Заключение

The nature of Tertullian’s internal activity is compared with the same activity of eastern writers. The dogmatic and moral teaching of Tertullian and its difference from the teaching of the Eastern fathers and teachers of the church. – Tertullian’s main misconceptions: the corporeality of God, the idea that God was not always the Father, the denial of the personal pre-worldly existence of the Son, the corporeality of the human soul, traducianism, passion for Montanism. Notes on these misconceptions. The character traits of East and West were already outlined and revealed at the end of the outline of Tertullian's apologetic activity in 1541. The last pages of the previous section (which dealt with the external activities of the Carthaginian presbyter) clearly showed that the Greeks are a people prone to metaphysical constructions, a people of abstractions; The Romans, on the contrary, are a practical people, alien to the subtleties of Greek constructions. This character of the Greeks and Romans was reflected in their creed and moral teaching; Moreover, here he spoke even more clearly. The speculative mind of Eastern theologians was primarily concerned with what was most incomprehensible in religion 1542 - in the East, the philosophical, abstract element predominated in dogmatics. On the contrary, the West loved the more concrete, tactile, and had a more practical, realistic mindset. Alien to extensive speculation and metaphysical constructions, Western independent dogmatics was more anthropological in nature. Metaphysics occupied the minds of Western fathers and teachers little, just as the Greeks were not particularly interested in the practicality of the West. It is hardly possible to find in history outstanding examples of the West taking an active part in Eastern metaphysical disputes - in such disputes the West was relegated to the background and - often - repeated what Eastern theologians expressed; in the same way, it seems impossible to notice that the East especially and independently (without outside initiative) deals with anthropological issues; if he ever took part in Western, more practical, disputes, it was not always successful - the Greeks’ argumentation on this basis turned out to be weaker than that of Western fathers and teachers 1543. Thanks to this nature of the West, heresies appeared there not with a metaphysical, abstract content, but with a practical one, relating directly to the vital side of the matter, bearing rather the imprint of a schism, or, although heresies, but heresies of a practical direction, or - at least - clothed in a more concrete form; disciplinary issues and questions concerning the practical side of the case were raised - then 1544. Practicalism and realism of the Western trend were fully reflected in Tertullian. The son of the West, Tertullian did not delve much into the metaphysical subtleties of the East; speculative questions are alien to his practical mind. He took Christian truths as ready-made data and furnished them with various arguments; if the matter concerned subtle, speculative questions, Tertullian covered himself with the authority of Holy Scripture and Tradition and said that after the Gospel these puzzling questions and studies are completely unnecessary, and even harmful - they lead to heresy 1545. It seemed to his believing mind that these two arguments were so strong that they were capable of convincing everyone of the certainty of the Christian truth being proven, even apart from any other reasoning. True, he has evidence besides St. Scriptures and Traditions are the reason and religious instinct of man towards everything true; but his religious arguments are mostly characterized by a negative character, and only the voice of the soul, by the nature of a Christian, this, so to speak, unconscious attraction to everything religious and holy, bears not so much a negative, but a positive character 1546. – Analysis of Tertullian’s polemical and dogmatic writings and comparison of them with the works of Eastern apologists and fathers leads to the conclusion that the metaphysical part of Tertullian’s dogmatics can and should be viewed as a transplantation (the first in time) onto Western Latin soil of the results that the East developed in the internal and external struggle. Familiar with the theological literature of the East, having reread and rethought everything that he had produced that was important and remarkable, Tertullian presented in his dogmatics the results of Eastern works; To this he added his results, which he achieved in the fight against various opponents. Borrowing from Eastern theologians everything that was incomprehensible in Christian dogma, outside the realm of the incomprehensible, where his mind could penetrate into the sanctuary of God's creations and true religion, there Tertullian did not deny himself sensible scientific reasoning. In these cases, he sometimes even went against the latest conclusions of the Greek fathers and teachers and even the direct meaning of the Bible 1547. Combining into one whole everything that Tertullian transplanted from the East to Western soil and that he himself obtained in a long struggle, we get that harmonious dogmatic system of Tertullian, which is distinguished by completeness, clarity and roundness, unnoticed even in St. Irenaeus, a system in which Christianity is considered more fully, presented in more relief than in other church writers, even several times in advance. Its system is important for the history of dogmas, but even more so for their presentation itself. In it, Christian truths are formulated so clearly and in such a form that “in amazement you often forget that before your eyes you have a writer of the early 3rd century - so familiar are the thoughts expressed by him in the simplest words regarding difficult issues of dogma” 1548, which were touched upon more than once after him in theological literature; His doctrine of the Holy Trinity was especially clearly stated and fully revealed in 1549. Let us now present in the most condensed form the dogmatic provisions that poured out from the pen of Tertullian, the provisions that formed the basis of his religious and moral convictions. God is one. Recognition of this truth is required by the Bible, sound reason and the voice of every person’s conscience. It doesn’t even exist for you, unless it’s just 1550. God is one in the sense that next to Him, with Him and outside Him there was nothing equal to Him 1551 - everything came after Him 1552. God is above all comparisons; to Him alone belongs the supreme power and authority 1553. The One God is all-perfect, stands outside all temporal and spatial conditions, is limitless, is present everywhere with his strength and power 1554, the highest being in essence, properties and power 1555, the true, living God 1556. He is eternal, unborn and uncreated, beginningless and endless 1557, unchangeable, free in his actions, unlimited by necessity 1558. He is the supreme reason, infinite goodness, truth, truth and holiness 1559. God is spirit, invisible, intangible 1560, nevertheless, He has a body sui generis 1561, because without a body nothing can exist, have real existence 1562. Together with God and in Him also from eternity there exists another person - this is reason (Ratio), the wisdom of God, which was expressed in activity as the Word, the Word of God 1563. Before all ages, God gave birth from his womb to the Word 1564; this Word is the firstborn, only begotten Son of God, the second person after God the Father, God from God, Spirit from Spirit, Creator and Producer of everything real 1565, the highest and omnipotent being 1566. The Son of God is equal and consubstantial with the Father 1567, is His perfect image, true God 1568. And just as God is Spirit, so the Son is Spirit; just as God the Father is not incorporeal, so His only begotten Son has a body 1569. There is a close relationship between the Father and the Son: the Word always abided in the Father, was never separated from Him, was not distinguished from Him 1570. This, however, does not mean that the face of the Son merges with the face of the Father into one person - the Son is different from the Father, lives a special independent life 1571; but - on the other hand - it is impossible to distinguish these two persons to such an extent that the Father and the Son are special gods in the sense that there are two gods; the difference between them is not in essence, but only in face 1572: the Son and the Father are only two divine faces of one being of God 1573, the face of the Father - the first principle and culprit of everything 1574, and the face of the Son - the vicegerent (vicarius) of the Father, who alone knows the Father and completely creates and fulfills His will 1575. