person must strive for the height of moral perfection, move from one stage of this perfection to another; One of these stages is martyrdom, which must be achieved and not avoided. Let a person lose his life in martyrdom, sacrifice everything; this speaks only in favor of martyrdom: “sacrificing everything that is dear to you, body and soul, a person puts only his capital in the treasury in order to receive interest on interest, spends it in order to acquire more and more - the reward corresponds to the price” 1494. Opponents rejected martyrdom, finding it inconsistent with the idea of ​​an all-good God and the requirement of a universal human sense of preserving one’s life; they saw martyrdom as an act of violence. Tertullian says in view of this view: a person in martyrdom voluntarily betrays himself for God, and not as a result of external, extraneous violence, betrays himself in the name of love, and not under some kind of coercion: love is the basis of martyrdom. Consequently, persecution and martyrdom cannot be viewed as cruelty on the part of God 1495, a thirst for human blood. God thirsts for blood just as man thirsts for salvation; He demands sacrifice from man, having first presented an example of such a sacrifice in the sacrifice of his only begotten Son 1496. It is in vain that only Christianity is accused of martyrdom. Human sacrifices are not only found in Christianity - paganism with its religious cults shows that in it, too, human sacrifices were made to appease the angry gods, and, however, no one complains about the cruelty of the pagan gods who accept such sacrifices, on the contrary - everyone considered themselves happy if they turned out to be a suitable victim for the gods... Christians alone, therefore, cannot sacrifice themselves to God! 1497 Martyrdom as a result of confession of faith, prescribed by God 1498 in Holy Scripture 1499, embodied in biblical examples 1500; persecution and martyrdom have models for themselves in the New Testament of I. Christ and His Apostles 1501, who, enduring torment, gave for their part a direct commandment on how to relate to persecution (Matt. 5:10 - 12; 10:16 - 18. 21. 22. 24. 28 - 33; 1 Pet. 2:20. 21; 4:12. 16; 1 John 3:18; Rev. 2:10, etc.) 1502 Therefore, martyrdom should not be avoided in any way. Martyrdom is a confession of faith in God; refusal of martyrdom is equal to renunciation of God. “A person devoted to Christianity recognizes himself as a disciple of Christ; whoever belongs to Christ abides in Him; Christ abides in him, and he in Christ. Therefore, whoever confesses or denies that he is a Christian already confesses Christ or renounces Him.” Due to the close connection between a person’s internal mood and his external behavior and the complete dependence of one on the other, the necessity of confessing faith and the fear of renunciation seems obvious. External confession flows from internal reverence and in turn testifies to reverence. “Reverence for God dies within before the outward appearance weakens.” Hence, the one who renounces martyrdom by his renunciation shows that he does not have an internal Christian mood - he is no longer a Christian in his soul, even if he remains one in appearance 1503. As if wanting to strengthen the meaning of martyrdom and give more motives for enduring torture, Tertullian again and with somewhat different features outlines martyrdom. Confession of faith in connection with martyrdom opens the doors of heaven, earthly torment prepares bliss in heaven 1504: “a martyr, dying at the confession of faith, losing temporary life, gains eternal life.” The confessor of faith is under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit 1505. The souls of the martyrs, according to the Apocalypse, rest under the altar in heavenly Jerusalem, feeding on the hope that they will be avenged, and, clothed in white robes, they wait until their detractors and their brothers, who suffered beatings, will die, just as they did. They came from great tribulation, and washed away their garments, and made their garments white in the blood of the Lamb (Rev. 7:14). The clothing of the soul is flesh. Its defilements (sordes) are washed away by baptism, but its stains (maculae) are whitened by martyrdom” 1506. Due to his basic high view of persecution and martyrdom, Tertullian sees and affirms in martyrdom during persecution the only death worthy of a Christian, the solemn exit of a person from this stuffy world to the heavenly abodes. Hence, Tertullian’s fiery speech addressed to the confessors of Christ, the martyrs in chains, is understandable; the halo with which Tertullian surrounds the martyrs, already imprisoned and close to the martyr’s crown, is understandable. The earthly world is the kingdom of darkness, the kingdom of Satan; every Christian must flee from it, strive to move from it to the heavenly abodes, and the more glorious and solemn, the better. The best transition is martyrdom. Christian confessors usually, before their martyrdom, were imprisoned and there they languished with cold and hunger, were subjected to torture and various other troubles. Prison life is a life full of hardships. It is not without reason that the belief has developed that only notorious villains, monsters of the human race can be imprisoned; prison is a nest, a gathering place for everything bad. That is why Tertullian, addressing his words of consolation and encouragement to confessors of the faith in prison, first of all concerns prison life itself, defines the nature of this life for the true followers of God, draws out the advantages of the life of confessors of Christ in prison over their life outside the walls of prison, etc. The prison, says