The medieval ideal and modern culture

Contents 1. On the historical study of Christianity. – Objective of the essay 2. Characteristics of the spiritual state of the ancient world 3. The entry of Christianity into the world. – The historical lack of weapons of its first preachers. – The power of their preaching 4. The meaning of eschatology in early Christianity 5. Early Christianity and the pagan “world” 6. Early Christianity and the state 7. Early Christianity and the social question, its relation to slavery 8. Early Christianity and dogmas 9. Early Christianity in relation to hierarchy and cult 10. Christianity and morality. – Joy in early Christianity 11. Early Christianity and martyrdom 12. What is the secret of early Christianity? 13. Early Christianity and asceticism 14. Normative meaning of early Christianity Read (with abbreviations) at a meeting of the Moscow Religious and Philosophical Society in memory of V. S. Solovyov on October 31, 1908 1. On the historical study of Christianity. – Objective of the essay With love and respectful inquisitiveness, thought dwells on the first times of Christianity. At its historical cradle stands a long, ever-increasing line of scientists and thinkers who bring here the fruits of their labor, thoughtfulness, and observation. They strive to capture in memory all the smallest features that can be established regarding the history of early Christianity. Study methods are being refined to the point of virtuosity. They want, as far as possible, to recognize and describe every stone of the sacred land, to study in detail its historical topography, exploring for this the world that stretched beyond its borders and surrounded it. Our rationalistic and unbelieving age, represented by the most rationalist-minded Western, predominantly German historical science, is erecting and has partly already erected a massive monument to its piety, its love for Christianity, shown not in word, but in deed. It is gratifying to think that this historical work, attracting first-class scientific forces, is in full swing, and now, in the last years of our 10th anniversary, it seems to be becoming even more fruitful and gaining even greater scope. Classical philology and epigraphy, history and archaeology, the history of religions and Orientalist linguistics in friendly cooperation contribute to shedding new light on the historical situation of early Christianity. In modern times, excavations carried out in Egypt have brought new materials on scraps of papyrus, on shards, on metal and stone, awaiting even more complete development, which has already yielded some valuable results 1 . The study of Eastern religions, which has been developing so successfully in recent times and poses a number of new questions about the relationship between Judaism and Christianity, and the mysterious East, from which the Chaldean astrologers came to worship the Divine Infant, provides yet new insight into the same issue. As a result, the historical era of early Christianity, with all the scarcity and fragmentation of materials, the insufficiency of direct sources, is taking on more and more specific shapes, approaching our eyes from the foggy distance of historical perspective and schematic stylization. If little new can be learned about early Christianity itself beyond what we have in the New Testament books and meager monuments of ancient Christian writing and what can be gleaned from their comprehensive study (although here, too, recent decades can boast of some discoveries), but the historical environment in which early Christianity was born and developed becomes clearer, a rich historical background is created, against which certain features of the already known picture appear anew. I know that in some circles there is distrust of this historical work, supposedly in view of the destructiveness of its results for faith, the reason for such fear is provided by the opinions of many of its representatives (although in this regard one cannot help but note recently a certain, albeit slow, turn among representatives of the critical movement and, moreover, conditioned by the very development of science, a return to church tradition. I do not share this attitude towards historical research, as far as it remains within the boundaries of strict science 2. Of course, in order to treat some results without embarrassment for faith this study, we must once and for all abandon the view according to which the entire extra-Christian world is doomed to nothing but darkness of error and its entire history is a meaningless wandering in it. For Christianity, as a divine-human religion, the natural, human side of religious development, and therefore its historical paths, should in no way be ignored. Christ came when “the times and seasons were fulfilled when historical humanity was sufficiently ripe for this. And, if we find similarities and influences between biblical teachings and, for example, Babylonian beliefs or, for example, we look for connections between individual features of the Jewish and then Christian apocalypticism with the religions of Iran and Babylon, then such affinity, this existence of points of contact between Christianity and “paganism,” even if it were finally proven, does not at all undermine the religious significance of the biblical narrative and even its “divine inspiration”, but only testifies to the fact that certain aspects or features of the truth, combined, however, usually with many errors and perversions, can be found in “natural” religions. Obviously, scientific discoveries of this kind, insofar as they can be considered firmly established and strictly verified, and are not the fruit of hasty and frivolous generalizations prompted by unbelief, should stimulate an expansion and some modification of our old ideas about the religious path of mankind; religious philosophy of history must understand the meaning of natural revelation, but in order not to consider them dangerous to the foundations of faith, both scientists themselves and the general public must firmly remember the boundaries of historicism. Historical research is completely incompetent to give a decisive answer about the highest religious values ​​that make up the content of the dogmas of faith. For the latest truths and foundations of faith stand - higher or lower - but, in any case, outside scientific proof, and, consequently, historical research. After all, for example, it is impossible to prove that Christ is the God-man; this can only be revealed by personal religious experience, direct intuition, for it is not “flesh and blood” who reveal this according to the word of the Lord Himself to Peter who confessed Him. Belief is a free, truly miraculous act, like new birth. And what cannot be scientifically proven cannot be scientifically refuted. And if the historical (“Richlian”) school in Germany currently denies the God-manhood of Christ, it is not on scientific-historical, but on religious grounds, due to its very special understanding of Christianity and the religious experience associated with it. The best representatives of historical science recognize these boundaries of historicism, one might say, the further, the more clearly. And the most conscientious and subtle of modern historians, sensing these boundaries, sometimes even in scientific research itself recognize the insufficiency of the powers of natural explanation. True to their scientific duty, they strive to carry the natural scientific explanation to its conclusion, but do not shy away from admitting where it is inapplicable. In this sense, the best representatives of historical science will more than once come across a statement that, although the reasons for the spread of early Christianity can be seen in various natural facts, its origin nevertheless remains mysterious and miraculous 3 . Due to the peculiarities of the subject, in the history of Christianity, personal faith, personal religion, personal intuition are of paramount importance, because the entire history of the emergence of early Christianity is presented in a completely different light for those who believed in Christ or for those who did not believe in Him, but who believed only in His Father (the modern German school of Richlian theology), or for those who did not believe at all in either the Son or the Father. This explains, by the way, the amazing religious blindness of unbelieving researchers who find it possible to explain Christianity without Christ, in general, apart from any influence of religious individuals, from some natural, spontaneous, for example, economic factors; this is as if someone began to write the history of music not only not understanding, but also having an aversion to music. It is clear what kind of history can be expected from such a researcher. Here we should remember the wonderful words of Professor Sohn. What he says to lawyers applies to all researchers: “A new world surrounds the lawyer, a world of Christian life by faith, a world in which he is unable to see anything with the eyes of a lawyer and grasp anything with the hands of a lawyer. Take off your shoes, because the ground you're standing on is holy ground! Christianity entered the super-earthly, super-worldly world. You will never understand this if you yourself have not drunk from a wonderful cup, the contents of which quench the thirst of the soul. Drink, and you will never thirst. Drink, and you will open a new world, never before visible to you, the spiritual world, covering, like a vault, pouring rays of light on the earthly world” 4. The basis is the characteristics of early Christianity (Urchristentum), the era covering the so-called apostolic and post-apostolic age, i.e. extending approximately to the middle of the 2nd century, I believe not those features of it about which there is a dispute and the opinions of various researchers or different religions are divided, but what constitutes, as far as I can judge, unshakably established historical facts, against which neither a historian nor a theologian will now argue. It goes without saying that in order to find such common features, to sense such controversial points, it is necessary, firstly, to limit ourselves to a few and summary strokes, and secondly, to take a broad historical perspective, in which everything detailed would merge, but the sharp and fundamental would stand out 5 . Modern man, with his questions and torments, anxieties and worries, strives with his soul to the shrine of early Christianity, when the Lord was so close, when the outpouring of the gifts of the Holy Spirit was so abundant, when the saints lived and taught. the apostles, when they shed their blood to St. martyrs, when the foundations of the church structure and teaching were formed. He strives here with his pains and his torments, in the hope of receiving an answer to his current needs. And many believe that there, in the promised land, they will find their golden age, resolution of their questions and peace from their current worries. For all of Christianity and especially for modern Christianity, early Christianity has the meaning of a model, an example, a norm, and together it is the seed from which the historical plant develops. What can we currently learn from early Christianity, in what ways can it still serve as a model for us, and in what, on the contrary, cannot it? For what needs of the soul will modern man find a guiding norm, and for what needs will he not find it at all? Or: what was and what was not in early Christianity? 2. Characteristics of the spiritual state of the ancient world One of the most important acquisitions of the latest historical research 6 is that we now have a much more complete, vivid and accurate picture of the spiritual state of the world in which Christianity was born, of the fermentation vat into which its new leaven was thrown. Now we can no longer be content with a simplified and tendentious depiction of the ancient world around R. Christ., as having outlived its strength, exhausted its potential and was collapsing due to its rottenness. To reduce the strength of the defeated enemy - for the ancient world was nevertheless defeated by the new faith - does not at all mean to exalt the winner, especially if this is bought at the price of historical truth, and one cannot help but be grateful to the latest philologists and historians for the fact that through their works the ancient world is taking on more and more living and significant, not at all dead, features. It cannot be denied that, spiritually, this highly cultural era, like the present one, is no longer distinguished by its original freshness, the traits of fatigue and decadence, epigonism and despondency clearly lie on it, although this is applicable mainly to the highest cultural classes, who lived their own special, and, apparently, even more isolated life than now, but is less applicable to those middle and lower classes, among whom it mainly developed first Christianity. The culture of this era was distinguished by a very high level in all important areas. True, this was already a culture, so to speak, of the second grade, not Hellenic, but Hellenistic, no longer possessing the language of Plato and Demosthenes, but a significantly modified dialect, the so-called universal, in which the books of the New Testament were written. But this Koine was the language not of a small Greek state, but of the entire cultural world, welded together by Alexander the Great and again soldered together by the Roman emperors. Throughout the entire world of that time (ecumene), this language was generally recognized and well known, just as there was one government, one laws; the former boundaries of isolation and particularism were destroyed, and many peoples were absorbed into a single state. This external unification, improved means of communication, etc., of course, greatly facilitated the preaching of Christianity. (An inscription has been preserved on the grave of one Phrygian merchant who traveled to Rome 72 times - a clear sign of how secure internal relations were.) The firm policy of the imperial power in the person of Augustus marked the beginning of a calmer and more secure position for the provinces, which were especially monarchically minded and, in this regard, revived their old memories of the religious adoration of eastern despots in order to apply this to the cult of the Roman emperors 7 . Augustus, as is known, is first called god and savior (Σωτήρ) on one of the inscriptions in M. Asia. The culture of the ancient world had not yet reached complete decline and had not yet said its last word; on the contrary, it was rich in creative forces. In literary terms, this era can name a number of outstanding masters of poetry and prose (Caesar and Horace, Virgil and Tacitus, etc.). Literature in general distinguishes this era, which created its own new forms (among other things, the philosophical diatribe); Since the reign of Bespasian, the time has come, now called the second sophistry (Wendland). Eloquence was highly valued and was taught in schools in the same way as rhetoric. “Writer” and “speaker” were almost as honorable titles (among cultural circles) as they are now. The philosophy of this time dealt with issues of a predominantly moral and practical nature and, along with the frivolous skepticism and militant atheism of some, gave rise to sublime religious sentiments among others. In Stoicism we have an indelible monument to the greatness of the spirit of ancient man; writings of Epictetus or M. Aurelius, Plutarch or Seneca still make an impression and sometimes amaze us with their approach to Christian morality, recognized and noted by Christian writers and sometimes expressed in direct borrowings from them. Stoicism developed the ideal of a philosophical righteous man, an ascetic servant of truth, and, undoubtedly, by deepening moral consciousness, Stoicism prepared the success of Christianity. With his preaching of universal humanity and brotherhood, he contributed to the mitigation of slavery. At the same time, his already intense individualism intensified, and interest was focused on the problem of the personal self, which at that time occupied the best minds with irresistible force. Although historians have quite a bit of material to characterize the deep moral decline of the imperial era and its moral perversions (as evidenced in the Epistle to the Romans and the Apostle Paul), however, this characterization cannot help but make a number of limitations. The very presence of such high moral teachings and moral judgments and assessments based on them among Roman society makes us consider the moral state of the ancient world not so hopeless. At this time, one can find (for example, in Seneca) discussions about the dangers of much knowledge and