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son; He is the third divine person, different from the Father and the Son: “another Father, another Son and another Holy Spirit” 1576. And just as there is a close relationship between the Father and the Son, similar to that between a tree and a root, a stream and a source, a ray and the sun; so between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit there is an indissoluble unity, the analogy of which can be represented by the root, the tree and the fruit, the source, the stream and the river, the sun, the ray and the light 1577 - the unity of the trinity (unitas trinitatis) 1578. Thus, the one God in essence is threefold in persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are three - not according to dignity, but according to degree, not according to essence, but according to the image (of being), not according to power, but according to personal characteristics 1579; they constitute one: one Father in relation to the Son and the Holy Spirit constitutes the imprecise beginning of 1580. The mutual relationship between the persons of St. The Trinity, the relation of the unity of the trinity, can be expressed in this form: the Father is the entire essence (tota substantia), the Son is the eternal birth from the Father (derivatio et portio), His essence, the Holy Spirit is the eternal procession from the Father through the Son; The Son constitutes the second, the Holy Spirit the third degree of the same Divinity, a trinity in consubstantiality 1581. The mutual difference between one person of the Holy Trinity and another is that the Father gives birth, the Son is born, the Holy Spirit is sent 1582. Invisible and incomprehensible in being, God deigned to reveal himself. For this purpose, He freely and unprompted by anything from outside created a world out of nothing, which clearly reveals in Him the great artist 1583. He did not create the world alone: ​​“The Holy Spirit, the Wisdom of God (or the Word) were the advisers of God, - the Word and the Spirit are the right hand of God, the duality through which God created everything” 1584. First of all, God created the visible world with unordered elements 1585. Created in this form, the world served as material for further creativity - God’s activity in creating the world after that was limited to only isolating from this total mass the constituent parts of the world organism. Under the influence of the creative Word of God, the universe gradually took on the beautiful appearance in which the writer of everyday life depicts it and how it appears to everyone’s eyes. According to the word of God, the previously unsettled earth became beauty and perfection - much good 1586. The culmination of the entire creative process was man 1587; God created him in a special way, different from other creatures: God Himself directly formed a body from the earth and He Himself directly breathed His breath into it, so that man, who after this became a living soul, became a vessel, a carrier of the breath of God 1588, the image and likeness of God, or - more precisely - the image of the Son of God, the image and likeness of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit 1589. In the ranks of God's creatures, man occupies first place, he stands even above the angels - on the one hand, because the angels did not originate from divine breath, but from the material spirit, while man has a direct divine origin; on the other hand, because human nature is incomparably stronger than the nature of spirits, since man can defeat the devil 1590, proof of which is the constantly repeated and repeated exorcism 1591. From the hands of the Creator, man emerged as a being consisting of two different essences - body and soul, so closely connected with each other that only their harmonious union constitutes a complete man 1592. As the image of God, the soul has the same properties as God, although not to the same extent as God. Just as God has a body (corpus sui generis), so the soul, His image, has a body sui generis, a body in form similar to the physical body, in essence - airy and transparent 1593. God Himself directly created only the souls of the first parents - Adam and Eve; the further origin of the souls of human offspring is determined by purely natural traducianism: by virtue of divine blessing, souls are conceived and distributed from parents in the same natural way as the physical bodies of people, with the only difference that physical bodies are conceived from a physical seed, and souls from a spiritual seed 1594, are born with abilities that constitute, as it were, a seed, the embryo of the future mental and moral development of a person 1595. Thanks to its divine origin, the soul is immortal 1596, cannot, like the physical body, decompose, since it has no constituent elements, it is a simple essence 1597; but as soon as the breath of God, and not His essence, only an image that has shortcomings in comparison with the prototype, the soul is capable of oblivion, it is also possible for it to deviate from the original purpose that God gave it 1598. Factual confirmation of this was soon provided by the fall of primitive man in 1599. When creating man, God adorned his image - the human soul - with all the features that reflect the divinity of his origin, among other things, he gave him the freedom to act one way or another and power over the universe; but in order for man’s freedom to become his property, man had to improve himself, give freedom a certain practical direction, turn it into his nature; created to be the ruler of the universe, man had to, first of all, become a ruler, master of himself 1600. To strengthen and develop freedom, God gave man a commandment; man could not resist in the primitive state, violated the will of the Creator, and sinned. Thus, evil appeared on earth, sin as a result of human freedom, and after sin its consequences appeared 1601. The religious covenant of God concluded with primordial man, which required man to obey God, was destroyed by sin. Sin and its consequences were not the sole property of fallen man. Through succession, evil spread and is spreading throughout the entire human race in the form of original sin, so that although Adam alone sinned, all of humanity fell in his person 1602, the covenant with God was broken for everyone, the primordial one (Eva herself - according to the book de carne Christi, p. 17) became an instrument of sin and death for all her descendants. From all this it follows that only one person is guilty of sin - God is not the cause or author of sin, sin is alien to His nature 1603. To restore the religious union in order to save fallen man, God promised his heavenly help, promised to send the Messiah - the Seed of the woman, the Redeemer of mankind, determined the time of His coming, and gradually, through the entire Old Testament period, prepared people for the acceptance of the Savior and redemption 1604. A series of prophecies about the Messiah, clear and precise prophecies describing the person and work of the Redeemer, many institutions pointing to the great sacrifice for the sins of the world, prototypes depicting the future times of the gracious kingdom of Christ - these are the main preparatory means used by God in the Old Testament 1605. For a preparatory purpose, in the Old Testament, the only begotten Son of the Father Himself appeared to people along with the angels, putting on true human flesh, albeit unborn, for these theophany. Finally, the time of the coming of the Redeemer, determined in the eternal divine council and indicated by the prophets, arrived and the Messiah appeared. Imbued with infinite love for fallen humanity, the Son of God, remaining unchanged in his divinity, deigned to accept the flesh that He wanted to redeem 1607; like Adam, created from virgin soil, the Word was incarnate from the Virgin Mary, from an ancient seed, but without the ancient seed 1608, without the assistance of man, by the influx of the Holy Spirit, the Mother of God conceived and gave birth to the divine Descendant of David 1609. The Word of God thus became incarnate, took on human flesh without sin and kept it sinless throughout his entire earthly life 1610; The Redeemer, who took on human flesh, is God made man, Immanuel, true God and true man, consisting of body and soul, heavenly man in earthly flesh, the God-man 1611. In the person of I. Christ, divinity and humanity at the moment of the incarnation were united in a close, inseparable way, the dual nature of I. Christ became the union of God and man in one person, without the destruction of any essence or mixing them and the formation of a