Tertullian, is often the fortress of the devil, his kingdom; ministers and slaves of the devil are imprisoned in it; but this only happens often, but not always. For true Christians, confessors of the faith, prison is a wonderful place where the enemy of the human race is most solemnly defeated (defeated in his very kingdom), where mutual peace and mutual love reign between the martyrs, which are often violated in everyday life outside the walls of prison; where a person renounces everything that chains him to the world 1507. Apparently entering a prison, a confessor of faith is in fact only emerging from prison - this world, incomparably worse than prison. “Is your prison dark?” - says Tertullian, addressing the martyrs. “The world is even more covered with thick darkness, blinding the mind. Are you in chains? The world wears the heaviest chains that wear down the soul. Is your home contagious? The world is full of harmful fumes, incomparably unbearable: these are the temptations and debaucheries of voluptuousness. Are you compared to criminals? The world contains much more guilty people - the entire human race. Does your life depend on the proconsul threatening you with his sentence? The world should be more afraid in anticipation of God's terrible judgment... 1508. You have moved from prison to shelter. Your home is gloomy; but you yourself are a living light. You are bound by shackles; but you are free in God; you breathe contagious air, but before God you are a stench of fragrance; You are awaiting the judge’s verdict, but the time will come when you will judge your judges themselves.” By leaving the world and its pleasures, you have lost nothing; on the contrary, we won a lot - both in body and in spirit. Everything necessary for bodily nature is provided to you by the care of the church; everything necessary for the soul is supplied by the very position of the martyrs, supplied in abundance in some respects. In prison,” says Tertullian, “turning to the martyrs, “you do not see alien gods, do not meet with their images, are not present at the solemn festivals of the pagans, are not infected by sacrilegious fumes, are not heard by the insane exclamations of the theater and circus, do not witness cruelty, the frenzy of the gladiator and the shamelessness of the comedian 1509, your eyes are not directed towards places of public adultery (libidinum publicarum); you are free from temptations, suggestions, bad memories and even persecution itself.” Prison is for a Christian what the desert is for the prophets and a solitary place for the Savior himself; in it you can concentrate in yourself, ascend with your soul and grief 1510. True, the dungeon is stuffy, life in it is restless and difficult. But all Christians are recruited into the army of Christ and, like ordinary soldiers, must endure all the hardships of Christian military life, looking at these hardships as preparation for a great battle, a test of bodily and mental strength for the great struggle, the result of which will be an imperishable crown, eternal glorification in heaven 1511. Tertullian examined persecution and martyrdom and indicated their significance and necessity. The solution to the question of persecution and martyrdom would not have been complete if Tertullian had not indicated the means to more easily endure martyrdom. True, in the works of Tertullian viewed on the previous pages, the following means are partly indicated: the gracious help of God, the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit; but those means depend solely on God and are given by God; human resources are also necessary. Tertullian fills this gap and points out a human remedy that helps a person gradually renounce the world and attachments to it, freeing a person from regret about the world, its apparent charms and the pleasures it brings. This remedy is fasting, not only in the amount indicated by the church, but intensified, according to Montanist rules 1512. Tertullian devoted an entire treatise de jejuniis to a discussion of fasting. This work is of a polemical nature, directed against those whom Tertullian, following Montanist tendencies, called psychics. Without touching on the reasons given by Tertullian in favor of fasting, biblical reasons and those borrowed from everyday practice, we will present here only what relates specifically to persecution and martyrdom. If fasting, says Tertullian, is always useful, then even more so in centuries of persecution. Thanks to fasting, a Christian constantly and gradually prepares himself for the great feat of martyrdom. For one who observes fasts, prison is not scary - he does not lose anything in it; the transition from a free life in the world to the life of a prisoner is not scary and - perhaps - insensitive; worldly affections will not distract him from his profession of faith; Thanks to fasting, a Christian imperceptibly makes himself insensitive to torment: “he learns to endure imprisonment in prison, to endure hunger and thirst, to despise deprivation and all kinds of anxiety, in order to be able to enter prison the same Christian as he will leave it, to enter not for punishment, but in the form of obedience to discipline, not to endure torment, but to fulfill his duty. Thanks to abstinence, he will more confidently leave the prison for battle, having nothing in his flesh that would provide material for torment: clad in a single dry skin, as if in armor, he will appear as if horny (corneus) for the tormenting instruments; it had already dried up in advance, freed itself, as it were, from an obstacle to the soul, which in the exploits of fasting had already foreseen and recognized death in advance”; if a Christian were destined to be torn to pieces by beasts, the flesh exhausted by fasting would not provide them with good prey 1513. 