the powerlessness of science to answer final questions, reminiscent of current talk about the bankruptcy of science. It cannot be said that this time did not know science in the form of precise knowledge, emancipated from philosophy. In the Hellenistic era (in the 3rd century BC in Alexandria), it was the exact sciences that achieved unprecedented improvement in their methods. Mathematics and astronomy, geography, mechanics, optics, and medicine receive special development, although closer to the Christian era independent scientific creativity is already weakening (Wendland, 26–7). The fact that the power of Greek thought had not yet been exhausted is best evidenced by the school of Neoplatonism, which worthily crowned the development of Greek philosophy already two centuries after Christ. A distinctive feature of the mood and thoughts of the best people of this time was religious anxiety and the search for God. Philosophy itself, by the nature of its problems, is increasingly becoming theology, and religious philosophy then, as now, often turned out to be a surrogate for religion. The thirst for revelation, for a real experience of the Divine, instead of philosophizing about Him, is widespread in society. This was also facilitated by the state of religion at that time. Greece and Rome's own religion had largely decayed. The original polytheism, under the influence of philosophy, gradually degenerates into monotheism, and the gods receive a symbolic, allegorical interpretation. The influx of cults from all the countries that became part of the empire erases the individuality of the old national gods and levels them into abstract images, and together gives rise to religious syncretism unprecedented in history. Eastern religions and cults with their mysterious, eccentric, orgiastic features had a strong influence: Egypt (Serapis and Isis and Anubis), Syria (Adonis), Phrygia (Cybele), Babylon and Persia (the cult of Mithra), transferred their gods and their cults to the Roman state. They led them with their magic, astrology, sorcery, sorcery 8. To this must be added the revival of mystical movements in the Hellenistic religion; the Orphics with their sacraments, the order of the Pythagoreans, the cult of Dionysus 9, all of this sought to destroy the barrier between man and the transcendental world; the thirst for revelation, salvation, and redemption was expressed in everything. In this sense, the world was ready to meet the Herald of eternal, immortal life, to accept the Redeemer. It is worth noting that at the same time the cult of man-deity in the form of the cult of emperors said its last word. This latter, which should be considered in connection with the entire view of antiquity on the possibility of the deification of man, generalizes and summarizes what was previously expressed separately and in hints. Humanity, organized and living a state and cultural life, and the state as the organization of this life, personified in the Caesars and, above all, the “savior” Augustus, is the deity before whom the philosopher, the simpleton, the pious pagan, and the skeptic bowed and sacrificed. The imperial cult is the dome that crowned the ancient world. So, the ancient world in the era of the advent of Christianity, although it was sick, was not yet going to die immediately. On the contrary, much of what modern man loves and appreciates in his culture - literature, philosophy, science, art, politics, he will find here. In ancient history there are many basic elements of our current culture (except for the development of exact knowledge and applied science and the industry based on them, and, consequently, our socialism associated with it). Christianity stands before the “world” and culture from the very beginning. Christianity entered the world at a time when it was at its cultural zenith, and ancient culture stood on the shoulders of the ancient lost cultures of Babylon and Egypt. How did it enter, what did it adhere to, what did it rely on, how did it determine itself? 3. The entry of Christianity into the world. – The historical lack of weapons of its first preachers. – The power of their preaching Christianity entered the world in unearthly ways. It did not use any means taken from the historically established environment; it appeared as a completely new and special force, extracultural and ahistorical, denying crooked and broken historical paths. It turned not to the historical shell of a person and not even to the mind, but to his heart, took his will, ignited a new life in him. Ap.'s words Paul about his preaching, that it is carried out “not in convincing words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and power,” can serve as a characteristic of the entire early Christian mission. It was not philosophers who came out to preach, in the manner of those Stoics who at that time wandered around with philosophical teaching, not scientists (Paul alone was affected by rabbinical science, but this was not at all the Hellenic wisdom of the age) and not writers who were valued so highly in this literary age. Is it necessary to say much about the non-literary nature of Christianity, when it is known that the apostles were people “unbooked and illiterate” (as they are called in Acts. Apostle). the apostles Peter and John - “ἀγράμματοι ϰαί ίδιώται”), hardly all of them knew how to read, these provincials who grew up in a remote corner of the Roman Empire - Palestine, which, although it was not closed to Hellenistic influences, still retained its special theocratic character among the culture of that time. About a century passed before the first writers appeared in Christianity 10. The sacred books of the New Testament also did not appear immediately 11. The first Christian generation was content with oral tradition, stories about the life and teaching of the Savior from His apostles. Our canonical Gospels arose not at all as literary works, but as teaching readings for religious edification. Most of the apostolic epistles were also initially private letters to various communities, which only later acquired the significance of church-wide property. The earliest monuments of Christian writing date back to the second century, and one must see how far they are in their content and form from purely literary works of the same time, how simple, unpretentious, childishly pure, but also childishly naive these writings are, completely alien to issues of culture and history, occupied only with issues of faith and religious teaching. Against the background of this modest writing both in quantity and quality, the miracle of the Four Gospels stands out even more sharply, with the Face of Christ reflected in it, this miraculous image in the word, and that criticism that tries to explain the Gospel without Christ must stop powerlessly before this fact. It is impossible to create an image of Christ; it is beyond human power, and even more so it cannot be attributed to such humble writers as the authors of the New Testament books 12. Later, when Christianity, represented by apologists, begins to use for its preaching, in addition to its direct impact on the soul, also the means of human teaching, appealing to reason, relying on philosophy, it borrows these means from the school of pagan philosophy, from Stoicism and Platonism, in a word, takes them from the surrounding culture created by history and to that extent loses its ahistorical originality and enters into history. And look how weak, pale, and often contradictory this defense is in the age of apologists, right up to Origen. If one could think that the strength of early Christianity lies precisely in this philosophical frame, then one would be afraid that its cause is lost and that it cannot withstand the battle with pagan philosophy, on which, moreover, it relies. Reading the apologists, you involuntarily recall the characterization of Christian preaching by the apostle. Paul that “we carry this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the exceeding power may be attributed to God and not to us” (2 Cor. 4:7). Finally, the predominant contingent of the first Christians was recruited, as can be concluded from the apostolic epistles and other sources, mainly from the middle and lower uneducated classes 13, rich and educated people constituted a minority, and those pagan philosophers who theoretically seemed to stand closer to Christianity than others (Stoics, Platonists) at first simply did not notice it, and later treated it rather hostilely and believed empty and stupid fables spread about Christians. Christianity, in all its natural human equipment, was powerless and helpless. It challenged the whole world, disregarding all human means and appealing directly to the heart with an insane, monstrous, paradoxical sermon about the crucified and risen Christ. Accepting such a Messiah and Savior of the world was equally difficult and disgusting for both the Jews, who were expecting a Messiah, but not such a one, and the pagans, whose prejudices on the part of aesthetics and philosophy, and nationality, and current morality opposed recognizing the Savior of the world in the Crucified Jew. Believing in Christ was then just as difficult, and, if you like, just as easy as it is now, for the word about the cross was both proposed and accepted - then and now - not by reason and not by reason, which can only recognize the fact that it has already been accepted and one way or another comprehend and justify it, but by some mysterious, internal experience - inexplicable, because irrational, more precisely, superrational, like a new birth, like life, like death is like love. This exceptional mysterious character of the origin of faith and this position of the preachers of Christ in relation to the world with its human wisdom and human assessments received an immortal, divinely inspired characterization in the words of St. Paul, which the Church reads at one of the greatest moments of its liturgical circle at the vespers of Good Friday, when the worshipers stand, as it were, before the cross of Calvary with the lifeless body of the Divine Sufferer. This is the triumphant hymn of victory over the world, which will always resonate in the hearts of believers. Looking at the modest community, the fruit of his preaching in Corinth, one of the centers of enlightenment of that time, the apostle says: “Christ sent me... not to preach the gospel in the wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ should be made void. For the word about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and the understanding of the prudent (Isa. 29:14). Where is the sage? Where is the scribe? Where is the questioner of this century? Has not God turned the wisdom of this world into foolishness (Isa. 33:18). For when the world through its wisdom did not know God in the wisdom of God, it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe. For both the Jews demand a miracle, and the Greeks seek wisdom; and we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews, and foolishness to the Greeks, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God, because the foolish things of God are wiser than men, and the weak things of God are stronger than men. Look, brothers, who you are called to be: some of you are wise according to the flesh, some are strong, some are noble. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the strong things; God chose the base things of the world and the things that are despised, and the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, so that no flesh should boast before God” (1 Cor. 1:17-29). Can a more decisive challenge of faith be made to the world than in these words? And after these words, is it necessary to ask the now usual question: how did the ap. Paul to the culture around him, to science, to art? No way. It is enough just to pose this question to feel that it is directed at the wrong address and that there can be no answer to it 14. Ap. Paul, and with him the whole of early Christianity, in its religious basis, stood outside the world, outside history, and, therefore, culture. This basic feature of it is established not only by direct religious instinct, but also by modern historical science 15 . It was exclusively and, according to others, one-sidedly religious. It taught and was interested in the relationship not to the world, but to God (and only in God to the world), taught to be saved from the “world lying in evil” in God. Ap. Paul, as you know, said about himself that he wants to “be separated to be with Christ, and only love and care for his flock makes him value life. With this religious fullness, with such a reality of communion with God, which once forced the apostle to say about himself that he “does not live himself, but Christ lives in him,” all the songs of the earth seemed boring in comparison with this music of the heavenly spheres that rang in the soul. The wall between the world here and the other world was, although not for long, removed, the staircase between earth and sky was finally restored. In order to win a soul, it was necessary not to convince, but only to introduce it to this life of grace, not to prove, but to show Christianity, for “the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power” (1 Cor. 4:17). (Unfortunately, we have now lost this power and are left with only words, which is why modern preaching is dead and lifeless.) Earthly life was considered and valued only in relation to the “future age” and did not itself arouse independent interest. It had to be passed, but only because it was impossible to do without it. 4. The meaning of eschatology in early Christianity Moreover, the early Christians did not believe in the strength and duration of this world; on the contrary, they expected its quick, almost immediate end. All modern historical science unanimously confirms the exceptional significance of eschatology (the doctrine of the end of the world) in the mood of early Christianity 16 . Traces of this conviction that “the end is near” and “the image of this world is passing away” are scattered in the Gospels, and in the apostolic epistles, and in all early Christian writing, and what we now, in the 20th century, interpret in the broader sense of the internal necessity of the end of history, slowly maturing, was then understood in the sense of its immediate proximity. Remember that ap. Paul had to reassure the Thessalonians who had abandoned their studies in anticipation of the second coming. In the Montanistic heresy of the 17th half of the 2nd century, in an era when eschatological aspirations generally began to fade significantly, these sentiments were reflected in an exaggerated and partly caricatured form: the prophet Montanus with the prophetesses Prisca and Maximilla lead a crowd of their followers into the desert towards the coming Christ. As you can see, the Adventists, who made it their specialty to determine the times and dates of the second coming, are by no means new in the history of Christianity; on the contrary, almost every significant page of Christian history has its representatives (it is enough to recall the Anabaptists, Independents, Quintomonarchists, etc.). We must not forget here the influence of the historical environment in which early Christianity grew up - the apocalyptic sentiments of Judaism. The latest research on the religion of Jews in the New Testament era 18 has revealed with particular clarity the development of apocalyptic ideas and apocalyptic literature in Judaism (and not without success they are looking for traces of the influence of the Babylonian and Iranian religions). These ideas have as their content the future kingdom of the Messiah, which at first was presented as a sensual, earthly triumph of the Jewish people, that “kingdom”, the opening of which His disciples all sought and expected from the Lord, not only during earthly life, but even just before the Ascension (Acts 1:6). With further development, they become more refined and united with the idea of ​​the general end of the world, at which the Last Judgment will occur, and the Messiah will be a righteous judge and will open the kingdom of the next century. Both of these ideas, with different shades in detail, existed side by side and provided material for different apocalypses, so that in many of its features our Apocalypse merges with pre-Christian apocalypse and is its natural continuation. By its historical nature, this is the most Jewish book in the New Testament and, in addition, what is especially remarkable, its canonical authority was established almost before anyone else, already at the end of the 1st century 19 . This is hardly the first canonical book, and its historical place is not at the end, but at the very beginning of the New Testament, as a natural umbilical