new, third essence from both natures 1612. All earthly life I. Christ was the discovery of this dual nature - divine and human 1613. What was the redemptive significance of I. Christ? For Tertullian I. Christ, in His earthly life, appears first of all and most clearly as a Teacher, a line beyond which other aspects of the Redeemer’s ministry seem to be relegated to the background. A prophet, strong in word and deed, the seal and completion of Old Testament prophecies, I. Christ appeared as the Redeemer, the Reconciler of mankind with God 1614. To fulfill this mission, He revealed Himself to the world as a Teacher, announced the true God to people, and taught Them the true teaching 1615. In order to spread His teaching, I. Christ chose disciples or apostles for Himself, to whom he taught the secrets of the kingdom of heaven; the apostles, in turn, to preserve the teachings of I. Christ founded churches in which this teaching, summarized in symbols, remains unchanged to this day 1616, so that the church is the only reliable and infallible custodian of everything that the Lord taught, and that the apostles preached and wrote in writing 1617. Being a great Teacher and religious Transformer, who gave a direct, true direction to the religious and moral convictions of people, Jesus Christ also appeared as the Redeemer of mankind, in the proper sense of the word, the Restorer of the religious covenant between God and people, the Reconciler of fallen man with the offended God. Out of love for humanity, He, the highest God, the Son of God, humbled Himself and appeared diminished, but not in divinity, but because He was “a man in his flesh, in his soul and in his quality as a son of man 1618; He belittled Himself in order to make us great 1619; throughout His earthly life He was a stone of stumbling and temptation for many 1620. His humiliation began from the very moment of birth and continued throughout his life, until Golgotha. In fulfillment of divine predictions, I. Christ redeemed humanity with a series of physical and moral sufferings and ended these sufferings with a blasphemous death. Thus, this humiliation, this death constitutes the essence of the sacrifice that reconciles man with God; suffering and shameful death make the God-Man the High Priest of our salvation, our Savior, our God the Redeemer 1621. All the humiliation of the Savior was aimed at changing our relationship with God and restoring us from the fall. By His birth He reformed our birth, by the adoption of sinless flesh He put to death sin in human nature, and by His death on the cross He destroyed our death 1622. It cannot be said that Christ endured suffering and death for His own sake - He was completely sinless, lies never desecrated His lips, He was the most perfect example of truth; humility and obedience to the will of the Heavenly Father, therefore, in Him was not the cause of suffering and shameful death 1623 - the Lord humiliated, humbled Himself for the redemption of mankind, was nailed to the cross for the human race that He loved. It was not only the humiliated state that appeared in the Lord; in the same humiliation of Jesus Christ lies the beginning of His glorification, His royal glory: the Lord reigns from the height of the tree 1624. The further - behind the cross - revelation of His royal glory represents His resurrection from the dead in 1625. But in full force the royal power and glory of I. Christ will be revealed at His second coming. Then the Lord will no longer appear in a humiliated state, but in all his power and glory, not as a stone of stumbling and temptation, but as a stone that was built carelessly, and which was at the head of the corner of the church building, will appear in a luminous form. Then He will come no longer to redeem humanity with His suffering and death, but to demand an account from all people, to carry out judgment 1626. - At this judgment, all people will be resurrected, resurrected in the most perfect body - without any physical defects, resurrected in incorruption, glory and power - in angelic nature 1627. The general resurrection of people is conditioned by the fact that everyone will appear before the royal Judge; no one will escape His final judgment 1628. At this judgment, a complete, perfect and universal judgment 1629, the Lord will determine the fate of all people - all people will be rewarded, depending on their moral activity in earthly life: the righteous will be rewarded, sinners will be punished. The righteous will enter paradise, where their eternal bliss will consist in the contemplation of God and participation in the glory of Christ 1630; on the contrary, sinners will be sent to fiery Gehenna, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth 1631. Regarding the state of souls after death until the day of judgment, Tertullian taught that all human souls generally go to the underworld, some dark place in the bowels of the earth, and remain there until the second coming of Christ 1632; The exception to this is represented only by the Old Testament prophets and patriarchs, who, after a long stay in the underworld, were released from it as soon as the Lord rose from the dead, and were introduced into paradise, this place of heavenly sweetness, separated from the globe by a great abyss 1633. The martyrs have an even greater advantage compared to the prophets and patriarchs - they do not enter the underworld at all - their blood, shed for Christ, serves as the key that immediately opens the doors of heaven 1634. There, in the heavenly abodes, the souls of patriarchs, prophets and martyrs only anticipate future bliss, but do not yet fully enjoy it. Not a single point in Tertullian dogma represents such poverty and incompleteness as the doctrine of the sacraments. He did not speak about all the sacraments - he did not even make a hint about the priesthood and the consecration of oil; he said very little about the Eucharist, this most important Christian sacrament, in various places of his polemics; only four sacraments occupied him more or less seriously and called him to compose special treatises; these Sacraments: baptism, the bringing down of the Holy Spirit onto the baptized person through the laying on of hands, repentance and marriage. But even here, dogmatic material is often mixed with moral thoughts, and sometimes obscured by provisions of a canonical and liturgical nature. Every believer enters the Church of Christ 1635 only through the door of baptism - without baptism, salvation is unattainable for anyone 1636; Therefore, baptism is one of the most necessary sacraments of Christianity 1637. As the door leading to the Church of Christ, the seal of faith 1638, baptism into the death of Christ 1639, it could and did appear only with the advent of Christianity 1640, and precisely from the time when Christ was nailed to the cross 1641; Before this, there was only the baptism of John, the baptism of repentance, as a purely human action that did not have the power of grace 1642. As a sacrament, baptism did not appear by chance; it was a divine institution of 1643. – Water is the most suitable substance for the sacrament, symbolically indicating its effect 1644. Divine grace is called upon her, the Holy Spirit descends on her, as a result of which she receives healing power 1645. In this water, sanctified by the gracious presence of the Holy Spirit, the baptized person is immersed while confessing faith in the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit 1646. During the performance of this visible action - immersion - an invisible action of grace occurs: a person is reborn for a new life, his former sins are washed away, and thus he becomes sinless, innocent 1647. Therefore, by the way, and on the other hand, because it can one day cleanse a person from the sinful stains of a past life and make it possible not to become infected with new stains, baptism should be recognized as one: just as there is one Lord, just as there is one faith, so baptism is one, unrepeatable 1648; if it is repeated, it is in a different form, in the form of baptism with blood, which supplements water baptism and atones for sins committed after baptism with water; but this baptism is also one, unrepeatable 1649. – To accept baptism requires moral preparedness 1650, preliminary familiarization with the truths of the Christian faith. This, on the one hand, and on the other hand, responsibility for the subsequent life requires that one not rush into baptism and not entrust this gift to those who are not able to properly use it. Therefore, for infants, for whom responsibility falls with all its weight on the recipients, and for young people, it is better to postpone baptism until the time when infants mature and