7. Crowning with wreaths and military service Crowning with wreaths; unnaturalness of using head wreaths; crowning not justified by the biblical history of the Old and New Testaments; The beginning of the use of wreaths is in paganism. Military service, its incompatibility with the title of a Christian - a warrior of Christ. Limitation of the last position. In the life of Christians at that time and under the conditions of that time, there was one circumstance that attracted the attention of the Carthaginian moralist, as an important circumstance in his eyes, disagreeing with the spirit of Christianity; This is the crowning of Christian warriors with wreaths. The question of wreaths as visible insignia of a warrior led Tertullian further to consider the question of military service in general. The last question received special significance in the eyes of Tertullian in view of those clashes between the duties of a Christian and a warrior, which were inevitably bound to appear in the age of domination of pagan power, pagan military administration and pagan oppression over Christians, and its resolution in Tertullian’s sense represents an attempt and desire to free ourselves from the tutelage and pressure of the hated paganism that surrounded Christians on all sides. The issue of crowning warriors with wreaths and military service is considered and resolved by Tertullian in his work “de corona militis”; there are a few words about this in the book “de idolatria”. Regarding Tertullian’s work “de corona militis,” Guillon notes that the arguments in it are built on an exaggerated principle; one cannot look for deep erudition in it; nevertheless, there are many solid instructions and thoughts of living and deep 1514. And rightly so. It must be borne in mind that the military issue was decided by Tertullian, a Montanist; therefore, there is nothing to be surprised if exaggerated views are found in Tertullian’s reasoning on this issue. The reason for writing this work and expressing Tertullian’s views on crownings and military service was the circumstance told by Tertullian himself at the beginning of the treatise “de corona militis”. As a form of favor or reward, emperors distributed laurel wreaths on the heads of warriors. One of the Christian soldiers (probably the same rigorist as Tertullian) did not want to take advantage of such a favor from the emperor, had his head open, and held a wreath in his hand. It is clear that such an act of a warrior created a sensation among other warriors: some condemned the warrior, others were indifferent to this circumstance. The rumor about the warrior’s deed reached the tribune; a conversation takes place between a tribune and a warrior. Why are you so different from others? “I can’t do like others,” he answered. When asked about the reason for this, he replied: I am a Christian. During the hearing of the case, “he throws off his cloak, takes off his shoes in order to henceforth walk on the holy ground, returns the sword, which was not considered necessary in the defense of the Lord, throws the wreath from his hands”; thrown into prison, “he awaits the bounties of Christ” 1515. Thus, this warrior finally broke ties with pagan military service. The warrior’s act in the eyes of Tertullian seemed heroic; To encourage and justify this warrior, and for the edification of others, Tertullian wrote her work “de corona militis.” Tertullian finds the crowning of soldiers with wreaths, according to the very foundations and motives of this crowning, indecent and uncharacteristic of a Christian. That there is no need to be crowned with wreaths, Tertullian finds the basis for this in Holy Scripture (negative), and tradition or practice, and in the requirements of nature itself. First of all, Tertullian comes across a consideration that could form the basis for the permissibility of crowning, and which is based on the absence of a prohibition from Holy Scripture to crown oneself: where in Holy Scripture is it prohibited to crown the head with wreaths? 1516 Tertullian eliminates this basis for the permissibility of being crowned with the question on his part: “Where is it written that we should be crowned?” If in Holy Scripture there is no direct prohibition, then there is no permission, and from this side the support of consideration serves as the support of the answer to it and the denial of such quasi - indirect permission to crown the head with wreaths. Moreover, one can directly and decisively say that it is forbidden to wear wreaths simply because one is not allowed to wear them - what is clearly not allowed is already prohibited 1517. But if in Holy Scripture there is no direct command or prohibition to wear wreaths, then in tradition and church practice we find a direct prohibition of this; and the authority of practice and tradition, in the absence of instructions from Holy Scripture, is completely sufficient to support the thought of 1518; for not only in religious and moral matters, but also in the civil and legal field, where there is no direct indication of the law, the matter is based on practice, practice is accepted as if it were the law 1519. Without expanding much yet, Tertullian first outlines the main thoughts of his treatise and indicates points of support. He referred to Holy Scripture and church practice and tradition and found in them an indication of the impermissibility of crowning - negative in Holy Scripture, positive in practice. Now he points to a third basis - the requirement of nature. The nature created by God must speak and speak about God and His will; as the