cord connecting both testaments 20. In any case, no matter how you look at the Apocalypse and no matter how you interpret it, undoubtedly, it is also a historical monument testifying to the mood of the early Christian era. The final prayer of the Apocalypse “Hey, come; God!" was, apparently, one of the first prayers of Christianity. Not only those righteous people spoken of in the Apocalypse (chapter 6, vv. 9-10), but also many Christians prayed for the acceleration of the coming in glory. In one of the earliest texts of prayers that have survived to us, given in the “Teaching of the 12 Apostles,” the Eucharistic prayer contains, among other things, the petition: “let the image of this world pass away.” Apparently, the words of the Lord’s Prayer “Thy kingdom come” had the same content. Only Tertullian at the end of the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd centuries. we find mention of prayers de mora finis, i.e. about slowing down the end (however, along with the prayer de adventu, which never disappeared from liturgical use). Obviously, the mood had already changed significantly at this point during this time. The idea of ​​the second coming for some was associated with the general end of the world, for others it bore the bright features of a sensual Jewish apocalypticism, i.e., an earthly thousand-year kingdom, the so-called chiliasm 21 . The basis for chiliastic ideas was found in the words of the Apocalypse (20:3–5) about the first resurrection and the earthly 1000-year reign of Christ, as well as in the Old Testament prophets (cf., for example, their interpretations by Justin and Irenaeus), while under the influence of Origen and in general the Greek idealistic-spiritualistic movement in Christianity, chiliastic ideas were not without struggles gave way to an allegorical interpretation of the corresponding passage of the Apocalypse, formulated by St. Augustine in De civitate Dei. However, the idea of ​​chiliasm never completely died in the subsequent history of Christianity. In one form or another, whether in the doctrine of chiliasm or the immediate end of the world, the idea of ​​an imminent world cataclysm penetrates into the small Christian literature of the 1st–2nd centuries. In the “Teaching of the 12 Apostles,” a monument from the beginning of the 2nd century, rediscovered only in 1883, the final chapter speaks of the second coming, before which the Antichrist will appear. “And then the sign of truth will appear: first, the sign of an opening in heaven, then the sign of the sound of a trumpet. and the third is the resurrection of the dead, but not all, but as it is said: the Lord will come and all the saints with him. Then you will see the peace of the Lord coming on the clouds of heaven 22 . (Here, apparently, what is meant is the so-called first resurrection of the righteous alone for the thousand-year reign, although the understanding of this text arouses disagreement.) The Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas (late 1st century), highly revered and widely read in early Christianity, expresses the attitude towards life: “I am greatly consoled, awaiting my liberation.” It also speaks of the proximity of the Antichrist (“the last temptation has come near”), “of the last days.” “The day is near in which all will perish with the wicked. The Lord and His reward are near.” In the 1st letter of Clement, Pope of Rome, also around the year 100, as a motive for the exhortation to be in peace and love, it is said: “Soon, truly and suddenly, the will of the Lord will be accomplished, according to the testimony of the Scripture itself: He will come soon and will not delay, and suddenly will come to His church, the Lord and Holy One, for whom you are all waiting.” In The Shepherd of Ermus, semi-apocalyptic, semi-educational, produced in the mid-2nd century, widely read in the Roman Church and even revered as canonical, the fate of the church is revealed to the author in a number of visions. In one of the visions, the church is depicted as a tower under construction, nearing completion. “The tower is still being built... but it will soon be finished,” and this confidence permeates the entire work of Ignatius the God-Bearer, at the beginning of the 2nd century, in his letter to the Ephesians he says: “these are already the last times.” The early apologists, who replaced the so-called apostolic men in Christian writing, had the same motives. Justin the philosopher (half of the 2nd century) in his “conversation with the Jew Tryphon” says: “Meanwhile, times are approaching the end and the one who will utter blasphemous and impudent words against the Most High is already standing at the door,” etc. Later, Justin paints a completely sensual chiliastic picture. An even more sensual picture of the thousand-year kingdom is painted by St. Irenaeus, bishop Lyonsky, famous for his fight against Gnosticism, (as is known, some Gnostics, heavily infected with Eastern dualism and a negative attitude towards the flesh, were therefore hostile to chiliasm and allegorically interpreted the corresponding passages of the prophets and the Apocalypse. Irenaeus fights this interpretation.) Christians eloquently speak about how “strangers and strangers on earth” Christians felt. a term used in the 1st Epistle of Clement to indicate the address of a community: a wandering community (παροιϰοϋσα) in such and such a city. But enough quotes. There is no doubt that any picture of the early Christian sentiments will be incorrect and incomplete if this fiery confidence in the nearness of the end, the impatient and passionate expectation of it and the impulse towards the Coming are not placed at its center. In this impulse, early Christianity rose above the earth and separated from it, making itself indifferent to earthly values. Everything will soon burn, the heavens will pass away with noise, the wicked Babylon will fall, the hymn can already be heard in the sky: “Babylon is fallen, Babylon is fallen” (Apoc.), we must strengthen ourselves against the latest temptations, which, by the way, were not long in coming in the form of the persecutions that had begun. It is not without reason that the image of the first persecutor Veron is found in the apocalyptic beast and the “beast number” (666 or according to other manuscripts 616) is deciphered as the sum of the numbers of his name 23. That is why in the ideas of the early Christians there was no place for history at all in our current sense. Their ideas about the end remained external, and their expectation remained passive. Waiting for the end, they did not think that their descendants would have to settle down and rebuild on this boring land, and that history was just beginning its new chapter. Just as in the distant perspective all intermediate points merge and only the limits are visible, just as two mountains, separated by abysses, cliffs, deep valleys, merge into one from afar, so the first Christians historically projected the path of humanity on one plane, and thanks to this lack of a sense of historical perspective, they thought that everything on earth was over, they were sure that the world was already ripe for this end. They fell into the deception of historical vision, we must now say with loving respect, but absolutely firmly. For us - not by conclusions and moods, but by the direct experience of the 19th centuries - it turned out that you exist. a story with its own tasks and problems. We now stand under the sign of historicism, and we also consider the eschatological worldview of the first Christians historically and therefore must take it into account in all its weight when understanding the history of early Christianity. 5. Early Christianity and the pagan “world” The above-mentioned attitude of the early Christians to the world around them, which stemmed from the intensity and completeness of their religious experiences, is also explained in the fact that this entire world seemed to them to be in the power of demons. It was a pagan world, where idolatry reigned, and the culture was pagan in its very origin. Christian communities felt like islands, lost in the boundless sea of ​​paganism with its perversions, like fragile boats floating on the waves of the ocean. This world, therefore, initially could not even evoke inquisitiveness, much less sympathetic attention. It was necessary to take care of self-preservation, and for this we had to put ourselves in a position of distrustful and irreconcilable opposition and struggle towards the pagan world. Reading the 17th chapter of Acts. Ap., which tells about the sermon of St. Paul in the Athenian Areopagus and where the direct contact of the apostle with the pagan world is especially vividly felt, one cannot help but be struck by the weak and one-sided impression the capital of Hellas makes on him, even the ruins of which now speak so much to our hearts. There is no trace of admiration for the beauty of the statues, for the elegance of the architecture, no, it is said here only with stern laconicism: “...Paul was troubled in spirit at the sight of this city full of idols” (17:16). All the seductive, enchanting beauty of the pagan city and cult turned pale at the thought that these are idols, they pray to them, instead of the true God... After all, even some of us, with all our religious relaxation, would lose the taste for the Venus de Milo or another ancient statue, the beauty that we now admire, if it stood not in a museum, but in a church, and served as an object that was not aesthetic. contemplation, but religious worship. One can therefore understand the intransigence and sometimes bitterness with which subsequent Christians treated not only idolatry, but also the idols themselves. At the same time, before the gaze of a Christian, unarmed in the human sense and strong only by his faith and otherworldly strength, stood this Babylon, sparkling and seductive, in purple and luxury, threatening to swallow up the new birth. Paganism and atheism permeated all life around, and yet the first Christians had to live in this world. He covered them in a tight ring. After all, just pay attention to the constant worries of the ap. Paul, in order to protect their communities from what was natural and ordinary around them. Roman Christians are surrounded by unnatural sexual perversions, an incestuous man has appeared in the young Corinthian community, mixed marriages with pagans, the consumption of meat sacrificed to idols, resort to pagan courts, etc. are arousing new alarm. Not content with this passive, but always the most powerful resistance, paganism went on an active offensive both through measures of violence - in the persecution of Christians, and in spiritual struggle. In the latter area, pagan writers attacked from the outside (Lu-yuan - with satire, Celsus - with philosophy), but the enemy from within turned out to be even more dangerous, when he covered the pagan essence from the outside with Christianity, starting from the 2nd century. We mean that pagan attempt to falsify Christianity, leaving from it almost only an appearance, which bears the general name of gnosis 25. This serpentine whisper of Eastern syncretism framed by Greek philosophy represented a terrible danger for the church, incomparably greater than the superficial, unsystematic, sometimes cruel, but in general everything. not so devastating persecutions. Thus, the doctrine of a world lying in evil, in addition to metaphysical and religious justification, also had direct historical foundations; it was nothing more and nothing less than preserving one’s spiritual being from being absorbed by the hostile and alien elements of the pagan world. Such a “military” situation, of course, could not remain unchanged for all times; this exclusive modus vivendi with “peace” had to change due to the simple fact of the quantitative success of Christianity, as well as the growing confidence in its strength. Moreover, when Christianity wanted to express its teaching by human means, to present and formulate it as the truth of reason, as philosophy, it had to turn to the arsenal of human means, and it could and did find them in ancient philosophy. When the era of development of Christian theology, and then both Christological and Trinitarian disputes, begins, Christian dogmatics in its formulations undoubtedly rests on the shoulders of Greek philosophy. Harnack and his followers therefore speak of the “acute Hellenization of Christianity” and see in it the beginning of the substitution and distortion of the originally simple and adogmatic essence of Christianity. One can completely disagree with this assessment of “Hellenization” and argue about its limits, but one cannot deny the fact that Christianity’s attitude towards pagan philosophy is gradually turning from negative to positive, sometimes reaching the point of direct borrowing from it, starting with apologists 26 . 6. Early Christianity and the state The “world” surrounding the early Christians was an organized state, enveloping the entire then universe with a steel ring. And this state, as an organization of order, economic life, culture, religion, everything that humanity of that time lived with, as the totality of all its values, recognized and proclaimed itself the highest principle in the world, a deity. And this religion of ancient man-divinity, which in the 19th century was dreamed of by Feuerbach 27 and Comte, found fruition in the cult of emperors. “The content of this faith is grandiose,” says the newest historian 28, “for all the gifts of culture, from the preservation of physical life to the highest pleasures of the spirit, are gifts of the deity, which is immanent to the state and at the moment receives fulfillment in the emperor or his genius, or his destiny... From here it is quite consistent that the refusal to make a sacrifice to the emperor is high treason, and Christians refuse this in full consciousness that they refuse “πоλιτεία τоΰ ϰоσμου” (kingdoms of this world), they feel like citizens of another kingdom. It is just as consistent that they turn out to be ἅϑεоι (atheists), for, together with the state cult, they deny all gods, which only exist by the grace of the state. On this religious, and not political basis, Christianity collided with the Roman state and began an unequal struggle with it, which ended, although not in the victory of the Roman state, but by no means in the complete victory of Christianity, which put on the chains of statehood. t Christianity could not and did not recognize such a higher principle, organizing life, arranging it to the end and resolving all issues, the state, i.e. organized by measures of external coercion and in this organization self-sufficient humanity, “the kingdom of this world.” To admit this would mean to bow before the prince of this world for his bread, for his power, for his signs. It responded to the cult of state God-manhood with the Apocalypse, a book in which with fiery words and fiery images the destruction of the beast and his kingdom, held together by violence and false signs, was predicted. It contrasted the power of the “savior” Augustus with the power of the Savior of the world, the “kingdom” of Caesar with the “Kingdom of God”, the power of the “autocrat” (autocrat) with the omnipotence of the “Almighty” (pantocrator), the reign of Caesar with the power of “our Lord Jesus Christ”. The eschatological revolutionary nature of the Apocalypse, which undermined the very foundation of the pagan state, which realized itself as the highest and final beginning of life, was apparently clear to the hostile side, for from the second century A.D. we know that the authorities prohibited the reading of works of an apocalyptic nature under penalty of death 29 . And yet, with all their irreconcilability towards the pagan state, as a religious institution, as the kingdom of the beast and the Antichrist, the first Christians could not be further from political revolutionism, and even the Apocalypse calls for patience and abstinence from the sword and violence and exhorts to expect a world catastrophe in the hope of its proximity. “He who testifies to these things says: Hey, I am coming quickly! Amen. Yes, come, Lord Jesus." This is the final chord of the Apocalypse. And in all of early Christian literature you will not find anything resembling political utopias (however, some historians believe that the frequent calls to obey authorities in Christian writing indicate precisely the nervousness and restlessness of the political mood, but this conclusion is at least controversial). Let us not forget that in the first century Palestine was gripped by a passionate desire for political liberation. These motives play a role in the Gospel story during the condemnation of Jesus, and even before the crucifixion, when the people were given a choice, the terrorist Barabbas 30, almost a political murderer, was preferred to Him. Palestine of the first century AD. was the scene of continuous revolutions and uprisings, ending in the unprecedented extermination of Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem. The Jerusalem community of Jewish Christians, generally closely connected with their fellow tribesmen at least by visiting the church and observing the law, according to the tradition preserved by Eusebius, before the revolutionary. an outbreak that ended in the destruction of the holy city, having received a prophetic warning, she moved to Pella, and this indifferent attitude of Christians, along with religious reasons, made them so hated by the Jews that during the last uprising of Barkokhba, many Christians were killed by the rebels. This was the case in the most turbulent place, and even more so in other areas of the Empire, where Christians were in an insignificant minority. For those who lived in hope and confidence in the imminence of the greatest world catastrophes under the influence of a Higher Power, political revolutionism seemed an uninteresting palliative. To this we must also add the above-mentioned passivity of early Christian eschatology. However, until the world cataclysm came, it was necessary to live in the state; it was impossible to escape from it. The early Christians never left. They accepted the state, but not as a deity, but as an order of things designed to protect the possibility of existence. Only in the matter of making sacrifices and preaching Christianity, which was a forbidden or unauthorized religion, did the words of the apostles, which they said to the members of the Sanhedrin in response to the prohibition to preach about Christ, serve as the norm for Christians: “one must obey God more than men (Acts Apostle 5:29) and God’s things were decisively given preference over Caesar’s. Otherwise, Christians considered themselves obligated to loyal behavior before the authorities: to pay taxes, to show obedience, and in general to consider authority as an instrument of good and order, as a divinely established institution, according to the well-known definition of St. Paul (Rom. 13:1–7). Also, calls to pray for the king and for the authorities, “that we may live a quiet and quiet life in all godliness and purity,” are repeated more than once in the apostolic epistles (1 Tim. 2:1–3, Titus. 