are able to understand Christian teaching and the high responsibilities imposed on a person by baptism, and for young people, when passions subside, or when they get married. Therefore, when baptizing, you need to pay attention to the condition, location and age of those being baptized 1651. Baptism with water is performed by a bishop, but can be performed by a presbyter, a deacon, and even - in extreme cases - by a simple layman; only women cannot perform it 1652. - Any day can be chosen as the time for baptism, but days more appropriate for this act are the day of Easter and Pentecost 1653. In close and inextricable connection with baptism is anointing with oil (unctio oleo), - from which the name Christian actually comes, and which, like baptism, also produces an invisible effect 1654 - and the laying on of hands with the invocation of the Holy Spirit 1655. Through anointing and the laying on of hands, the baptized is completely made a member of the Church of Christ: the Holy Spirit descends on him with the message and the gift of spiritual peace 1656. If a believer has sinned after baptism, hope for salvation is not lost forever. Knowing human weaknesses, the merciful Lord gave people a means of cleansing themselves from sins, repentance, repentance for sins. This repentance is the second bath after baptism, washing a person from defilement, secondary repentance, a cure against moral illnesses 1657. Consciousness of sins, confession of them, expressed outwardly, penitential deeds, moral correction - these are the conditions for the effectiveness of the sacrament of 1658. The consequence of the entire repentant process is the complete cleansing of a person from sins and the restoration of the religious union with God, dissolved by a sinful life 1659 - Among the sins in general there are mortal sins, unforgivable: their remission can be granted not by the church, but by God alone 1660. – Tertullian wants repentance to be no more than a single one. Marriage is a great sacrament; it depicts the mysterious union of Christ with the church of 1661. God Himself blessed the marriage union of husband and wife 1662, the union of the two of them into one flesh 1663, so that marriage in Christ and in the church becomes a pure matter 1664. Marriage is a voluntary union, without a shadow of violence on anyone’s part 1665, a union about the Lord, that is, concluded only with Christians - marriage with pagans is adultery, which paganism has marked itself with, should not be allowed, especially due to the difficulties that accompany this marriage for a Christian 1666. The marriage union, blessed by God, one, like the one union of Christ with the church, lasts for the entire life of the couple; Moreover, even death itself is not able to dissolve what God has united; therefore, the dissolution of marriages should not be allowed in any case 1667, therefore, a second marriage, even if one of the persons married in the first marriage has died, for the surviving spouse will be adultery, intolerable in Christianity, prohibited by the Lord Himself 1668, as destroying the essence and meaning of the marriage union 1669, as the union into one flesh of not two, but already three 1670 . This is what Tertullian, the Montanist, taught; Previously, he allowed a second marriage if the first was dissolved by death, as long as this marriage was a union in the Lord, that is, between Christians and with the blessing of the church. During the Montanist period of his activity, Tertullian looked at first marriages with hostility, interpreting them as fornication, sanctioned by the church and recognized in Christianity in 1671. The sacrament of the Eucharist was surrounded by high reverence - sacrilegious and stained hands did not touch the body of Christ; if they accepted it, they were met with strong reproach 1672; ate the body of Christ before taking any food 1673. Reverence for the sacrament of the Eucharist was a consequence of a high view of the sacrament itself: Christians were convinced that under the guise of bread they accepted and partook of the very body of Christ, and in wine - His true blood 1674; through the communion of body and blood, believers are united with Christ and remain inseparable with Him 1675 - and this conviction of theirs rested entirely on the words of the Lord, who, “taking bread and dividing it to the disciples, made it his own body, saying: this is my body, that is, the image (figura) of my body,” and indicated his blood in the wine 1676. Tertullian does not say how the sacrament of the Eucharist was performed; from his words it is only clear that the elders performed it, at least they distributed gifts to the people to be accepted in their homes before the meal 1677. Bearing in mind the power and effectiveness of the sacrament of the Eucharist, it, by the way, was performed annually in commemoration of the dead, offerings were made for them, in full confidence that these means would bring undoubted benefit to those who passed beyond the tomb 1678. Here is a short summary of Tertullian’s dogmatic positions, scattered throughout his various treatises and (some) discussed by him in special works. As a moralist, Tertullian tried to outline - directly or indirectly, with positive or negative features - the ideal of the moral life of a Christian in a social and family setting. In the first case, he examined life primarily from those aspects in which it came into contact with paganism and posed a danger to the moral consciousness of a Christian, those aspects from which a Christian needed to avoid; and in the second, he painted a peaceful family life with its quiet joys and innocent pleasures. In the sphere of public life there are two sides - the side of the ruler and the side of the subordinates, power and subjects. From his ascetic point of view, Tertullian saw in power the desire for glory and external splendor, against which he so often and strongly rebelled, considering glory to be vain and useless for a Christian, 1679 developing in him such aspects of mental life that he should suppress in himself. This, however, does not mean that a Christian is completely alienated from social activities; as a member of a certain society, he is necessarily already drawn into public life and takes a more or less strong part in it. Because of this, Tertullian seemed to be making a concession, allowing for the possibility of a Christian holding government positions and even drawing negative features on the ideal of a Christian invested with supreme power or occupying other more or less prominent positions in the sphere of state administration. A Christian, according to him, although surrounded by a pagan atmosphere, nevertheless, without sinning against the spirit of Christianity and his conscience, can follow the path of honors and ranks, as long as this path is not tainted by a pagan character; a Christian can hold public office, as long as he does not directly or indirectly contribute to the strengthening and support of paganism. But the fact is that in the then position of Christianity amid strong paganism, it seemed impossible to Tertullian for the highest government service of a Christian; the highest government positions presented too many difficulties. To be a true Christian and at the same time a ruler, he must be completely alien to paganism and its customs. Walking the path of honors and ranks, a Christian can remain innocent only if he does not make pagan sacrifices, does not promote sacrifices, does not provide animals for this, does not make efforts to maintain temples either himself or through others, does not seek income for their benefit; perhaps with a clear conscience, as long as he did not give games either at his own expense or at the expense of the treasury, did not preside over them, did not institute feasts and did not pronounce oaths, did not issue sentences on anyone’s life or honor, excluding actual criminals, did not judge, did not condemn to death, did not condemn anyone to chains and prisons, did not subject anyone to innocent torture 1680. After this, the Christian himself is presented with the question: can he fulfill such an ideal of a statesman in the gloomy, stupefying atmosphere of paganism? Exploring more deeply the question of power from the perspective of the relationship between God and authority, Tertullian directly and decisively even expresses the idea that a Christian must renounce power and honors not only because it is difficult, or rather impossible, to fulfill the ideal of a Christian sovereign in his life and work, but mainly because power and earthly honors are alien to God, hostile and hostile to Him, thanks to the judicial and executive parts of them 1681. I. Christ - the ideal of Christian