work of God, it must speak in accordance with Scripture and Tradition, its legal requirements pointing to the will of God - its Creator. Natura prima omnium disciplina est, she is the first to go against the use of wreaths on the head, saying that a wreath is not fitting for the head, and that what is inconsistent with nature cannot be favored by God, its Creator. To provide the soul with impressions from the outside world, a person is given organs with a special purpose for each. What role will wreaths placed on the head play in delivering impressions to the soul? Decidedly none; for a crowned person, a wreath on the head will not impress any sense organ, and from this side it turns out to be unnecessary, a perversion of the requirement of nature. Flowers are meant to be looked at and smelled (spectaculi et spiraculi res). Why put them - in the form of wreaths - on the head, where neither the organ of smell nor the organ of vision can use them? Why make a use of them that is inconsistent with the demands of nature, why, moreover, burden your head with them when there is no purpose or meaning in this? A wreath placed on the head hides both the fragrance - it does not reach the nostrils, and the beauty of the flowers - the flowers on the head are not visible to the eyes; the pleasant impression of flowers is lost. Such abuse of flowers will be a sacrilege, a sacrilege against God, the Lord and Creator of nature 1520, will serve as a violation of the divine law written throughout the universe on natural tablets (in naturalibus tabulis), to which the law indicates Ap. Paul. But if the use of wreaths is not in accordance with either scripture or tradition, goes against the demands of nature, if there is no visible divine establishment of the use of wreaths, then where does their origin lie? What is their purpose? In the Old and New Testaments there is no visible use of them, it is not visible that any patriarch, prophet, Levite, priest or ruler, or - after that - which apostle, evangelist or bishop was crowned. The Old Testament and New Testament churches were not crowned with flower wreaths, but this, no doubt, would have been the case if it had been worthy of God and in accordance with His will. Solemn occasions, such as the return from Babylonian captivity, were done without wreaths, only with tympanums and flutes (1Ezra II and III chapters); meals and feasts of the chosen people, according to the testimony of the prophet Isaiah, were without crowning (Is. 5:12). Investigating the matter, Tertullian finds that the beginning of the use of wreaths lies in paganism, it is the work of the devil, and - as the work of the devil - is unworthy of God, displeasing to him 1521, as related to the pagan cult, it will be the second idolatry 1522. Thus, the question of the use of wreaths was reduced by Tertullian to the basis of the acceptance of pagan customs and paganism itself. On this basis, resolving the issue was already extremely easy. Having once said 1523 and established as a general position that everything that in one way or another supports paganism, in one way or another reminiscent of the pagan cult with its superstitions, should be rejected, Tertullian remains on this basis even now. According to Tertullian, the apostle said directly and clearly: flee from idolatry (1 Cor. 10:11), of course, idolatry in all its forms and with all its shades 1524. If we are not supposed to give anything to an idol, why take anything from it? If it is alien to faith to bow before idols, why imitate them in decoration? 1525 for there is no communion between Christ and Belial; it is unworthy for the image of the living God to become the image of an idol and a dead man 1526. The laurel wreath in paganism is dedicated to Apollo and Liber, one as the god of arrows, the other as the god of triumphs; therefore, crowning with wreaths, related to the idolatrous cult, tainted by it, defiles a Christian, should not be used in any case 1527. In paganism, crownings took place both in public and private situations: the crowd was crowned when celebrating the triumph of kings, spouses were crowned on their wedding day, actors were crowned in the theater, slaves were crowned when freed. But all this cannot serve as a pretext for a Christian to accept and wear wreaths - all honors, distinctions and merits for him are concentrated in the church 1528. People are crowned on solemn and joyful occasions in life; but a Christian - a wanderer of this world, a citizen of heavenly Jerusalem - does not need this crowning. They are crowned in marriages; For a Christian, marriage is celebrated in the Lord—wreaths are useless. List all cases and motivations for crowning; not one of them is proper for a Christian, all of them are impermissible - the Christian has already renounced all this in baptism 1529. Paganism is crowned with many things that, according to the moral view of a Christian, deserve censure 1530; Is this why a Christian himself should allow crownings, covering his head with wreaths? 