3; 1 Peter 2:13–17). And this becomes all the more important because it was written in the era of persecution, in the era of Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian 31. In the literature of apostolic men and apostles, we often find mention of prayer for authorities. Hieromartyr Polycarp, disciple of St. John the Theologian, who only recently led Ignatius the God-Bearer to Rome to be torn apart by wild beasts, writes in his letter to the Philippians: “Pray also for kings, for powers and princes, even for those who persecute and hate you and for the enemies of the cross.” And in one of the oldest prayers of the Roman community at the end of the 1st century, preserved for us in the 1st Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, we see how this admonition of the apostles was fulfilled, and it should be noted that in time this prayer refers to the end of the reign of Domitian, which was marked by severe persecution of Christians. About a quarter of the entire rather extensive text of the prayer refers to the emperor 32. Prayer for the emperor survived despite the difficult trials that the growing church endured in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. “We cannot make sacrifices before the images of emperors, but we pray for their good,” an answer often repeated in acts of martyrdom of later times 33 . Although the testimony of apologists is sometimes somewhat suspect in view of the special task of apology - to protect Christians from persecution, their agreement with the evidence we have given confirms their reliability 34. So, we can say that the early Christians were, or at least wanted to be, loyal subjects and recognize the duties of citizens 35. But for all that, they were, of course, bad citizens of the Roman state, and in their own way the Roman patriot Celsus was not entirely wrong, who exclaimed to these “anarchists”: “If everyone acted like Christians, the emperor would soon be left alone and isolated, the course of affairs on earth would soon fall into the hands of the most savage and disgusting barbarians.” Early Christianity relates to the Roman self-deifying state with at most only passive connivance, but in this passivity of indifference it offers greater resistance to it than direct rebellion and revolution. For Roman statehood was a religion, it required the activity of the will and mind, the whole person, and for a true Roman patriot, the sight of “atheists and anarchists” denying the religion of statehood, although they prayed for the sovereign, had nothing attractive and aroused growing anxiety in him. The practical participation of Christians in public life was determined by a state of passive indifference. Here the commandment of the apostle had force. Paul that everyone should remain in the rank in which they are called. History has preserved for us only a few names of Christian government officials (the most prominent of them, Titus Flavius ​​Clement, was accused of atheism and contemptissima inertia / contemplative inertia). There could not have been many of them, for initially Christians were recruited from the lower class and only later, in the 3rd century, did they appear at all levels of social status 36 . Particularly interesting and burning is the question of the attitude of Christians to military service, 37 aggravated by idolatry and extortion of troops from the population. Apparently, there was no special “soldier question” in early Christianity for the simple reason that there was no universal, compulsory military service; of course, a Christian did not need to take this path of temptation voluntarily. For those, however, who converted to Christianity while in military service, the position of the apostle remained valid. Pavel about remaining in the same rank. Material regarding Christians in the army exists only from 170, i.e. by the end of our period, and the presence of numerous Christians in the army (precisely in the 12th century of Marcus Aurelius - fulminate Melitensis) is already an undoubted fact, and the increasing number of Christians in the army, as Harnack noted 38, for the first time resolved the issue of the victory of Christianity over paganism and the public recognition of the rights of the Christian religion. Tertullian, who himself testifies to the presence of Christians in the army, still raises the question of whether a Christian can be a soldier and resolves it, with his usual rigorism, negatively, in contrast to Clement Al., who warns Christian soldiers only from fulfilling instructions that are contrary to religion. In any case, life had already resolved this issue at that time in a positive sense. The internal attitude of early Christianity towards the state was also determined primarily by the imminent expectation of the end and submission to providence. “Eschatology,” Harnack rightly notes in this regard, “has thus become a quietistic and conservative principle” 39. Not believing in the duration of the existence of this world, the early Christians could not be particularly interested in its affairs, but only patiently and passively bore the burden placed on them as obedience. “Look,” warns “Shepherd” Erma, “like a wanderer on a foreign side, do not prepare for yourself anything more than what you need for life; and be prepared so that when the lord of this city wants to expel you from it because you do not obey his law, go out to your fatherland and live according to your law carefree and joyful.” (Similarities, sub. 1st). The state was everything for the ancient man: home, homeland, church, but for the Christian it moved from the center to the periphery, because he found a new home, a new home, and not only outside this world, but also on earth. This is an ecclesia, a church, a community. Under Imperial Rome, an underground world (Roma soterranea) was created, undermining it; all the threads of the heart connected the Christian with this world. His definitions, and not the state ones, had decisive power for him; here he found the highest standard of personal and public life. A new idea, a new commandment, a new highest ideal of communication between people was born, not in an earthly human-divine state, but in a divine, theocratic, church union. And to this day these two planes of life, two orders of relationships are painfully struggling and colliding, penetrating and tearing apart the human soul and creating an apparently insoluble problem - about the relationship between church and state 40. But Providence made this painful task easier for the early Christians. After all, they were a banned, persecuted small sect that could not have any influence on the affairs of the state, and therefore were free from responsibility for it. Early Christianity did not carry the state on its conscience; it could treat it from the outside, as an outsider, an alien world, sometimes hostile, like an apocalyptic “beast,” sometimes friendly, like “God’s servant,” and in any case, considering this state to be short-lived, transitional. And only when, having received a majority in the state, Christianity was declared the state religion, and the state itself, if it could not become Christian, then became a state of Christians (at least in name), when eschatological expectations finally faded and history began, when it was necessary to settle for a long time and firmly on this sinful earth, then the question of the relationship between the church and the state loomed with inevitable and ominous force. Christianity had to accept on its conscience and responsibility the statehood that vested it. The “world” lying in evil, which the early Christians had outside themselves, now entered inside, and the struggle with it inside became by no means easier, but much more complex and deeper than when it was outside and tortured those who denied its cruel yoke. The early Christians were simply freed from this tragic discord by their childish, joyful belief that everything would soon end and that the world was not worth worrying about; they were freed from it by their position as an irresponsible, persecuted minority. Like springs in narrow crevices of rocks, they kept their waters pure, like a tear of rain, with which we quench our thirst even now, but the more their level rose and the more surface they flooded, the more they became colored with the colors of the environment and the more they absorbed foreign elements. A cloudy, seemingly insoluble mixture was formed. It remains so to this day... 7. Early Christianity and the social question, its relation to slavery Let us turn to the question of how early Christianity related to the social and economic needs of its time. Without going into details, we will limit ourselves to the most general features 41 . As is known, early Christianity had to face the social question in the most acute and terrible form in which it had ever been posed - with the existence of legalized and widespread slavery, this economic foundation of the entire ancient civilization. Although slavery was softened under the influence of the Stoics and philosophical preaching in general, and partly under the humanizing influence of Hellenism and the economic needs of the time, it was still very harsh and, perhaps, was experienced even more difficult due to the heightened awareness of the injustice of this institution 42 . Slave uprisings, tamed by the most brutal measures, accompany him 43 . Needless to say, how much slavery contradicts the whole essence of Christianity, and it would not have been necessary to prove this to the sensitive conscience of early Christianity. And yet, as everyone knows, early Christianity did not engage in a direct and immediate fight against slavery as an institution. It recognized it as a historical fact, as a historically given situation that must be taken into account, just as we now recognize the force of fact behind capitalism. And it is hardly possible to imagine such a radical revolution as the immediate abolition of slavery without a grandiose revolution, which, in addition to its futility (as the slave uprisings turned out to be fruitless), would completely deviate Christianity from its immediate religious task. In addition, it looked at slavery with a somewhat eschatological-quietistic view: the end is near, we must endure to the end. Do not begin a complex restructuring of the social structure when it is known that it will soon perish anyway, and do not divert forces aimed at one goal - the preaching of Christianity, accelerating the onset of universal deliverance, the end of the world. Social revolutionism, as well as politically, turns out to be unnecessary and simply not interesting in view of the impending eschatological revolution. For the immediate religious purpose, the preaching of Christianity, slavery did not at all represent an insurmountable obstacle; in the religious sense it was insignificant, just as any external differences before God will always remain insignificant. Early Christianity addressed itself not to social status, not to class, but to the individual, to the inner man, and, moreover, addressed itself with the preaching of immediate personal conversion, repentance, rebirth. This is accessible to everyone and equals everyone. “In Christ Jesus there is neither Greek nor Jew, barbarian and Scythian, slave and free.” There are no social differences in the Eucharistic breaking of bread, in the prophecy of the prayer meeting. Grace does not take into account external conditions. Slaves sometimes occupied high places in the ecclesia (Bishop Pius, brother Erma, apparently, was a slave, Pope Callistus was previously a slave), and universally revered martyrs emerged from slaves, revered as Saints (suffice it to recall the martyr Blandin). The difference in the position of masters and slaves did not and could not constitute an obstacle to the preaching of Christianity 44; it made the most impenetrable social barriers permeable. And it is clear that, without betraying its main task of purely religious preaching, Christianity could not at that time take on the complex and time-consuming task of radical social reform outside. The social maximalism of the moment remained completely alien to him. The social position of each person, not accidental, but providential, was considered as imposing its own special duties. Hence it should not seem strange that in the apostolic epistles (especially in St. Paul) so often advice is given to slaves to patiently endure their bitter lot and fulfill their duties conscientiously, and similar admonitions to treat slaves carefully and fairly apply to masters. The latter, moreover, are not admonished to immediately abandon their position and dissolve their slaves, but these are warned against using the unity of religion as a means to improve their position, for “piety is not for profit.” We find the same position of the question in the post-apostolic age among the apostolic men (the account of the 12 apostles, the letter of Barnabas, Ignatius the God-Bearer). And it is remarkable that early Christianity, which included so many slaves, so that it is not without reason to speak of its “proletarian” character, remained completely alien to the features of the social revolutionary movement into which it was so easy for it to fall 45 . And yet, Christianity, of course, had a huge impact on improving the situation of slaves. After all, naturally, if a slave and an owner met on religious grounds as completely equals, this brotherhood in Christ could not but affect their mutual relations, the softening of morals, the restrained and attentive, humane attitude towards each other, which the apostles and apostolic men call for. The best illustration of how this was and could be is the message of St. Paul to a certain wealthy Colossian Christian Philemon, with whom the apostle was close. Paul. Philemon's slave Onesimus, whom the ap. Paul “gave birth in his chains” during the Roman imprisonment, and sends his master with a request to accept him “as his own heart,” “not as a slave, but above a slave, a beloved brother.” “Rest my heart in the Lord,” the apostle prays, and expresses confidence that “you will do more than I say.” This genre picture, a touching example of apostolic love and care, best demonstrates how powerfully Christianity was supposed to influence the mutual relations of slaves and masters, removing all the sharpness from them. Although the church did not make the liberation of slaves a universal duty, it considered it a commendable matter 46 . And sometimes she did this from the community treasury, however, as an exception (Ignatius the God-Bearer, in his letter to Polycarp, warns slaves: “let them not strive to obtain freedom at the common expense, lest they become slaves of passion”). Regarding property and wealth, early Christianity was guided by the same motives. Striving for a general redistribution and equalization of property was contrary to the eschatological mood of early Christianity, for this would have tied attention too closely to the land and would even have implied such attachment. Differences in property and attitudes towards it were therefore looked at exclusively from the point of view of personal morality. Wide and multifaceted, although little systematic, charity was a natural expression of mutual love. In some cases (as in the Jerusalem community) this took the form of more or less complete communion of property, unity of the treasury in the hands of the apostles and deacons, in other cases - assistance to the poorest and voluntary collections, which the apostle so touchingly cares about in his epistles. Paul. If the poor were encouraged to endure their lot patiently, because the ideal of voluntary poverty and its generally high value were alive in early Christianity, then the rich are constantly invited to share their wealth, to look at it as an opportunity to help others. “Do not turn away from the needy, but have fellowship with your brother in everything,” we read in the “Teaching of the 12 Apostles,” “and do not call anything your property, for if you are partakers in imperishable things, much more in perishable things.” However, these socialist-sounding judgments in reality do not have a socialist character at all; they contain only exhortations addressed to personal conscience regarding the correct use of wealth, but not advice to replace the institution of private property with a socialist institution 47 . In early Christianity there are even the beginnings of social policy (finding a job), but in general the question of wealth and poverty was not raised here except within the framework of personal charity. And therefore, the talk about early Christian communism (for example, in Kautsky) is based on a misunderstanding 48. 