life, which every follower of the cross must follow, lived his life in humility - He did not rule over his disciples and renounced royal power; He considered the attributes of power unnecessary and unnecessary for Himself, therefore, He rejected them, and what He rejected, He already condemned, and what He condemned, He handed over to Satan and his minions; He would not have condemned them if He had not considered them alien to Himself 1682. In the same way, Tertullian interdicts the external differences of people - clothing, etc. things, looking at them from the side of their connection with paganism. “We could dress our sons in pretexta,” he says, and our daughters in a long table, if these clothes meant freedom, and not power, a surname, and not dignity, rank, and not superstition. But this scarlet and these distinctions of power and dignity are now attached to the power and dignity of idols, and are all the more desecrated because the idols themselves are clothed in them, who are clothed in pretexts, tarbei, laticlaves and before which they carry bunches of sticks and rods. "... Tertullian looks at all this as vanity. “He who renounces the vanities of Satan and turns to them again is an idolater” 1683. How should a Christian behave as a subject in relation to authorities? Although the government is pagan, nevertheless, a Christian must look at the government as established or allowed by God, which must be obeyed not out of fear, but out of love 1684. With deep respect for authority, a disciple of the Lord should consider it his duty to pray for the sovereign and his government 1685, unquestioningly carry out his orders, as long as they do not run counter to the spirit of Christianity and do not pose a danger to the morality of a Christian 1686, conscientiously carry out various duties, pay taxes, etc. 1687. If the orders of the government are not reconciled with the spirit of Christianity, the Christian consciousness demands that they be rejected, despite all respect for the authorities and a conscientious attitude towards it and its orders 1688. Respect for power should be deep, but it should not cross the boundaries determined by Christian consciousness, it should not reach the deification of emperors with its various branches and serving the idolatrous cult 1689. Public festivals in honor of the Caesars, their pagan character, the superstitions that surrounded these holidays, the revelry at them, which often turned into wild orgies - all this rightly incurred reproach from Tertullian and caused a ban on Christians taking part in them. Neither pleasing others, nor the desire to avoid slander from the pagans, nor anything else can force Christians to take part in these festivals, festivals that are meaningless, boring and cannot replace Christian holidays 1690. While paying due honor to the Caesars, there is no need to go beyond the bounds of faith and fall into idolatry, there is no need to subservient to the mighty of this world, and to show them divine honors 1691. From his rigoristic point of view, Tertullian looked at military service, where Christian life comes into such close contact with pagan customs, as an evil from which a Christian must flee in every possible way. Military life is imbued with a pagan character, has a pagan setting, and is filled with various customs and superstitions; there are so many elements in it that are foreign to Christianity that, without disturbing his conscience, without violating the vows of baptism and without being in danger of becoming infected again with idolatry, a Christian cannot enter into military service. Is there possible a commonality between the oaths given to God and the oaths given to man, between the banner of Christ and the banner of Satan, the camp of light and the camp of darkness? one and the same life cannot be dedicated to two masters - God and Caesar 1692. From the same side, from the side of the contact of life with paganism, Tertullian looked at various kinds of trade and industry. In the pre-montanist period of his activity, Tertullian did not look at trade and other aspects of human activity and life in general, where the relationship of one to another is manifested, with such severity as later. In response to the reproach from the pagans that Christians are useless in public life, he outlined the life of Christians in its various respects and found Christians from this side to be very useful members of society, taking part in all aspects and manifestations of life 1693. Afterwards, after his transition to Montanism, everything that had at least some relation to the idolatrous cult seemed to him idolatry; trade in various items related to the idolatrous cult cannot be allowed to a Christian, as participation in idolatry; trade in various items that have no connection with paganism is prohibited for a Christian, because its source is the love of money, its attributes are lies and perjury, in any case not allowed in Christian life 1694. In the same way, a Christian cannot be allowed industry in general that has a visible or only supposed connection with paganism. In general, “every work, every service in favor of an idol is service to it, there is idolatry” 1695. The fabrication of idols 1696, the construction of pagan temples and their decoration is idolatry, as its material support contributes, if not to its spread, then at least to its support 1697; every Christian who takes an indirect or direct part in this is responsible for all the evil caused by his work 1698. In general, almost all crafts and arts in the eyes of Tertullian did not find application in Christian life, because all of them, to a greater or lesser extent, came into contact with paganism 1699. Further, all arts or professions that, in Tertullian’s opinion, favor paganism, should also not be a Christian’s occupation: astrology and magic are not included in the curriculum of a disciple of the Lord 1700, communication with magicians, charlatans, astrologers, etc. people is reprehensible 1701. Moreover, even the position of teacher of literature, according to Tertullian, smacks of paganism and is indecent for a Christian 1702. But if crafts, arts, trade, etc. are interdicted, then the question seems inevitable: how to live? where to find the means to live and pay taxes? Tertullian’s general answer is this: “faith is not afraid of hunger, knowing that out of love for God one must endure hunger, like any other death,” a Christian in any case should rely more on God’s mercy than on his own strength and means, and pray that needs do not bring him closer to idolatry 1703. The field of art is not so limited that one cannot find any art that has no connection with paganism; In that art that does not come into contact with paganism, a Christian must practice and through it obtain means in life. Tertullian looked too harshly on various public pleasures, such as spectacles in the circus and theater; he condemned them and convinced Christians not to go to theatrical and circus shows, where it is very easy to change one’s conscience 1704. Contaminated by the nature of idolatry 1705, offering honey for morality, poisoned with poison 1706, spectacles have a harmful effect on the spiritual education of a Christian. Everything in them is designed to corrupt morality; theater and circus are a school of passions, a school of debauchery, do not agree with the spirit of Christianity, are contrary to the commandments of the Gospel and the vows of baptism, and must, therefore, be rejected as the work of Satan 1707. In exchange for all these stage entertainment, Tertullian offered the Christian another entertainment, an object of aesthetic pleasure. If a Christian, he says, needs entertainment, then a great spectacle of nature is spread out before his eyes, sacred poetry is in his hands, the musical sounds of choral performances of liturgical hymns reach his ears; Christianity can completely replace theater and circus with gladiatorial battles - here there is music, poetry and the shedding of the blood of the God-man 1708. Tertullian absolutely forbade Christians from stage entertainment and festivals in honor of the Caesars, marked by a pagan character; he did not even allow the decoration of their houses with garlands, as a pagan custom that was related to idolatry, and the same idolatry in 1709. Riotous feasts, where unbridled passions developed, loud laughter was heard, conversation was accompanied by witty slander and obscene jokes, where fun was aroused by wine, moderation was completely forgotten, where immodesty was inflamed by the voluptuous sounds of music, the seductive content of songs and shameless body movements - all this was forbidden to them in 1710. Tertullian painted social life most