1531 Women should have their heads covered, not men; and if a woman with her bare head disgraces the angels, how much more does a man with his head covered with a wreath. It can be added that in women the apostle did not desire luxury in headdresses and hairstyles (1 Tim. 2:5) 1532. One can, as in the example of crowning, refer to I. Christ that He was crowned with glory and honor (Heb. 2:7), but this crowning was completely different; was crowned at the trial, but His crown was not made of flowers, but of thorny thorns 1533. Thus, anyone can be crowned 1534. But this is not the kind of crown people desire, and this is not the kind of crown they put on their heads 1535. The question of being crowned with wreaths for military merit led Tertullian to another question, the question of military service in general - is it decent for Christians? Based on the fact that Christians are called to spiritual warfare against the devil 1536 and to the priesthood 1537, Tertullian considers military service indecent and unnatural for a Christian. It is impossible to combine vows to God with an oath given to a person 1538. “Can the son of the world, who is not even allowed to argue, fight with a sword in his hands? Will he subject another to chains, prison, torture and torment, he who cannot avenge his own insults? In military service a Christian will come into conflict with the vows of a Christian, will come into contact with a pagan cult, and - since it is impossible to serve two masters at the same time - will of necessity have to give preference to one over the other. “Will he really keep watch before the churches he has abandoned? Will there really be supper in those places that the apostle dictated? Those whom he puts to flight during the day with spells (exorcismis), will he really defend at night, leaning on the spear with which Christ was pierced? Will he really carry a banner hostile to Christ? Will he demand a badge (signum) from his boss, who has already received it from God? Will he really be disturbed by the trumpet of the trumpeter, he who expects to awaken from the trumpet of the angel? Will a Christian whom Christ freed from fire be burned according to military order?” 1539. And how many other things can be found in the camp service, which should be understood as a crime! The very transition from the camp of light to the camp of darkness is already a crime. But, not allowing the possibility for a Christian to be in military service - although this contradicts the view of Tertullian himself, expressed in his op. “Apologeticus,” where Tertullian speaks of Christians as the best citizens and the most faithful servants in all fields, Tertullian nevertheless makes a concession to his general position. Bearing in mind some passages of Holy Scripture (Luke 3:14; Matt. 8:10; Acts 10), Tertullian says that those people who were in military service before accepting Christianity can continue it in Christianity as long as military rank does not pose an obstacle to the confession of the Christian faith. If in military service there are actions or demands that are contrary to Christian beliefs, if he is met with ridicule from the pagans, then he should leave military service, even if it means he has to endure something, especially since military service cannot bring him anything special; for him there is no need to yield and through, as it were, double-mindedness: a Christian is the same everywhere, like one Gospel, one Lord, who will reject every apostate and confess every confessor 1540. You can read about this sect in Tertullian’s work de praescr. 47 and in a note to this chapter compiled from other sources by Tertullian's commentator. De bapt. 1. This woman is Quintilla, a contemporary of Tertullian. Ibid.2. Nihil est, quod tam obduret mentes hominum, quam simplicitas divinorum operum, quae in actu videtur, et magnificentia, quae in effectu repromittitur. Freppel in this case shows complete tendentiousness, zeal for Catholicism and a desire to insert his word on occasion in favor of the peculiarities of Roman Catholic dogmatics. Commenting on the 4th chapter of the treatise de baptismo, he dwells on the expression “vim sanctificandi combibunt”, and says: “a sacrament is a true and immediate action of grace - it acts on its own, by virtue of divine institution, or, according to the expression adopted in the school since the 13th century, ex opere orerato. For,” says Tertullian, “the waters sanctified by the Spirit of God receive in their turn sanctifying power... Never has a scholastic theologian used stronger expressions to say that the sacraments produce grace ex ore ore.” (Freppel, Tert. I, 429 – 430). Freppel pushes the moral disposition of the person receiving the sacrament, his preparation to accept the grace of the sacrament into the background, and completely loses sight of the confession of faith, although Tertullian puts these conditions in the foreground: “the waters (of baptism), he says, wash and cleanse us from sin only through the confession of our faith, sealed with the seal of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (De bapt. 5), preparation for He considers baptism and moral disposition to be as important as the necessary conditions of the sacrament (end of treatise de bapt.) For Freppel, all these conditions seem so unimportant that he, in all honesty, could, based on the words of even Tertullian, say that “the sacrament is performed by its own and essential power, if only it does not meet in the subject with contrary dispositions, which would delay and stop its power (Frepp. I, 431). Ibid. 5. – Lavacrum obsignatio est fidei. De poen. 6. The same idea is in Exhort. ad cast. 7 Ibid. 8 and lib. de poenit. Some thoughts about repentance, the differentiation of sins according to their importance and meaning are revealed by Tertullian in another work - “de pudicitia”, where, extolling chastity and condemning adultery, Tertullian points to the category of sins for which there is no remission. There is also a distinction between sins in the work “adversus Marcionem”. Later, during the Montanistic period of his activity, Tertullian looked at sins differently; he already clearly distinguished between venial and unforgivable sins, remissibiha (delicta) and inremissibiha. See below, pp. 311–312. Tertullian refers here to the vision of John the Theologian (Rev. ch. 2 and 3); the words of the Lord Himself (Ezek. 33:11), parables about the lost and again found coin, the lost sheep, the prodigal son, etc. De poenit 8; cf. de pudicit. 