8. Early Christianity and dogmas Was there a developed, complete dogma in early Christianity, in the sense of a definite doctrine, consisting of clearly formulated and logically interconnected dogmatic provisions and formulas? Was there a theological science, a dogmatic theology? The scientific formulation of the question of the “history of dogmas” constitutes the greatest merit of church historical science of the 19th century, which, in the person of numerous researchers of different schools, shed a lot of light in this area (however, as most often happens in historical science, it raised more problems than received answers). If at the same time scientifically established facts received a kind of “Tübingen”, “Richlian” and so on. coverage, then the reason for this is not only in the story itself, but also in the way of its interpretation and evaluation, determined by philosophical and religious, even confessional prerequisites. Be that as it may, what is beyond dispute is the basic fact that there was no theologically developed dogma that could be formulated in the creed and in the catechism. Sharp logical edges, sharpened definitions, thought out and worked out to the last iota of religious and philosophical thought, began to be sought later. This was the work of a number of generations of theologians, starting with Origen, continuing during the era of the ecumenical councils and, according to our understanding, continuing after them and having to continue until the end of history. Early Christian theologians, in their attempts to give a rational, more or less accurate theological formulation of the basic dogma of Christianity about the God-manhood of Jesus Christ, not only fell into disagreement among themselves, but sometimes also into contradiction with the later dogmatic definition of the church. Review with an impartial eye what is available on Christological issues from Justin, Tertullian, Irenaeus and other lesser apologists, and you will see how overwhelming the Christological problem was for their theological thought. According to the remark of one German researcher, “this helplessness” of the still “wrong steps” of ancient Christianity in the field of philosophical thought contains something “touching” 49. And if this has to be stated even in relation to a later era, the more powerful this judgment is in relation to an earlier one: neither the New Testament nor early Christian writing deal at all with rational theology, they do not philosophize, but establish religious facts and events, evangelize and proclaim revelation as “God’s power and God’s wisdom,” without caring to give it philosophical processing and an adaptive form. And, however, from this it is by no means possible to conclude that early Christianity was adogmatic, alien to dogmas in its very essence, as modern Protestant scientists and other moralizing simplifications and correctors of Christianity are inclined to think. In a certain sense, Christianity in the first times of its existence was no less dogmatic than it later became in the era of ecumenical councils, and it was never only morality. All those dogmas or self-definitions that the church later explicitly accepted, implicite, in grain, were evident in the earliest Christianity, starting from that world day when the sermon of the apostle was first heard in Jerusalem. Peter: “God raised Jesus, breaking the bonds of death, because it was impossible for it to hold Him”... “He, having been exalted by the right hand of God and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, poured out what you now hear and see”... “God made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:24, 33, 36). In order to understand this, you just need to remember what dogma is and what it is based on; Many anti-dogmatic prejudices rest on a misunderstanding of this (however, not without the fault of not only opponents, but also other defenders of dogmas). Dogma is a reflected, living religious experience expressed in logical or philosophical concepts, a fact of religious experience or their totality, the content of a living, not only theoretically, but also practically experienced faith. This faith, strictly speaking, relies only on itself; it accepts its truths not as proven, but revealed, believed and experienced. Religious experiences (like any experience, for that matter) are irrational and immediate, to a certain extent they are even inexpressible in words, except symbolically; They do not go under the anatomical knife alive; radicalizing reflection comes only later. A series of exceptional and original experiences associated with a series of believed positions and ideas is a new revelation, this is what, first of all, a new religion is, regardless of how the reflective observer, i.e., relates to it. whether he sees in it an illusion, a collective hallucination, or whether he himself shares this belief. In this sense, dogmatic theology is, or more precisely, should be an experimental science, based on the data of experienced religious consciousness and analyzing them philosophically (just as aesthetics in this sense can only be an experimental science based on the experience of beauty, because outside of it there is no object). So, if early Christianity was adogmatic in the sense of the absence of an elaborate formulation of dogmas or religious philosophy, then it was vitally determined by dogmas as experimental truths. It was even more dogmatic than the later era of dogmatic development, since it was more religious and, therefore, more alive, more complete, more directly perceived the vital force of all the dogmas of Christianity. And if we wanted to check this position and compare the main features of the religious life of early Christianity and the dogmas established at least at 7 ecumenical councils or formulated at least in our Niceno-Constantinople Creed, we will be convinced that they add absolutely nothing to the religious fullness of the experiences of early Christianity, although they significantly enrich the consciousness of Christianity in its distinctness and clarity. For the preaching of early Christianity was a preaching about Christ Crucified and Risen, Savior and Redeemer, God and man, the Coming Judge and Resurrector. And those who believed in the Son were thereby brought to faith in the Father, Creator and Almighty, whose will the Son did. And it was natural to believe in the Holy Spirit, the promised Comforter, whose gifts were abundantly poured out on those who believed and were experienced by them. It is natural, therefore, that the completely superlogical dogma of the Trinitarian One God, Who only tries to adapt to himself and make at most not unthinkable philosophy, naturally appears at the very beginning of the Christian gospel: “Go and teach all languages, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Early Christianity did not need to reflect much in order to develop a doctrine about the sacraments, about charisms, about the church and about church catholicity. After all, it is enough to take a quick glance at how the life of the early Christians developed to see to what extent the church and the need for church unity were a fact and not a problem for them. Therefore, dogmatic formulations represented only an inventory of what was available. 9. Early Christianity in relation to hierarchy and cult Early Christianity is sometimes portrayed not only as adogmatic, but also anarchic, i.e. deprived of that hierarchical organization that was undoubtedly established already in the 2nd century. Without delving into this controversial and difficult issue 50, which has the most acute significance for the Protestant-Catholic discord, but in essence is not at all so burning, we can state that, indeed, early Christianity apparently did not have that developed organization of the clergy with the episcopate at the head, which distinguishes the church later. The abundance of spiritual gifts in the primal church, apparently, did not require, and perhaps did not allow, a strictly regulated clergy based entirely on the idea of ​​charismatic succession. The episcopate, apparently, had a slightly different, more official purpose than it had already received since the 2nd century (Sohm, Harnack). The “Teaching of the 12 Apostles” speaks of three categories of charismatics: apostles (and this concept expands in scope to include professional preachers in general), prophets and teachers, along with the secular office of bishops and presbyters, and, apparently, the difference between πρεσβύτεροι and νεώτεροι is not then had a charismatic meaning, but was based on the length of time they had belonged to the community and partly on age. However, there is no doubt that from the very beginning, in accordance with its essence, as one German scientist aptly put it, 51 the church organization became neither aristocratic nor democratic, but charismatic. And the natural development of the charismatic organization soon, already in the 2nd century, led to the identification of a clergy invested with special, priestly powers, based on the charismatic succession of ordination. What has been said regarding the organization of the clergy should also be applied to the order of worship, which, naturally, could not immediately acquire a general, monotonous character. This was prevented at that time by the intensity of religious enthusiasm, which found expression in unusual manifestations; Our attention is stopped, for example, by the so-called. glossolalia, i.e. uttering in a state of ecstasy words and phrases of mysterious content, not always understandable to the person himself, which was then specifically interpreted by these persons themselves or by others who had the gift of interpretation. The abuse of these ecstatic speeches sometimes led to confusion, which the apostle warns against. Paul to his Corinthian community (1 Cor. 14). Along with glossolalia, which was incomprehensible without interpretation, “prophecies” were common, understandable to everyone. Then the service included teachings, extemporaneous prayers, and “psalms.” To get a picture of free and inspired worship, rich in spiritual gifts, it is enough to re-read chapters 12–14 of the 1st chapter. to the Corinthians. Among other gifts, the gifts of healings, miracles, and discernment of spirits are mentioned here. No matter how we now relate to the issue of miracles and healings, we cannot erase or weaken the fact that early Christianity lived in an atmosphere of miracles, and even St. Irenaeus of Lyons (mid-2nd century) speaks of miracles, including the resurrection of the dead, performed by Christians. However, we should not forget, even with the most complete faith in the gifts of miracles, that the concept of the miraculous was then determined by completely different, not so much natural-scientific, but rather religious criteria (and, in essence, much more correct) than now, so that, for example, the natural healing of a sick person, accomplished with prayer, was also apparently considered a miracle. Any tangible action of God's will, no matter how it manifested itself, was considered a miracle. The atmosphere of the miraculous characterizes this entire era, “miracles” (more precisely, “signs”) were performed by heretics, for example, Gnostics (see the same St. Irenaeus of Lyons) and pagan magicians, and Christian writers do not reject this at all, but only explain these miracles by demonic power. Direct experience convinced us that after baptism all Christians become to a greater or lesser extent charismatics, receive the spirit to a tangible extent, and become pneumatics 52 . And this inspiration, this religious inspiration was vigorously expressed at prayer meetings, 53 either with improvised doxology, or with ecstatic and sometimes disorderly glossolalia, seductive for outsiders, 54 or with intelligible prophecy for everyone. Early Christianity knew two types of prayer meetings, some accessible to the uninitiated, of a prayerful and teaching nature, and others only for the baptized (or “faithful”), Eucharistic meetings. The latter, according to disciplina arcani, remained secret, which explains the possibility of the appearance of absurd fables spread by pagans regarding communion with the blood of a murdered child and the sin of death, with which apologists have to deal so much. Only in Justin (around the second half of the 2nd century) do we find a description of the Eucharist (Apol. 65–67), and Tertullian, among the differences between heretics, indicates that among them “it is not known who is the catechumen and who is the believer.” As far as can be judged from 1 Corinthians and the “Teaching of the 12 Apostles,” the celebration of the Eucharist was initially performed in conjunction with a common dinner, the supper of love (agape), and only around the middle of the 2nd century these two separate acts began to be separated 55 . In the original usage of words, the expressions “Eucharist, agape, breaking of bread” are used without precise distinction. Ancient Christian writing, unfortunately, has preserved few ancient Christian prayers for us. In addition to the Lord's Prayer, which was in general use (the "Teaching of the 12 Apostles" prescribes repeating it three times a day), and those passages from the New Testament books, for which it is easy to assume their early liturgical use, 56 the texts of the most ancient prayers have been preserved for us by the letter of 1 Clement to the Corinthians, which raises the curtain on how the Roman community prayed around the end of the 1st century, and from the beginning of the 2nd century, "The Teaching 12 Apostles” has preserved for us the Eucharistic prayers, which were probably in wide use. These prayers represent the most precious pearl of ancient Christian writing, in their majestic simplicity and sublimity. Perhaps their text will allow the sensitive soul, better than all the characteristics, to feel the mystery of early Christianity, which was so jealously guarded from the uninitiated, to breathe in its prayerful atmosphere 57. If we add to this a few more fragments of the dying prayers of the martyrs, preserved for us by the “acts of martyrdom” (and among them in the first place is the prayer of St. Polycarp), then we will exhaust the entire meager supply of surviving written evidence about the prayer life of this era, the inspiration of which has no equal in history. The general content of Christian prayers to St. Justin in his Apology defines it as thanksgiving “for what we have been created, for all the means of our well-being, for various kinds of works, for the changes of times” and “petition that we may be raised to incorruptibility according to our faith in him” (I Apol. 13). 