of all with negative features, as a life that was more influenced by paganism. He put more positive touches on family life and home. In the family he found the fulfillment of the Christian ideal; the home provided him with that refuge and peace that was missing beyond the threshold of the house. With sweeping strokes he outlined home life down to the smallest detail. The basis of family life is the marriage of a husband and wife. Marriage is a union of love and purity. Hence, the husband and wife must be imbued with this mutual love, between the husband and wife there should be no discord or discord in anything, there must be complete unanimity between them both in prayer and in mutual support - where there is one flesh, there is one soul; they are equal everywhere, they endure poverty and wealth, grief and joy together, they do not hide from each other, they are not burdened by one another. Such a life for those who are married pleases the Lord: “I. Christ rejoices, seeing such their housekeeping, sends his peace to this house and dwells in it with them” 1711. Such an ideal can only be realized when the husband and wife are both Christians. But if one of them is a pagan, then the Christian must honestly and impeccably fulfill his marital duties towards the pagan spouse; True, here the struggle between tender feelings and the duty of faith is inevitable and many difficulties may arise for a Christian, but the more valuable is the good attitude of a Christian towards a pagan spouse. Marital fidelity should also prevail here in the attitude of a Christian or a Christian woman to a pagan spouse 1712, and in this case, married life should be decorated with chastity, for the sake of which and for the better observance of which many lead a virgin life, and if they marry, they continue to maintain virginity - through abstinence and purity. A husband must treat his wife as a helper on the thorny path of life and a friend in serving God, love and protect her from various dangers and everyday hardships. The wife is subordinate to her husband; but this submission is not slavery - it must be imbued with love and devotion; she must treat her husband with modesty, and others with the modesty characteristic of the female sex: not reveal coquetry and desire to please - the first manifestations of a violation of fidelity to her husband. Therefore, her clothes should be simple, unrefined, luxurious coiffure and cosmetics should come out of the wife’s closet, - the wife should please only her husband (and the husband will love his wife, in any case, not for external and artificial beauty and decoration, but for her internal qualities), not attract the eyes of strangers with her appearance 1713, - to be modest in all respects, hardworking, sober and faithful to her husband - these are the qualities Christian wife 1714. A child born from such a blessed marriage should be the subject of the most tender feelings on the part of the parents and care for his upbringing 1715, as a person and a future member of Christian society and the church 1716. Not to mention physical education, many concerns lie with parents regarding mental and religious-moral education, which parents have no right to ignore, under pain of a strict answer before God, since one or another direction of the child’s mental life 1717 and the structure of his religious-moral life depend on this upbringing. The beneficial influence of upbringing will not be long in coming to light: the child will become a good member of the family, a good member of society and a good member of the church 1718. How is the life of a Christian family? Turning their gaze to heaven, constantly ready to leave this world, Christians should not become strongly attached to the world; only part of the care is given to the needs of life 1719. Considering luxurious furnishings in homes inappropriate and indecent, Tertullian considered luxury in clothing equally inappropriate and even reprehensible; he looked at the exquisite and expensive outfits of women as one of the signs of prostitution, and at cosmetics, in addition, as harmful to the body 1720. If a Christian has rich funds, they should be used in a Christian way - for works of mercy, and not for luxury and various fads, as the pagans did and do 1721. This, however, does not mean that negligence can be seen in the decor and clothing of Christians; Decency and simplicity should be the distinguishing features in the decoration of the house, external behavior and clothing of Christians 1722. Having parted with paganism, Christians must leave its customs, especially since there is no need for them, especially in the Iron Age that Christians lived through in 1723. But rituals and ceremonies in various private cases of a person’s life, family holidays - this can be considered permissible. Dressing in a white toga is a sign that a person has entered into adulthood, a conspiracy, a wedding, a holiday on the occasion of naming a baby can be celebrated by Christians - Tertullian does not see a pagan seal on them; On such holidays, Christians can even go to pagans, as long as they do not take part in pagan rituals there, behave modestly and observe moderation in everything; During such holidays, for example, at a wedding, the Lord Himself does not forbid having fun 1724. From the point of view of the world as a kingdom of evil, covered with thick darkness, blinding the mind, harmfully affecting morality, full of temptations and debauchery 1725, it was natural for Tertullian to want to free Christians from this moral darkness, to isolate them from contact with the outside, where paganism seemed to him everywhere, to free them from this suffocating atmosphere; From the world of Christians, Tertullian wanted to form something like a monastery, with a strictly defined system, with long fasts, vigils and genuflections. The exit from this monastery is to heaven. It is clear that the more glorious the outcome, the better and more beneficial for Christianity. In centuries of persecution, martyrdom represented the best path to heaven. In him Tertullian saw a direct and decisive victory over evil and the devil 1726. Martyrdom is the only death worthy of a Christian, washing away sinful stains and delivering a great reward in heaven 1727; in martyrdom, the spirit gradually but quickly rises and gains dominance over the flesh. Martyrdom is a duty and a pledge of faith 1728; evading it - whether through direct and solemn renunciation, or through gifts - is an act unworthy of a Christian, tantamount to apostasy from faith in Christ and failure to respect one’s spiritual interests 1729. In avoiding martyrdom (in one way or another), a Christian preserves his temporary life, but instead destroys eternal life. A Christian should not spare temporary life, he must confess his faith on earth in order to receive eternal life 1730. To make it easier to endure torment, a Christian, through gradual and constant self-mortification, must prepare for this act, accustom the spirit to dominion over the flesh, to complete freedom and independence from the flesh and its demands 1731. The best means for this are long fasts - in addition to those established by the church and obligatory for all Christians, emergency fasts - also obligatory from the point of view of Montanism 1732. When presenting Tertullian’s dogmatic and moral views, it is impossible to pass over in silence those reproaches that were and are being made to Tertullian, a polemical-dogmatist and moralist; we talk about his delusions. First of all, it should be noted that some of Tertullian’s errors arose as a result of his opposition to heretical views. Tertullian had to express his views and beliefs in polemics with those directions that seemed wrong to him. Ardent and decisive, Tertullian always pursued his views to the end, even if this end threatened him with the danger of expressing a not entirely Orthodox view. The extensive polemical activity of the Carthaginian presbyter, the speed and haste of his literary works, the numerous questions put forward by his time, the novelty of theological research in the Latin West, the strong opposition to heresies and Tertullian’s desire to finally and with one blow defeat his opponents, it seems, somewhat atone for the mistakes that he made in his theological system and for which he was known as homo non ecclesiae, especially since in Some points of his teaching are only apparent errors. On the other hand, a considerable apology for Tertullian can be found in linguistics. Some of his “misconceptions” are a direct result either of the failure to develop the theological language of his time in general, or - and mainly - of the incorrectness, inaccuracy and sometimes vagueness of his own