7. 8. De poenit. 9. – In this entire penitential process, Freppel sees three constituent elements of repentance: repentance - as an internal act, external confession of sins or ἐξομολόγησις, and satisfaction - as purifying acts, in the sense of Catholic dogma, and with particular force insists on this distinction, seeing in Tertullian even terminology adopted at the Council of Trent (Freppel, II, 15), although the text of his work “de poenitentia” does not allow us to see satisfaction in the Catholic sense in Tertullian De poenit. 10; cf. de bapt. 20. Padicitia flos morum, honor corporum, decor sexuum, integrtas sanguinis, fides generis, fundamentum sanctitatis, praejudicium omnis bonae mentis; quamquam rara, nec facile perfecta, vixque perpetua, tamen ahquatenus in saeculo morabitur, si natura praestruxerit, si disciplina persuaserit, censura compresserit... De pudicitia 1. It is directed against those whom Tertullian, upon his transition to Montanism, called Ihikians (Ibid.) Freppel calls him Zephyrin. Freppel, Tertull. I, 138. Audio etiam edictum esse propositum, et quidem peremtorum, Pontifex scihcet maximus, quod est Episcopus Episcoporum, edicit: Ego et moeclna et fornicatioms delicta poenitentia functis dimitto. De pudd. 1. Etsi bonus natura Deus, tamen et justus. The basis for such a distinction is Tertullian's passage from Chapter V of 1 John (16th Art.), where some sins are called sins leading to death, others - sins not leading to death. Alia (delicta) erunt remissibilia, alia irremissibilia; secundum quod nemini dubium est, alia castigationem mereri, alia damnationem. De pudd. 2. Having spoken about venial sins, Tertullian adds: sunt autem et contraria istis, ut graviora et exitiora, quae veniam non capiant.... horum ultra exorator non erit Christus. Ibid. 19. Homicidium, idolatria, fraus, negatio, blasphemia, utique et moechia et fornicatio, et si qua alia violatio templi Dei. Ibid. 19. Idolatua, blasphemia, homicidium, adulterium, stuprum, falsum testimonium, fraus. Adv. Marc. IV, 9. Freppel, Tertull. II, 143. De monog. 1. Haeritici nuptias auferunt, psychici ingerunt; Ill nec semel, isti non semel nubunt. De monog. 1. Te laedunt qui abutuntur, quemadmodum qui non intuntur. Ibid. Verum neque continentia ejusmodi laudanda, quia haeretica est, neque licentia deferenda, quia psychica est. Illa blasphemat, ista luxuriat; illa destruit nuptiarum Deum, ista confundit. Ibid. Penes nos, quos spirituales merito dici facit agnitio spiritualum charismatum, continentia tam religiosa est, quam licentia verecunda, quandoquidem ambae cum Creatore sunt. Continentia legem nuptiarum honorat, licentia temperat. Illa non cogitur, ista, regitur. Illa arbitrium habet, haec modum. Unum matrimonium novimus, sicut unum Deum. Freppel, Tertull. II, 115. Ibid. 3. 4; de monogam. 2. 11. 14. Exh. ad cast. 1. Comparing virginity and widowhood, Tertullian gives preference to the latter; the state of widowhood is the most difficult, since abstinence from what is known and experienced is incomparably more difficult than abstinence from what is unknown; a virgin is happier, a widow is more worthy; the first never strayed from the path, the other takes it again; that one is crowned with grace, this one with courage and valor (Ad uxor. I, 8). Afterwards, Tertullian looked at first marriages differently. See below. “God, of course, could have created several wives for Adam if He had wanted, but He did not,” says Tertullian (Exh. ad cast. 5; ad uxor. I, 2); - therefore, he thereby legalized only monogamy. This idea, expressed by Tertullian, gave Neander and other Protestant authors the basis to see in Tertullian the expression of the ancient doctrine of the universal priesthood in Christianity, in the Protestant sense. In fact, if you look closely at the text of Tertullian’s speech, it turns out that Tertullian calls Christians priests not in the sense of shepherds, performers of sacraments and administrators of public worship - for this there is a hierarchy, but only as people who should be equal in moral qualities to priests. De monog. 4. Etiam in opsis animalitus monogamia recognoscotur, ne vel bastiae de moechis nascerentur. Ex omnubus bestis, ex omni carne, duo uduces in arcam, ut vivant secum masculus et foemina. According to Tertullian, marriage is the union of two by God into one flesh; adultery will occur in the case when the union occurs after any dissolution of marriage. Matrimonium est, cum Deus junxit duos in carnem, ant junctos deprehendens in eadem carne, conjunctionem signavit. Adulterium est, cum, quoquo modo disjunctis duobus, alia caro, mio ​​ahena miscetur, de qua dici non posit haec est caro ex carne mea, et hoc os ex ossibus mens (De monog. 9). According to another definition, adulterium is nothing more than matrimonium illicitum (Ibid. 15). Exh. ad cast. 10. Speaking about the inner life of Christians, Tertullian repeatedly, in different places of his writings, touched upon one of the essential manifestations of religious and moral life - prayer. How important and necessary Tertullian considered prayer can be seen from the fact that he even dedicated a special treatise to understanding it and the conditions for its effectiveness: “de oratione.” – Tertullian considers the Lord’s Prayer as a model for a Christian’s prayer. His view of this prayer is very high - Terlullian rightly calls it heavenly, divine truth. The Lord's Prayer is short; but the more brief it is in words, the more extensive it is in thought - it contains almost the entire moral teaching of the Lord, the entire deanery