10. Christianity and morality. – Joy in Early Christianity Christianity did not come into the world with a new teaching—the philosophers had preached enough of them! – but with the beginnings of a new life. And his victorious power could and should have been reflected precisely in the ability to regenerate, to bring to new life an old, decaying society. If it had not shown and did not manifest this power, it would have shown itself to be a human matter, albeit a lofty one, but it - contrary to all natural calculations - turned out to be a renewing, life-giving and constructive principle 58. The followers of the new teaching, the “disciples,” felt themselves to be “a new creation,” “the chosen people,” “the people of God,” and began to call themselves, in contrast to the world around them, “servants of God,” “saints,” “brothers,” “faithful,” “the Church of God” 59 . In Antioch the name “Christians” appears for the first time (Acts 11:26), and the more the internal unity of the Christian communities grew, the more the pagan world felt their alienation and repulsion from them, and a blind popular hatred of Christians was created, ready to believe any legend, blame them with any guilt. In the depths of the old world, a new one was created and strengthened, not a new school, but new people. “If there are those who do not live as Christ taught,” says St. in his Apology. Justin, - those, let it be known, are not Christians, although they pronounce the teachings of Christ with their tongues” (I Apol. 17). “I can show you many of ours who changed from being arrogant and ferocious, having been defeated either by seeing in their companions a wonderful tolerance of insults, or by learning from experience the morals of those people with whom they came into contact on business.” A careful study of the details relating to the life of the early Christian communities, according to the monuments of early Christian writing and the New Testament books (especially the apostolic epistles, does not allow us to preserve the previous simplified or, better yet, highly stylized image of the life of the early Christian communities, as an impeccable, untainted embodiment of the ideal of Christianity. Historical concretization 60 clothed them in flesh and blood and thereby deprived them that abstract, bloodless holiness, the aura of which surrounded them. If we collect impressions from all the reproaches, warnings, denunciations that we find here, we must admit that moral height was not given to them for nothing, not without struggle with themselves and with the world, and not without defeats in this struggle. And, however, this image, against the rather dark historical background against which it appears and from which it should not be torn away, still remains very bright and. is a living testimony to the power and influence of Christianity. The distance between the ideal and reality remained here, as in all earthly affairs, and yet both the height of the ideal and the height of life that corresponded to it remain exceptional. More than one researcher (Geffkeni, Wendland) has noticed that among apologists, for all their philosophical helplessness and lack of independence, the places where they - sometimes in exaggeratedly bright colors - paint the life of Christians and its norms are marked by absolutely exceptional freshness and spontaneity, and this constitutes their strongest side 61. “We represent wisdom,” says the Roman apologist Minucius Felix in the dialogue “Octavius,” “not in outward appearance, but in our soul; We do not speak loftily, but we live like this, we boast that we have achieved what those philosophers sought with all their effort and could not find.” These words express, perhaps, the main motive of Christian apologetics, to the extent that it is based not on abstract considerations, but on practical life. “You forbid adultery, but commit it, and we only know our wives; you punish for crimes committed, but for us it’s a sin to even think about them; you are afraid of third-party witnesses, and we are even afraid of our own conscience, without which we cannot exist. Finally, the prisons are overcrowded with yours, and there is not a single Christian there, except those convicted for their religion, or an apostate” (35). What confidence in the strength of one’s position one had to have in order to pose such a challenge to a hostile world, and how low and deep have we now fallen in comparison with the bright times of the beginning of Christianity! One could also cite a long series of evidence concerning the strictness of morals and the purity of relations between the sexes, the height of understanding of marriage 62. Against the background of extreme sexual promiscuity, the purity of Christian life stood out very sharply. Already in the apostolic and post-apostolic centuries, ascetics appeared and virginity was highly valued (and, by the way, the quickly degenerated but interesting institution of cohabitation between ascetics of different sexes arose). Without intending to dwell in more detail on what could be called the problem of sex and sexual love in early Christianity, we will only note the unique and specifically Christian motive of asceticism. This is not a denial of the flesh, as with the Gnostics and Eastern ascetics, but its highest affirmation, recognition of the potential holiness of the flesh, in which asceticism is the path to its sanctification. For a Christian, the flesh is the church of God, the body of Christ; it is not subject to destruction, but to transformation 63 . In Athenagoras, a Hellenic by birth and upbringing, we encounter, among other things, the view that sodomy and debauchery in general “offends the most beautiful and most comely bodies and dishonors the beauty created by God, for beauty on earth does not occur by itself, but is sent by order and according to the thought of God” (Prot. 34). Before the purity of the life of Christians, before their mutual love, about which so much evidence is scattered among apologists, and before their courage, the pagans also stop with bewildered respect, with all their contempt and hostility towards the Jewish sect. Thus, the famous philosopher Epictetus notes the fearlessness of Christians in the face of the threats of tyrants. The famous physician Galet (mid-2nd century), speaking about Christians, wants to give them high praise, recognizing that Christians act “like true philosophers” 64. And even the satirist Lucian, who ridiculed both the Stoics and the Christians in his Peregrinus, is forced to admit the high qualities of the latter 65. To extort such recognitions and assessments from hostile and prejudiced persons (the best idea of ​​the strength, character and motives of this prejudice is given by Celsus 66) meant a lot. We would miss a very significant line in this cursory and incomplete description of early Christian sentiments if we did not mention religious joy, this greatest gift of God that is given to people. Christians felt God, and the risen Christ was their life. And isn’t feeling God the highest joy, “perfect joy?” Look at the faces of Seraphim of Sarov, shining with this unearthly joy, greeting everyone with a jubilant greeting: “Christ is Risen”; Francis of Assisi or even lesser ones, and in the reflection of their joy, which will light up in your dark, gloomy, “embarrassed by the malice of the soul-evil world” (in the words of the funeral canon) soul, you will feel this joy of the early Christians. Collect in your soul the memories of short and fleeting moments of religious enlightenment, and your ear will open, perhaps, to this hymn of religious joy, which rings in the book of the Acts of the Apostles." 67 The world is redeemed, Christ became incarnate, suffered and rose again. Behind the motionless darkness of the night, the fiery rays of resurrection and transfiguration were visible. What for later Christian ascetics was only the fruit of their long and severe struggle, here was a gift of grace, as a pledge and a firstfruits. And who does not see and feel this in early Christianity, who does not hear here this victorious and jubilant hymn: “Christ is Risen!” he will not understand why Christianity won, by what faith it conquered: Christ is risen, He is here, nearby, He allows Himself to be touched, He allows Himself to be tasted, the heart burns with love from Him. Is it possible now to tell in disobedient and dead words what was experienced at the Eucharistic suppers, when the obedient word of the participants themselves became exhausted, and stormy glossolalia erupted like a waterfall, like the elements. Again, to get closer to understanding this, one should turn to the descriptions of religious experiences among ascetics, to their hints about what living and genuine communion with God is... I believe that it is possible to reveal this most intimate side, the holy of holies, the secret of early Christianity, only through the works of men of at least no less religious experience; from Macarius of Egypt, Isaac the Syrian, Simeon the New Theologian, from such witnesses one can more accurately learn a living understanding of living early Christianity, its “essence” than from Harnack and other scientists from whom we learn its external history. Based on their experience, one can understand the commandment given to the Thessalonian community by St. Paul: “Rejoice always. Pray without ceasing. Give thanks in everything” (1 Thess. 5:16–18). “However, brothers, rejoice, be improved, be comforted” (2 Cor. 13:11), he ends his letter to the Corinthians. And the main definition made by Ap. Paul, says that “The kingdom of God is not food and drink, but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17) 68. By pointing out the full significance of joy in early Christianity and Christianity in general, I hope I will not cause any misunderstanding in the sense that the significance of repentance, sorrow for sins, and in general the path along which a Christian ascends to heights is diminished. But there, on high, is God, and God is love, and His Kingdom is joy. And the struggle with the world and the desire for God is a struggle with its tragic ulcerations, with its sorrow, victory over the world is a breakthrough to joy, not private, objectified, isolated, but universal, joy in the Holy Spirit. And out of struggle, defeats and victories, even short-term, incomplete, inconclusive, but cutting through the darkness with the rays of their lightning, religious life is made up. 11. Early Christianity and martyrdom It is impossible, when speaking about early Christianity, to go through martyrdom in silence, for the primacy church is a martyr’s church. Although the persecution of Christians was not universal and systematic (according to some, the Roman authorities simply overlooked and tolerated Christianity, grasping at it when it was already too late and when more systematic research could not help), however, Christians were completely powerless and defenseless and surrendered to torture and execution, according to apologists, often for one name. Confessing oneself as a Christian and refusing to sacrifice to the image of the emperor were sufficient reasons to send him to execution for “atheism and anarchy.” And in the information, albeit insufficient and not always accurate, that we have in the so-called acts of martyrdom (Acta martyrii), we learn how the nature of Christianity was manifested in this case. Of course, it is impossible at present to place Christianity on the exclusive plus of the very presence of martyrs in its midst. According to the fair remark of Boissier 70, the church lost the right to this claim after it not only had martyrs, but also made others into them. In addition, the sacrifice of life because of convictions or for the sake of other people, although not common, is in any case a widespread phenomenon both in the pre-Christian and non-Christian world at different times: we see enough examples of political martyrdom, moreover, without any religious motives, and many examples of freely sacrificing one’s life for others are given to us by every war, even the last one, and on both sides. Not the actual fact of martyrdom, but its psychology interests us here. In this regard, early Christianity has its own specific characteristics arising from its properties. For in his living faith, death is defeated not by a convulsive effort of human will aimed at suppressing the natural fear of death, but with all mystical reality. The mood of reconciliation and forgiveness, prayer for enemies and for those who kill, which is characteristic only of early Christianity, is well known. In the foreground stands the figure of the first martyr Deacon Stephen, bathed in heavenly light. Before execution, he sees the open sky, the glory of God and Christ; stoned, he prays: “Lord, receive my spirit!” and dies with a prayer on his lips: “Lord! Do not impute this sin to them.” In this story, piously transmitted and preserved orally before it was written down, the idea of ​​the early Christian community was preserved of how it was typical for Christian martyrs to die, as their first and best representative, who saw Christ before his death, died. In more definite and concrete outlines another, later, image of the Christian martyr, St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, nicknamed the God-Bearer. We have a vivid self-portrait of him in his epistles, which are pearls of ancient Christian writing. A Syrian by origin and temperament, Ignatius, who stood in close proximity to the apostolic men (for example, St. Polycarp, a disciple of John the Theologian, and, perhaps, to the apostles), he ruled the Church of Antioch for 40 years. When Emperor Trajan decided to eradicate Christianity and began persecution, Ignatius, while he was in Antioch, came to him in order to either avert the persecution or be awarded martyrdom himself. As a result, the emperor ordered Ignatius to be taken in chains to Rome and there to be devoured to wild animals. The path of St. Ignatius, led by 10 warriors, whom he calls “leopards for their cruel treatment, who only become more evil from the benefits shown to them,” was, as it were, his apotheosis during his lifetime. When he was passing through Asia Minor, he was met in Smyrna by Bishop. Polycarp and a deputation from the churches of Asia Minor, through their bishops, presbyters and deacons, testified to their love for the prisoner and asked for his instructions and blessings. We have these instructions in the form of the pastoral letters of the bishop led to the animals, in which he gave a wonderful expression of his love and care for the flock of Christ. But what is most interesting for us here is his message to the Roman community, regarding which he received information that it was seeking to free him from. martyrdom. He asks her not to deprive him of the crown of martyrdom, and in this request he pours out his soul with all his passion 71 . Next to Ignatius, history has preserved for us the spiritual image of another martyr, St. Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna, "teacher of Asia, father of Christians", burned in 166. This is less expansive and not so sanguine, but in the simplicity of its greatness no less expressive image 72. It would be possible to cite a number of more similar strokes from the stories about Christian martyrs and martyrs, the tone would be general. Courageous and believing, they died with joyful hope; martyrdom was for them the desired apotheosis, the surest path to immortality. Here again the main eschatological feature of Christianity is evident, its uncontrollable and passionate impulse towards another world. Read Tertullian's Epistle to the Martyrs (217) and see with what motives he exhorts courage and patience: “Is your prison dark? The world will be covered even more with thick darkness, weakening 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 more guilty people, I want to say the entire human race…. What a happy battle you have to fight! God will be your rewarder and the Holy Spirit your guide. Your laurels will be an immortal crown.” Victorious tones of triumph and joy break through where they are most difficult to expect - and it is not surprising if the history of the persecution of Christians, of course, along with cases of weakness, all too natural and understandable, knows examples of even defiant behavior on the part of Christians, the search for martyrdom, with which local churches sometimes even had to fight 73 . 