language, which - in turn - were a consequence of his, so to speak, despotic attitude towards language. On the following lines we will indicate his main misconceptions 1733. I. Tertullian’s biggest misconception is indicated by his idea that God has a body 1734, an idea for which, together with the idea of ​​the soul that it also has a body, Tertullian is accused of refined materialism 1735. This view of Tertullian can, it seems, be looked at in part as one of the unsuccessful expressions, the inaccuracies of his language. The fact is that, when he says: “Deus esse corpus,” by the word “corpus” he does not mean the physical body (for him it is corpus sui generis), and with this expression he does not materialize God. He recognized God as a spirit 1736, invisible with carnal eyes, incomprehensible, and if he said that “Deus esse corpus,” then he meant something completely different, and not a material or physical body. According to his own explanation, "corpus" is what makes a known object 1737; in other words, with the concept of body, Tertullian expresses only the concept of real being and essence, as opposed to the concept of the carrier, vacuum, inane. Consequently, the expression: “Deus esse corpus” is equivalent to the expression: God is not a simple abstraction, or - God is a real essence 1738. This is how Bl looked at it. Augustine 1739, to whom it seemed incredible that Tertullian had a materialistic view of God as a passionate being (since every body, according to Tertullian, is subject to passion, sensuality), Tertullian, this ardent opponent of sensualistic views of the Divine. If you look at the matter in this way, then Tertullian is right and orthodox. Analyzing this view of Tertullian in connection with his view of the soul, one involuntarily has to admit that those who reproach him for unorthodoxy are fair, at least in part. But careful analysis does not allow such a comparison to be made - in the doctrine of the soul, the concept of body is used in a different sense than in the doctrine of God. Tertullian was of the conviction that every created spirit, no matter how exalted it may be, is not the purest spirit, but is always clothed with a subtle body so that it can act outwardly; but this is only a created spirit; the uncreated is the purest spirit, possessing the property of perfect spirituality 1740. From this it becomes clear that in Tertullian’s vocabulary the concepts of spirit and body as applied to man do not have a radical opposition; for Tertullian, spirit is nothing more than a kind of subtle body. He calls the soul spirit, and meanwhile, almost next to this, he says that the soul has a body of a certain shape with three dimensions, of a certain quality and with known sexual characteristics 1741. The latter provisions make it clear that Tertullian’s concept of spirit, as applied to created beings, is somewhat peculiar, partly assimilated with the concept of body, but he looks at the body only as something not purely spiritual - evidence of which is the properties that Tertullian attributes to the body of the soul - shape, three dimensions, color, sexual difference. Thus, it turns out that in this case it is difficult to resolve the issue of Tertullian’s orthodoxy in his view of God, although, it should be noted, there are more reasons to lean towards Tertullian’s own explanation of the corporeality and authority of Bl. Augustine 1742. II. God was not always the Father - He could not have been the Father before the existence of the Son, and there was a time when the Son was not 1743 - a thought, apparently, that is purely Arian. Elsewhere, Tertullian decisively affirms the pre-mortal existence of the Son, the eternal 1744, and sets out the doctrine of the Trinity in a strictly Orthodox spirit 1745. The ardent defender of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, Tertullian, with the expression: “there was a time when the Son was not” does not mean that the Son actually did not exist from eternity, as a hypostasis; his thought is that “existing from eternity in God, as His inner Word, only after His emergence from God for creation He revealed Himself as the Son, revealed Himself in such a special form in which He had not previously existed, being in the bosom of God” 1746. This means that the error regarding the eternity of the Son of God lies only in the form of expression of thought; there is an error in words, and not in deeds, not in thoughts 1747. III. Recognizing the pre-worldly existence of the Son, Tertullian seemed to reject His personal existence before the act of creation of the world, as if the Son of God, as a person, appears to him only from the moment when God said: let there be light 1748. But the passage from the book “adversus Praxeam” on which this reproach is based does not give the right to express it so decisively 1749. Tertullian clearly affirms the hypostatic co-eternity with God of that Word, which as the Word revealed itself in activity; through analogy it tries to understand, if possible, the very image of His eternal existence in God. This divine Reason, having eternal existence in God, from eternity is the Word, He, as an image, an interlocutor of God, is also a real person, like the Word that came from God for creation 1750. Sometimes under the name of Wisdom, sometimes under the name of the Word, the same person is spoken of everywhere, whether he is born at the beginning of the ways of the Lord, or establishes the heavens, or creates all sorts of things... Wisdom, Reason, divine Power and Spirit, under different names, are the same Word, which became the Son of God, who gave birth to Him and produced Him outside of Himself 1751. IV. The soul has a corpus sui generis, there is a sexual difference in it, it has three dimensions, like any body, it has members corresponding in shape and appearance to the members of the physical body of a person; the soul is transparent, airy in color 1752. Above 1753 it was indicated how Tertullian understood spirit as applied to created beings. Without repeating what has been said, let’s move on to his next “misconception.” V. They reproach Tertullian with the theory of traducianism. The question of the origin of souls was one of the questions that gave rise to various solutions. There is no positive indication of this in Holy Scripture; no general church teaching on this subject has been established; therefore, to resolve this issue, three hypotheses were proposed: the hypothesis of creation, birth and pre-existence of souls, and each hypothesis had its supporters among the fathers and teachers of the church and Christian writers. The theory of traducianism, expressed and rounded out by Tertullian, held out for a relatively long time in the West, and was also accepted in the East in 1754 as a theory that relatively satisfactorily solved the question of the origin of souls and was not condemned by the church. And after the fifth Ecumenical Council, which resolved this issue in the sense of the creation of souls along with the body, the theory of traducianism was not forgotten; it is also accepted by some of the newest theologians - with the omission in it only of excessive plasticity 1755, or in combination with the doctrine of the creation of souls by God 1756. Consequently, the reproach to Tertullian for the theory of traducianism cannot be a reproach that humiliates the authority of the Carthaginian presbyter. IV. But what speaks most against Tertullian is his acceptance of Montanism with its dogmatic and moral-practical views. Tertullian himself, in polemics against heresies, contrasted them with the authority of the apostolic churches, which he recognized as unconditional in the matter of faith and religious convictions, and at the same time he himself became a follower of Montanism, the very same one that at first encountered opposition from representatives of the churches. True, Tertullian was a man of strict decency and discipline, there were shortcomings in the Roman clergy that repelled him from this church, nevertheless, with his mental gifts, it was difficult to expect that he could be carried away by the teachings of Montanus, become an ardent admirer of the Montanistic prophetesses, unconditionally believe in their authority and, on occasion, hide behind them to confirm his philosophical and dogmatic theses. The only correct explanation of this transition, in the opinion of Neander and his supporters, with whom one cannot but agree, lies in the personal character of Tertullian, in his natural, ever-present inclination towards excessive severity, discipline and submission to direct authority. Because of this, it was and is said about Tertullian that “if he was not always a montanista, he was always a montanizans” 