of the church: “it is an abbreviation of the entire Gospel” (De orat. dom. 1). Without touching on Tertullian’s explanation of the Lord’s Prayer (I–VIII chapters), since it is completely in agreement with our catechistic explanations, we will indicate here the conditions under which the prayer offered can be successful. These conditions, expressed by Tertullian in the second half of the work - from chapter 9, correspond to the conditions expressed by the Savior in the conversation on the mount and by the Apostle Paul in his epistles; namely: when praying, you need to be reconciled with everyone, even with your enemies (p. 10), have an internal purity of soul, and not only external (for example, wash yourself) (p. 11), you need to pray standing, and not sitting, as the pagans do (p. 12), quietly, with modesty, and not pharisaically - for show, or paganly - with various body movements (p. 13); sincere prayer must come from the heart (p. 14). Wives, coming to the church for prayer, should have their heads covered (p. 15. Cf. de virg. vel. - the entire treatise - the same thoughts and evidence are repeated at length there as in op. de orat. dom. p. 15). You can and should pray with kneeling; only on the day of Easter there should be no kneeling to express abstinence from revealing sadness and sorrow (de orat. dom. 17). Christian prayer, according to the commandment of the Apostle, should be at all times and in every place (p. 18). Speaking about the time of prayer, Tertullian especially points to 3, 6 and 9 hours of the day, or - in our opinion - 9, 12 and 3 hours - three times prayer in honor and glory of the Holy One. Trinity, then - before eating and going to the bathhouse (“the spirit must always be cleansed before the body, the heavenly must precede the earthly” p. 19), upon entering the house and after the kiss of peace given to a brother in faith (p. 20). Prayer offered under such conditions “gives courage to those who suffer and patience to those who sigh, and multiplies grace; removes the wrath of God, has the power to bow and propitiate God; bring happiness to us and other people: it represents an image of the life of our Lord, who, during his stay on earth, raised the dead, strengthened the weak, healed the sick, cast out demons, opened prisons and loosed the bonds of the innocent. Prayer blots out sins, removes temptations, and stops the sword of persecution. Prayer comforts the weak and cheers the strong. Prayer guides travelers, pacifies thunderstorms and numbs robbers. Prayer nourishes the poor and teaches the rich to abstain. Prayer restores the fallen, strengthens the wavering, and convinces the reluctant. Prayer is the defense of faith and your shield against the gaze of the wicked who lie in wait for our fall, so that we may rejoice at it. Let us begin to walk under the cover of this weapon... All the Angels, all the creatures are praying... The Lord Himself prayed” (p. 28). With such a beautiful picture of examples and actions of prayer, Tertullian ends his essay on prayer. Ibid. 18; cf. Exhort, ad cast. 9. De monog. 12. A fide ipsa vita nostra censetur. See also de pudic. 1. Ibid. 13. Compar. Tertullian explained the place from Rome. VII, 2. 6. Ahud. Est indulgere, aliud jubere. Ibid. 3. Non permittitur, sed ultro licet. Tertullian develops a similar idea in his work ad uxor. I, 3. De monog. 3. Permissio habet causam, ahquando et necessitas. Exh. ad cast. 3. 4; ad uxor. I, 3. Exh. ad cast. 4. “Where he allows, there he expresses his opinion as a prudent man; where he forbids, he speaks as a man guided by the Holy Spirit. Exh. ad cast. 3; ad uxor. I, 3. Addressing such words to believers, the apostle adds: I want all people to be like I, that is, in a celibate state. In all this reasoning, Tertullian has Matt in mind. 5:28. (Exh. ad cast. 9). Exh. ad cast. 9; cf. de monog. 16. “Whoever condemns bigamy has not set a certain number of marriages.” Exh. ad cast. 10. “If the flesh removes the Holy Spirit from us during the first marriage, much more so in the second marriage.” Exh. ad cast. 11, 12; ad uxor. I, 5. Ad uxor. II, 1. The words of the Apostle: I will, that all men may be as Tertullian also refers to the advice of the Apostle, and the words: exactly about the Lord - to the command of the Lord. Tertullian's peculiarity in the interpretation of Holy Scripture. De cultu foem. II, 2... sed etiam naturalis speciositatis obhierandum dissimulatione et incuria, ut proinde oculorum incursibus molestum. De cult foem. II, 2. “A Christian woman can naturally be well built; but her beauty should not be a subject of temptation; she should not only attract the eyes of men with various embellishments, but also not be noticed by them.” Ibid. II, 4. “The more someone tries to hide his old age, the more it is revealed,” - excellent advice regarding tinting, smearing, whitening, rouge, etc. potions applicable to fashionable women not only of Tertullian’s time... Tertullian devoted a special essay “de virginibus velandis” to the question that not only wives, but also virgins should cover themselves. Referring to truth, and not custom, Tertullian proves in it that virgins should cover their heads, and not appear at places of liturgical meetings and others with their faces uncovered. The natural feeling of female modesty is the first motive exhibited by Tertullian, the motive for virgins to cover themselves. Virgins who do not cover their heads and their faces, making themselves visible - visas, represent a temptation for men, can arouse in them the passion of adultery, as well as being inflamed by this passion: omnis publication virginis bonae stupri passio est; with her head uncovered, the maiden ceases to be the same maiden: “you have stripped the girl (puellam) from her head, and she no longer belongs to herself, she has become different” (de virg. vel. 1 – 3). Tertullian then refers to a passage from the Epistle of St. Paul, where it is said that wives should be covered, and proves that by wives we also mean virgins (ibid. 4 - 12), therefore, they should be covered, covered to please God, and not people and fashion (ibid. 13). De idol. 7. It is not without purpose that Tertullian’s entire speech is given here - it so clearly expressed his view of idolatry and its irreconcilability with Christian moral consciousness. Ibid. 13. Here Tertullian makes an allusion to spectacles; he speaks in detail in a separate treatise, which he refers to here. Using the reference of Tertullian himself, we present here thoughts on spectacles from his special treatise “de spectaculis”. To explain the latter, Tertullian says that the power of pleasure is so great that on occasion it attracts the ignorant to itself, and forces others to betray their conscience. De spect. 1. De fuga in persec. 1. Omnis rei inspectio, auctore cognito, p'amor. Persecution is either probatio servorum Dei or reprobatio. De fuga 1. The example of Job most decisively proves this idea. Neque debeat devitari, neque evadi possit quod a Deo evenit. Ibid. 4. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. If anywhere, then especially in persecution, a Christian must conquer the weak flesh with the strength of the spirit and thus achieve the triumph of the spirit over the flesh (Ibid. 8). According to Tertullian's translation qui fugiebat, rursus proeliabitur. Usque adeone mori miserum est? Virg. Aen. XII, 646. The same circumstance - an example was pointed out in the case of transition to heresy. See above, page 148. 149. In essence, Tertullian says the same thing here against such a reference as in his general polemic against heresies. Sicut fuga remedio gratuita est, ita rempio nummaria fuga est. From now on we will talk exclusively about martyrdom. Tertullian has Ps. in mind here. 115:6; Is. 57:1.2 and explains these passages in application to martyrdom. Ibid. 8. The death of Abel, the martyrdom of Isaiah, Jeremiah, the torment of the three youths, the suffering of other prophets who sealed with their blood the teaching they preached, etc. Ibid. 8. According to Tertullian, martyrdom is especially extolled by Ap. Paul. Scorp. 9. 13. 14. Scorp. 10. In view of the objection of heretics - those scorpions who wound Christians and with their flattering speeches turn them away from the profession of faith - that the profession of faith takes place not here on earth, but there in heaven, Tertullian devotes an entire chapter of his work "scorpiace" to proving that this confession should be precisely here, where man lives in the flesh and where the first persecution of the Lord and His apostles Tertullian expresses the desire that the relatives of the martyrs accompany them no further than the prison threshold: the prison threshold is the border where all communication with the world is interrupted. Non vides alienos deos, non uragmibus eorum incurris, non solemnes nationum dies ipsa commixtione participas, non nicoribus spurcis verberaris, non clamoribus spectacuforum, atrocitate, vel furore, vel impudicitia celebrantium caederis. Ibid. 2. Among the means that help a person to endure torment without complaint, to leave the world with its pleasures without regret, Tertullian also includes freedom from marriage. Exhort. ad cast. 11. 12. Guillon, Bibliothéque choisie des péres del'eglise grecque et latine, ou cours d'eloquence sacrée, II, 468. Traditio tibi praetendetur auctrix, consuetudo confirmatrix, et fides observatrix. Perseverantia observationis – idonea testis. Ibid. 3. 4. Consuetudo in civilibus rebus pro lege suscipitur, cum deficit lex... Porre, si ratione lex constat, lex erit omne jam quod ratione constituerit, a quocumque productum... Ibid. 4. De cor. milit. 5. Tam contra naturam esse florem capite sectari, quam sonum nare. Omae autem, quod contra naturam est, monstri meretur notam penes omnes, penes nos vero etiam elogium sacrilegi in Deum, naturae Dominum et Auctorem. Apud nos secunda idolatria est. De cor. mil. 10. Fugite... non jam idolatria quasi ab officio, sed ab ipsa effigie eorum (idolorum). Ibid. With the last expression, Tertullian alludes to the crowning of the dead in paganism: et mortuorum est ita coronari. – Pliny writes, coronas sepulcrorum et manium honorem fuisse. Vid, comment, at 10 p.m. de cor. mil. in Curs. compl, patrolog. Ex his erit serti militaris superstitio polluta et pollnens, omniaque jam polluentur ex caussis. De cor. mil. 12. ...alienae, profanae, illicitae, semel jam in sacramenti testatione ejeratae... Haec enim erant pompae diaboli et angelorum ejus officia, saeculi honores, solemnitates, popularitates, falsa vota, humana servitia, laudes vanae, gloriae turpes: et in omnibus istis idolatria, in solo quoque sensu coronarum quibus omnia ista redimita sunt.. Ibid. 13. Ibid. Asaeculo coronantur et lupanaria, et latrinae, et pistrina, et carcer, et ludus, et ipsa amplutheatra, et ipsa spoliaria, ipsaeque libitinae... Sic et tu coronare, licitum est. Ad martyr. 3. This is why Christians are called milites Dei et Christi contra copias diaboli. De cor. mil. 11. Et ciemabitur ex disciplina castrensi christianus, cui ciemare uon licuit, cui Christus merita ignis indulsit? This place is translated by Arch. Macaria: Is it possible that someone who is not allowed to burn incense (before idols), whom Christ has already freed from the deserved fire, will perform incense according to military custom? (Christian Primacy Conduct, p. 97). De cor. mil. cap. ultimum.