12. What is the secret of early Christianity? Looking over in your mind the main features of early Christianity, you involuntarily ask yourself: what is the secret of early Christianity, what is its “victory that conquered the world,” what is the strength of the success of the early Christian mission? Based on what has been said so far, it is still possible, if not to answer, then at least to approach the answer to this question, which has always been and continues to be equally a mystery for the historian and a problem for the religious thinker. And, first of all, there is absolutely no need to deny that there was a whole series of natural conditions, political, cultural and economic, that facilitated the spread of Christianity. But the point, of course, is not only them, for neither one of them individually, nor all of them together were capable of giving birth to Christianity, of creating this new historical force. And this power did not rely on any instruments of earthly influence and power - we saw how unarmed and defenseless in the worldly sense early Christianity was, how ahistorically it reasoned and felt, considering for itself all external self-determinations in a certain sense unimportant, resolving the most intricate questions of life with some kind of divine, but also - I will not stop admitting this - childishly naive simplicity, half noticing them and without delving into them. For a non-religious observer it is easy to mistake this simplicity for elementaryness, lack of culture, and the way for the newest deniers in this regard was already paved by the ancient critics of Christianity, the same Celsus or Lucian. We think that in order to understand what early Christianity was, and, consequently, for a correct scientific understanding of its history, it is not enough to have any kind of conscientiousness, for all this will only be conscientious vivisection, not leading to knowledge of a living organism; Religious intuition is also necessary, based not only on personal experience, but, mainly, on the historical experience of all Christianity in its greatest religious representatives. And from this side, between early Christianity and living Christianity of all times and peoples, not only is there no opposition, but there is inevitably an identity, for He who is “the way, the truth and the life” for Christianity is identical, faithful and unchangeable. What was there in early Christianity that was not preserved and could not be conveyed in its writings, that is only hinted at and guessed from its short and chastely restrained language, alien to literary and rhetorical falsehood? This is that the first Christians had a genuine, direct experience of the Divine, they felt themselves in real and direct communion with Christ, they burned with the joy of worshiping the Risen One... I stop, because I feel that I am approaching here the border of what can be expressed in words and what is permissible to touch on in literature. To lift the veil and bring closer to you what is usually so far from us, take a closer look at the faces of those who were in living communication with heaven, in whom you felt this incomprehensible power. In their brief, shy and restrained descriptions of what they experienced, in their religious experience, you will recognize the power of early Christianity. And even leaving these heights illuminated by heavenly light, to which only the chosen ones rise, and turning to religious everyday life, it is enough to look around you more carefully to see here, although weak, torn, but still the same spots of light. Who has not observed somewhere in a dark corner of a church, or even in the diversity of everyday life, living faith and devotion to God in simplicity, humility and tears. And it will not be insolence if even each of us, religiously powerless, turning to the meager experience of our lives, highlights in it those bright moments when, for him, faith was not a theoretical postulate, but a living reality, when the heart trembled and burned with the feeling of God. And all this - great and small, strong and weak, holy and sinful, since it is turned to heaven - is one and the same, differs quantitatively, not qualitatively. And this is what early Christianity was. There is no opposition, no gap, no qualitative difference here, and it cannot be allowed if one seriously believes that the source of light is one, no matter how diverse and different its refractions and reflections may be. How deep and how simple is this essence of early Christianity! Modern Protestant historians speak with fair emphasis about the “simplicity and deepening” of religion that distinguishes it (although they themselves, due to their biased anti-dogmatism, take this simplification further than it should). The Gospel speaks about this simplicity and, at the same time, universality, all-humanity, precisely thanks to this simplicity: “Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God like a child will not enter it” (Mark 10:15; Matt. 18:3; Luke 18:17). These words, like the entire preaching of the Gospel, are addressed to everyone, in addition to all random empirical differences: learned and unlearned, young and old, rich and poor, smart and stupid. All of them must feel in the depths of their hearts that they are simple, trusting children if they want to come to Heavenly Father. 13. Early Christianity and asceticism The early Christians fixed their gaze on the sky and paid little attention to the earth. Is this asceticism? In what sense can we talk about the asceticism of early Christianity, as well as of all living Christianity in general? The question is posed here about asceticism not as the beginning of ethics (for in this sense it seems to me completely irreducible from Christian, and indeed from any serious ethics in general from Plato to Kant), but as about the beginning of metaphysics, about the nature of the worldview. Yes, in a certain sense, early Christianity was undoubtedly ascetic. The practical consequence of early Christian eschatology was an ascetic weakening of interest in the affairs of this world, which, to use a vulgar comparison, seemed to them like a station with a short stop. However, this acuteness of eschatological expectations is only a special historical form of that feeling of fragility and, most importantly, the inconclusiveness of the current state of the world, as becoming, which is inherent in the very essence of the Christian religion, and cannot be eliminated from it. God, not as a pantheistic mind or beauty diffused in nature, not the impersonal natura sive Deus of Spinoza, but a living personal God, the God of religion, and not just philosophy, science or art, is revealed to us only in opposition to the world and in the struggle with it. An autonomous, self-contained, self-sufficient world is godless, atheism is its natural state. This does not mean, of course, that there is no God in the world, and the world would not reflect Him on itself, as His creation - we are far from this absurdity and blasphemy - but the world is autonomous, it is given an independent, self-legitimate, so to speak, natural-scientific existence, which, according to the famous expression of Laplace, does not need the hypothesis of God, and one cannot recognize a personal God in it unless one comes to Him by breaking through the world (transcensus) the mystical, direct path of religion, an act of boldness of faith. Only then does the world come to life, its dead mask is removed, the laws of nature become the thoughts of the Creator, the beauty of the world His robe, history His living revelation. To rise above the world, to break through the world, to seek the miracle of faith - for every living faith is wonderful, as if it were not lawful, free - this is essentially required by every theistic religion, and this ascetic feat is required by Christianity. There is no other way to God and to Christ than through inner renunciation of the world, through an inner and completely intimate act of self-determination in love: to love Christ more than all that is dearest. And it sounds inexorable. the stern, terrifying word of the meek and loving Savior: “If anyone comes in Me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple” (Luke 14:26). “Love of the world is enmity against God” - “do not love the world, nor the things in the world” (1 John 2:15), this, of course, cannot be scraped out of Christianity by any interpretation. As long as the world goes through the present stage of its state, the ongoing but not completed incarnation and transfiguration, while it remains, although divine in purpose, but still self-willed in existence, this world tragedy introduces an inevitable gap between man striving for God and the world, and to that extent asceticism is justified. This tragedy is objective, cosmic, associated with the sinful state of the world, in which God is not immanent to the world, does not appear as “all things in all,” but is transcendental and in this sense is opposite to the world. And this state of the world creates religious antinomy in the soul of a religious person, tears it apart in ascetic confrontation with the world, for the sake of the highest religious love for it. The meaning and basis of asceticism in early Christianity, as in the subsequent history of Christianity, at the highest points of its religious mood, as in various manifestations of human creativity, is the same. Not to merge with the world completely, to the point of indifference, to always carry a sense of distance in your heart, to walk not on the earth, but above the earth, no matter how close to it, but always above it - this is what Christianity demands. And this objective tragedy of the world necessarily becomes the tragedy of personal life. And this latter, no matter how comfortable it is, no matter how prosperous, besides the dull and continuous tragic discord, contains one basic disharmony, personal death, external incompleteness and internal infinity of life, this fatal ellipsis. But this same motive can at the same time be harmonizing if it is colored eschatologically: beyond the grave awaits the resolution of the tragedy, death is followed by Sunday, personal and global, new life, eternal life. It can be affirmed positively that when the early Christian eschatology paled and the feeling of immediate expectation of a world cataclysm became dulled - and it became dulled from the end of the 2nd century throughout Christianity, settling only among individuals, or at exceptional moments in history - then the place of eschatology in the spiritual economy of personal life began to be played by the idea of ​​personal death, inevitable and always unexpected. “The memory of the hour of death” in ascetic literature plays exactly the same role as eschatology in early Christianity, and, on the contrary, the psychology of atheism drives nothing so much as the thought of the inevitable end and the inevitable - like it or not - transcensus to an unknown, new state. Therefore, those who do not like to think about it began to call Christianity the religion of death. So, in the sense of a feeling of inner alienation from the world and the impossibility of completely merging with it without losing one’s religious personality, early Christianity was ascetic. It saw the sky too clearly, in contrast, highlighting more sharply all the shadows, gaps, crevices of the world. Early Christianity was ascetic, like all Christianity in general. And, however, what is least consistent with this asceticism is the widespread vulgar idea of ​​it as a gloomy, evil attitude towards the world, or as continuous sadness. The means and the path are taken for the end, a harsh feat is considered an end in itself, repentance, in which a person is born spiritually and comes to Christ (“repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand”), makes one forget about the joy of forgiveness and adoption. And finally, as for the world, the soulless desert and the terrible mechanism in which the dead wheels of the universe revolve are considered more joyful than the cosmos, which proclaims the glory of God. A breakthrough to God requires a renunciation of the world, but it is rewarded in abundance. The world comes to life, becomes beauty, wisdom, a work of art 74. This sky is a silent abyss in which dead worlds revolve, oh, how scary it is with its dead infinity, but how beautiful it is, close to us, if we see in it the Throne of the Creator. Truly the joy of the world is given only by religion with its asceticism; it brings us closer to the world, connects us to the heart of the world. One could easily confirm with evidence from ancient Christian writing how responsive the soul of the early Christians was to the beauty of this world. And their indifference or even a hostile and suspicious feeling towards ancient art, inextricably linked with the pagan cult, has its own historical reasons, briefly indicated above, and cannot be traced to religious grounds. A historical paradox full of the deepest meaning and at the same time the apotheosis of ancient Christian asceticism is the victory of early Christianity over the world. It was only because it felt and knew the sky so strongly that it conquered the earth. And not only in this case, but always in history, only the rise above reality, the ascetic rejection of the lower reality for the sake of the triumph of the higher, self-denial for the sake of the ideal, gave victory in history, and not immersion headlong in the muddy waves of life. Asceticism wins by renunciation - this is the law of life. Christianity could not have been born without opposing itself to the whole world, to this entire complex culture, to the pagan state, to all past and future centuries, without this consciousness of its super-worldliness, without this ascetic feat: to reject the soul in order to save it, to condemn the world in order to breathe into it new life, new strength... 14. Normative meaning of early Christianity It is not out of idle, even scientific, curiosity that we fall to the sacred soil of early Christianity, on which the feet of the apostles walked. No, in it we want to know and understand ourselves, with the light lit from the lamp that glowed in the catacombs, to illuminate the darkness of our current state. It is not study, but teaching that we need, and behind it our time will come to the sources of those waters that centuries of history have so polluted, covered with sand and, if only they could, would have completely fallen asleep. So, what can we now learn from early Christianity? In what ways does it remain an unattainable model and norm for us? What is the normative significance of early Christianity? Early Christianity was the seed from which the many-branched tree of historical Christianity grew. It is clear that even if only in embryo, in a simple and undeveloped form, it must contain in itself that which is essential for the Christian religion in general. Currently, with the complexity of its spiritual culture, we have religious philosophy, religious history and an endlessly growing literature about religion. And we often mistake our desire to have a real living religion, or our ideas about it, or, in the absence of such, at least our words about it, for genuine religion, losing the ability to distinguish a false banknote from a full-fledged nonet. And the comparison of early Christianity with its simplicity, but also great truthfulness, and modern philosophy clearly shows what the difference is between religious philosophy or science, no matter how high they stand, and religion, between bloodless, abstract history and a living, immediate fact. At its core, religion is not theories, but life, the experience of the divine, religious experience; Strictly speaking, this religion cannot be learned by assimilating known ideas; it is taught only by life itself. If there is this grain, “that is, religion, there is a trunk around which a tree can grow, but if it is not there, then there is nothing, just dry leaves, noisy, but dead. This personal experience and then the combination of many personal experiences into a collective, church experience is essential for Christianity, only this was the case, but to the highest degree, in early Christianity. And in this religious immediacy it is the norm for us, the promised land, the joyful dawn of a new day. But, on the contrary, its historical flesh, the special external setting of its manifestation belongs to history, i.e. changing flow of events, and therefore cannot have normative significance for all times. If we briefly formulate the whole difference that exists here between early Christianity and all historical Christianity, it boils down to the fact that for early Christianity there was no history and there was no historical concern in our current sense, while