1757 - in other words - Tertullian, even before the time of his transition to Montanism, was imbued with rigoristic tendencies, only they were not revealed in him to the same extent as after the open recognition of the truth of Montanism and the acceptance of its teachings. Having deviated into Montanism, Tertullian adopted many views that were reconciled with Montanist teaching, but did not agree with the teaching of the universal church. He, for example, began to admit in the Montanistic spirit the gradualness of divine revelation, to recognize the Paraclete, who said the last word of perfect, complete revelation and completed the work of Christ the Savior; began to look at second marriages as adultery, although ancient church practice allowed these marriages; introduced a classification of sins into forgivable and unforgivable into repentant discipline; certainly forbade evasion of persecution in any way. For example, the doctrine of the pre-worldly existence of the Word, etc. For example, a dispute about the baptism of heretics, about grace, disciplinary issues; before that - anti-Docetism. In the East - Docetism, Gnosticism and Christological disputes; in the West - Montanism, Donatism, Pelagianism. Patripassianism is of eastern origin (Asia Minor), like all heresies of an impractical direction. De praescr. 7. 8. 10. 14. 17. 19. 19; de anima 2; cf. de virg. vel. 1; adv. Prax. 2, etc. - It should be noted, however, that Tertullian himself, with all the disdain for philosophy and speculation that he provided to others, was sometimes not alien to peculiar metaphysical constructions. Apol. 17, de test. anim.; adv. Mark I, 10. For example, his concrete (but not materialistic) view of God and the human soul (adv. Prah. 7; de anima 5 - 9. 22), of human freedom, etc. Patrol, par Cohen. t, II, p. 342. See review of this teaching in Curs, compl. patrol. I, 21. Adv. Marc. I, 3 10; II, 2; adv. Hermog. 4; apol. 17; de test. anim. 2. Adv. Marc. I, 5; adv. Hermog. 4; adv. Prax. 2. 5. 6. Adv. Hermog. 4. 6. 17; adv. Prax. 5. Adv. Marc. I, 4. 5; II, 2. 16. Adv. Marc. I, 24; II, 16; de bapt. 2; adv. Prax. 10. For God, everything is possible that only He wills, and, on the contrary, what He does not desire is impossible for Him (de carne Chr. 3). Adv. Marc. I, 3. 8; V, 1. 6; adv. Hermog. 1.5; adv. Prax. 2. 5. 6; apol. 26. Apol. 27; adv. Hermog. 16.42. Adv. Marc. I, 23; II, 6. 13; adv. Prax. 11.27; de pud. 2; de carn. Chr. 10; de res. Carn. 14 Adv. Hermog. 18, adv. Prax. 5. 6. Adv. Prax. 5. 6. 11; adv. Hermog. 18; apol. 21. Adv. Hermog. 18; apol. 21; adv. Prax. 6. 7. 17. 22; adv. Marc. IV, 25; de res. carn. 6. Tres non statu, sed gradu, non substantia, sed forma, nec potestate, sed specie, unius autem substantiae, et unius potestatis. Adv. Marc. I, 9. 11. 14. 15; adv. Hermog. 45; apol. 17. Adv. Hermog. 18.45.adv. Prax. 16. In various places in Tertullian’s writings there are indications that before the visible world, an invisible world was created - the angelic, they talk about the spirituality (de spiritualitate) of the nature of angels, freedoms and other properties that are attributed to angels by Orthodox dogmatists. Adv. Hermog. 29; cf. apol. 21. Adv. Hermog. 31; adv. Marc. III, 10; de res. carn. 5. 6. 7. 9; cf. apol. 18. Adv. Prax. 12; de res. carn 6. According to the teachings of Tertullian, the image of God does not consist in bodily outlines, but in the free will and power of man (adv. Marc. II, 5). Adv. Marc. I, 13; II, 3. 8. 10; IV, 37; de res carn. 40. The soul is simple, singular, although it has several manifestations: it is spiritus, when it contemplates something, sensus, when it feels, animus, when it penetrates into something (sapit), mens, when it understands, ratio, when it distinguishes, voluntas, when it decides, memoria, when it remembers the past, anima, when it animates the members of the body. De test. an. 1; adv. Prax. 22; de an. 5. 12. 13. 14. 15. 19. 23; de came Chr. 12; de res. carn. 7.15. 16. 17; de jejun. 2. Dean. 22.24; adv.. Marc. II, 9. Adv. Marc. II, 5. 8, de an. 41. Deus sine peccato est. Adv. Marc. II, 9, 10; de anima. 41. The whole treatise adv. iudaeos and 3 books. adv. Marc. Adv. iudaeos; adv. Marc. III, 1. 2. 5. sq. Adv. Marc. III, 9; de carne Chr. 3. 6. Adv. Prax. 27; adv. Marc. I, 14.15; V, 14; de carne Chr. 4. 6. 14. 16. Rgah. 27; de carne Chr. 18. Adv. iud. 10; de carne Chr. 8.16; adv. Marc. V, 14. Adv. iud. 9; de carne Chr. 4. 5. 14; adv. Marc. III, 11; IV, 21; apol. 21; adv. Prax. 2. Adv. Marc. III, 27; II, 27. Ibid. III, 9; IV, 10; de carne Chr. 4. De res. car. 2; adv. Marc. V, 9. Adv. Marc. III, 7, 17; IV, 21; adv.iud. 14. De res. carn. 15. 43. 18. 52. 53. 60. 57. 36. 41. Ibid. 35. 41. 43; de an. 55. Dean. 55; apol. 47; adv. Marc. II, 10. Tertullian had the right view of the Church of Christ; he defined it as a meeting of believers, founded by I. Christ, an institution intended to lead people to holiness; the church is one because una nobis et illis (sc. omnibus) fides, unus Deus, idem Christus, eadem spes, eadem lavacri sacramenta; semel dixerim, una ecclesia sumus (de virg. vel. 2), apostolic (de praescr. 20). De bapt. 4.6; adv. Marc. I, 28. Preparation through fasting, prayer, kneeling and confessing your sins. De bapt. 20; de poenit. 6. Ibid. 7. Repentance is the price of forgiveness, an essential condition for non-punishment. De pudic. 2. 3. 19; adv. Marc. IV, 9. Adv. Marc. V, 18; II, 29. De monog. 9; ad. uxor. II, 9; de virg. vel. 5. Adv. Marc. IV, 34; de monog. 9.15. Adv. Marc. IV, 40; III, 39. De cor. mil. 3; ad uxor. II, 5. Ad Scap. 2; apolog. 32. 33. De idol. 19; de cor. mil. 11. Tertullian saw danger in the fabrication of idols not only because it indirectly promoted paganism and caused moral harm to others, but also because the artisan could become carried away by his work and be seduced into idolatry; the fabrication of idols was thus moral torture for a Christian. De idol. 3. 6. De ornatu mul. - both books. De anima 19; de res. car. 16. De orn. mul. 2. 3. 10. 11. Ibid. 9; de fuga in pers. 1. 10. 12. Vid. Paradoxa Tert. cum antidoto J. Pameli – in Curs. compl. patrol. t.1, p. 179–210. Deus esse corpus sui generis in sua effigie. Adv. Prax. 7; adv. Marc. II, 16. See note. I on this country., also Skvortsov’s “Philosophy of Tertullian” in Trud. Kyiv. Spirit. Academician 1866, vol. II. De came Chr. 11; cf. adv. Hermog. 35: ipsa substantia corpus sit rei cujusque. De anima 7: nihil enim, si non corpus. In books.adv. Marc, there is confirmation of the same. Some ardently point out that in the expression “Deus esse corpus” Tertullian allowed a metaphor, the word “corpus” was used instead of the word “substantia”, just as we often use metaphors of this kind and as they were used in ancient times, for example, by Lucretius - he has the expression: “corpus aquae” instead of “substantia aquae”. Bergier, diction de theol., t. VIII, p. 62. Lib. De haeres. ad Quodvultdeus, haer. 80. Bergier, dict. de théol., VIII, 62. De anima 36. The ancient writers, however, did not see everything in Tertullian’s work regarding the sexual difference of souls. Vid. Curs. compl. patrol., I, 182. Rev. Sylvester says; “By the body that he attributed to God, he did not mean any material body, but a very special kind of appearance, corresponding to one divine substance, in which and through which it exists - a body, therefore, in its essence as different from the human body as the divine substance is different from the corporeal substance... Tertullian recognized God as a spirit in the full and proper sense of the word.” Experience Orthodox. Dogmatic Theology – Archim. Sylvester, II, 84. Adv. Hermog. 3 Vid. Curs compl. patrol. I, 207 – 210. See his creeds and doctrine of the Trinity in his treatise Adv. Prax. 5. 6. 7. And Sylvester’s experience is right. Dogma. God., II, 327 – 330. See Orthodox Dogmatic. Theology – Archbishop. Filareta, Chernigov, 1864, I, 161. 162. – With the expression: “fuit tempus, qumu delictum et films non fuit” Tertullian, perhaps, wanted to indicate that the Father alone is eternal, and the son is co-eternal. For such an explanation see Curs. compl. patrol., I, 206 – 210. Adv. Prax. 7. Voyez Revue des deux mondes, 1964, t. LIV, p. 184. How to look at this, see above, page 266. A. Sylvester – Experience Rights. Dogma. Theology, II, 327 – 329. Page 409. See also Curs compl. patrol. I, 182 – 185. A. Sylvester – Experience Rights. Dogma. Theology, III, 313 – 315; Freppel, Tertull. II, 379. Right Dogma. God. – Arch. Philaret, I, 320, 321; Orthodox Christian doctrine or Dogmatic Theology - Archim., now Bishop Justin, I, 184, 185. Guide to the study of Christianity, Orthodox Dogma. Theology - M.A.L., p. 103. Revue des deux mondes, t. LIV, 1864 an., p. 178. Neander. Antignost. Emleit.