we feel ourselves in history and drawn into the circle of its tasks. We differ from early Christianity, in addition to everything else, by our historical age. The later hour inevitably differs from the earlier, and even more so from the first hour in the history of Christianity. First of all, this difference concerns what can be called the eschatological worldview. It cannot be eliminated from Christianity, just as the idea of ​​an end, the idea of ​​a goal, cannot be eliminated from any rational, purposeful process. Prayer: “Hey, come, Lord!” will not be silent until it is fulfilled. But the 19th centuries of life experience did not pass without a trace. The passive expectation of the end, as a sudden world revolution, as a deus ex machina, has largely dissolved for us with an active sense of history, a sense of the historical process and only through it the internal maturation of the world towards its intended renewal. If it has faded in brightness and spontaneity (although more than once in history the immediate expectation of the end has been revived with the onset of historical crises, so that one German scientist 75 rightly called this feeling the arrow on the dial of history, but it has become more relevant for us. History has become in our worldview like a bridge leading from time to eternity. The absolute, religious meaning of history, its nomen, whose phenomenal vestment we know, remains for us unknown, we can only guess about it. But the immediate content of history captivates us with its interests, we feel like workers in the historical field, carrying historical obedience, each in his own furrow, we recognize ourselves as sons of our century, nationality, state, social system, culture. We feel caught up in this powerful flow that carries us, but not without our will and participation. And in this our historically colored sense of well-being differs from the early Christian one. However, for him, eschatology did not obscure the immediate tasks of life. With all its intensity, early Christianity fulfilled its historical task of the initial preaching of Christianity. And this work amazes the historian with its success and energy. The early Christian mission, sealed with the blood of martyrdom, the suffering of confession, and the labors of apostleship, is the greatest historical feat. The early Christians, so ahistorically inclined, did their job in the field of historical work and commanded all future generations to follow their example, each in their own historical turn. “And Jesus came near and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.” Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you, and behold, I am with you to the end of the age. Amen" (Matthew 28:18–20). This parting commandment of the Lord, given to the eleven disciples, and through them to the entire Christian world, indicates the norm of Christian activity in history. Teaching all peoples the true faith and observing the commandments of Christ, introducing new life and a new spirit into all life - this is the creative task of Christian history. The task of Christian mission in the proper sense, the preaching of the faith, its apologetic defense, which, of course, relates not to one early Christian era, but to all others, is necessarily accompanied by the revelation of the truths of Christianity by the natural powers of man, which were given to him even before Christ. Human philosophy, science, culture, as if blind in the pre-Christian world, become sighted, receive their logos, revealed in their natural historical development, and also become an instrument of “teaching.” No less comprehensive is the commandment of “observing” the commandments of Christ, for it opens up endless prospects both for the improvement of the individual with his inner world, and for the correction of external human relations, i.e. for what we now call political and social progress. Christianity does not provide programs, does not indicate a panacea, but it strongly invests its content in spontaneous, instinctively formed forms of life, creating a new person. A new theme of world history has appeared - the human personality, and all of it can, in a certain sense, be considered as the development of this theme, as the search for an autonomous personality liberated by Christianity for the corresponding forms of external life. The problem of a free personality is the axis around which the thought of modern times turns. In relation to this problem, the latest social science, political economy, and state science are only a technique that, based on the study of social matter, resolves the tasks assigned to it, but does not have an independent ideal, which is given by a religious attitude towards the individual. Many have now renounced Christianity, but none of those who renounced the tree renounced this fruit that grew on it. Christianity, restoring the ideal dignity of the individual in the consciousness of his sonship with God, also gives the highest standard of communication between these individuals in the ideal of the church, internal unity and brotherhood in Christ in the image of the Trinitarian God, the absolute unity of the three hypostases, the consubstantial and indivisible Trinity, in whose name those who enter the Church are baptized. Thus, the Christian consciousness is faced with the task of successive work on the historical flesh of humanity in order to transform it in the spirit of Christian sentiments and commandments, while it is destined to grow and mature, until the “fullness of times.” But the way through which Christianity directly influences the world is still the inner man, his heart, his living spirit. He is the creative energy in history, but not the dead elements of nature or the social body. The greatest spiritual danger of our time lies in the enslavement of historical flesh to these elements, in the languageization of the individual, in the immersion of the spirit in the created world with oblivion of the Creator. And against this earthing of man, early Christianity again and again raises its quiet, yet audible voice through the ages. Like a distant message of good news, he calls up the downcast. In the historical stream of the great migration of peoples, ancient civilization with its charms and its powers was not saved, the old flesh of history did not survive, only the new soul of history was preserved - the early Christian church. And this spiritual force, arising in the depths of a religious personality and transformed in feelings, moods, deeds, transforms the new flesh of history, the historical face of the world. This igniting, purifying and regenerating power of religious fire, the first spark of which is ignited in individual souls, but which then flares up into a world-historical bonfire, is spoken of in the saying of the Lord, preserved for us by tradition: “Whoever is near Me is near the fire,” or, as it is said in the Gospel of Luke: “I came to bring down fire on the earth, and how I would that it should already be kindled” (12:49). Si., for example, a wonderful study by Prof. A. D e i ss man: “Das Llclit vom Orient, 1908. Some of the most important conclusions of this study are outlined by me in the essay “Early Christianity and Modern Socialism (Religious-Historical Parallel,” Questions of Philosophy and Psychology, 1909 III. Wed. about this is an interesting work by Prof Ernst Troeltsch: “Die Absolutheit des Christentums und die Religionsgeschichte”, 1902. Here, for example, are the final words of Prof. Geffken in his work “Aus der Werdezeit des Cbristentums”, Leipzig, 1904, p. 135: “Aber vielleicht ist auch alles dies nur Klügelei, und gehört der Sieg des Christentums zu den hlstorischen Wundern, deren Ursachen uns stets ein “Ignorabimus” bleiben, ein Geheimniss, immer wieder lockend, immer wieder sich verhüllend, vie das Wesen lesu Christi selbst.” Cp. similar review by prof. Dobschutz in his "Problemen des apostolischen Zeitalters", Leipzig, 1904, p. 11: "Unser Problem gehört zu denen, die im letzten Grunde historisch unlöslich sind." Rudolf Som: “Church structure in the first centuries of Christianity”, translation by A. Petrovsky and P. Florensky. M., 1906, p. 7. (The first chapter of Zon’s famous work is translated in this book: “Das Kirchenrecht”, 1892). The material for compiling the essay, in addition to authentic monuments of ancient Christian writing, the works of apostolic men and apologists, was a large amount of mostly recent German literature on the history of Christianity. In addition to special monographs cited in their place, from general works we will name: on the history of ancient Christian literature, the classical works of Harnack (on the history of dogmas, ancient Christian mission and literature) and Bardengever, also Loofs (the history of dogmas). WITH . Weizsäckcer: "Das apostolische Zeitalter". Knopf: "Das nachapostolische Zeitalter". Wernle, "Die Anfänge unserer Religion", 1904. Deissmann, "Das Licht vom Osten", 1908. Heinrizi: "Dav Urchristentum", 1902. Dobschütz, "Urchristlichen Gemeinden", 1904, "Probleme des apostoliscben Zeitalters", 1904. Jülicher, Harnack, Bonweisch and others in “Die Christliche Religion” (ed. die Kultur der Gegenwart). Hatch: "Crischentum und Christentum". Sohm, "Kirchenrecht", Pfleiderer, "Urchristenlum", I. Duchesne: "Hist. anc. do l'eglise", 1908, series "Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher" brsg. von M. Schiele (on various issues). The corresponding article is in “Realencyklopedie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche 3-te Auflage”. K. Kautsky: “Der Ursprung des Christentums”, 1908, See also the Russian works of prof. Spassky: “History of dogmatic movements”, prof. Gidulyanova: “Metropolitans in the first three centuries of Christianity.” Wed. summarizing and excellent research by prof. Paul Wendlan: . “Die Hellenistisch-Römische Kultur in ihren Beziebungen zu Judentum und Cnristentum.” Tübingen." 1907. Wed. also 5 essays (by Cornille, Dobschutz, Herrmann, Sterck and Troeltsch) in the series “\Vissenschaft und Bildung” under the general title: “Das Christentum”. 1908. Wed. also Ludwig Friedländer, “Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms in der Zelt von August bis zum Ausgang der Antonine 7-te Auflage. 1902 Ohm. Wendland, I. c., ch. VII, § 2 et seq. Wed. excellent essay by Wendland: 1. p. 77 ff. There are also abundant bibliographical notes. Wed. also Fr. Cumont: “Les religions orientates dans le paganisme romain.” Paris 1907. Wed. E. Rohde: "Die Psycho". I Leipold: , “Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. Erster Theil. Die Entstehung.” Leipzig, 1907, pp. 1 et seq. For my purpose, I need not enter into a consideration of the intricate and complex questions about the history of the canon of New Testament books and the so-called “New Testament criticism.” Not to mention the fact that this work, due to its complexity, requires special research, in our eyes it does not have the fundamental significance that is increasingly gaining in Protestantism and especially in Richlean theology, which proceeds from the denial of the doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Only with this dogmatic premise do the arguments of “biblical” criticism receive such strength and decisive importance, which they do not have at all for a positive religious view. Wed. about this. A. Reville: “Jesus the Nazarene.” T. I. With a preface. prof. F.F. Zelinsky, St. Petersburg. 1909 Last summer a study was published by Prof. Deisman "Das Licht vom Orient". 1908, based on Egyptian excavations and philological analysis of discovered inscriptions on shards (ostraca), papyri, copper and stone, bringing new evidence regarding the vernacular character of the New Testament language and, by implication, the social composition of the original church. On the same topic (“Das Unchristentum und die unttren Klasstn”) Deisman made a report at the Evangelical Social Congress (June 9–11, 1908, in Dessau) and on this occasion a highly interesting and lively debate arose on the topic of the “nationality” of Christianity then and now. See "Die Verhandlungen des XIX Evangelisch-Socialen Kongresses". Göttingen, 1908. Wed. in my essay “Early Christianity and Modern Socialism.” V.V. Rozanov is absolutely right that, symbolically speaking, ap. Paul cannot be imagined not only in the pagan theater of that time, but also in ours, even in the Art Theater. (Cf. his essay “About the Sweetest Jesus”). But is it even possible to imagine even now the most ordinary person in the theater at such moments when his soul burns with prayer, with the feeling of God, as it apparently burned incessantly with the apostle? Here are a few reviews as an example: “Early Christianity is aloofly opposed to Greco-Roman culture. Christianity and world culture are quantities that initially do not have an internal relationship. Almost until the middle of the 2nd century, this direction, alien to culture, reigned” (Wendlan d, 1. p. 127). “If you ask yourself what is common in the expressions of Christianity of the 1st century in Paul, John, James, then this is the highest tension of religious feeling. Religion is everything to them. A lot of questions of human life: the problem of culture, state, law, science, etc. do not exist for them at all... This early Christian enthusiasm is characterized by a powerful supra-worldliness (Ueberweltlichkeit), even extra-worldliness (Unveltlichkeit).” (D obs h ütz, “Probl. d. apost. Zeitalters”, Leipz, 1904.112–113, cf., his in “Das Christenthum”, 47).. Cf. also Knopf:, “Das nachapost. Zeitalt", 120–122. The number of these reviews can be significantly multiplied, because we are talking about an indisputable phenomenon, accessible to historical observation and regardless of its religious prerequisites. See generally L. Atzberger: “Geschichte der Eschatologie innerhalb dor vornizänischen Zeit.” Freiburg I. Br. 1896. Wed. also: H. Gunkel: “Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes nach der populären Anschauung der apostolischen Zeit etc.” Göttingen. 1899, p. 58, H. Weinel: “Die Wirkungen des Geistes und der Geister im nachapostolischen Zeitaltcr bis auf Irenäus.” Freiburg. 1899, pp. 42–43, Harnack: “Dogmengeschichte”, I, 158, Ego: “Militia Christi”. 1905, p. 60. About it, in addition to manuals on the history of dogmas (Harnack and others), see Adolf Hilgenfeld: “Dle Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums.” Leipzig, 1884. See Emil Schürer: “Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, Zweiter Theil, 2te Aufl, Leipzig. 1886 and W. Bousset: “Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichcn Zeitalter. 2-te Aufl. Berlin. 1906, G. Hollmann: "Welche Religion hatten die Juden, als Jesus auftrat?" Tubingen. 1906 (Religionsgesch. Volksb., I, 7 H.). On Jewish and pagan apocalypticism, see another interesting essay by Geffken: “Aus der Werdezeit des Cbristentums, chapter II. For a summary of relevant texts and evidence, see at least Leipold, 1. p. There are enough of them not to discuss Morozov’s apocalyptic fantasy.. Let us note that the Old Testament also ends with the Old Testament apocalypse, which arose, however, already at the beginning of the Christian era - the non-canonical 3rd book. Ezra. For a convenient overview of historical evidence (though not without exaggeration in some cases), see the article "Chiliasmus" in Real-Enc. für prof. Theol. and Kir., 3. Based on the Russian translation by K. Andreev, collated and corrected from the original in the edition of Gebhart and Harnack. Deissman: “Das Licht von Orient”, 199–200. Tertulian’s treatise “De idolatria” (203) eloquently testifies to the difficulties that Christians encountered at every step and in every deed when they came into contact with the pagan world. On Gnosticism, see the history of dogma and ancient Christian literature, especially Hilgenfeld, op. cit. The latest monograph on Gnosticism is by W. Bousset. "Hauptprobleme der Gnosis". Göttingen. 1907. The question of ancient Christian art would require special attention. Let me briefly note that here, too, the first steps, for example, of catacomb painting and ornament, are marked, on the one hand, by a captivating simplicity of content, and on the other, they are distinguished by their complete dependence on ancient forms. The very idea of ​​decorating with ornaments (flowers, geniuses) both places of eternal peace and household utensils, as well as the technique of these decorations, is of Greek origin. The motifs of this painting are also antique: Christ in the form of Orpheus or a genre image of a young shepherd, or a dragon in the images of Jonah (Dobschütz: “Das Christentum”, 53, 63, Boissier: “Catacombs”, 45–57). Christian symbolism acquired a more original and independent character from the very beginning. Wed. my essay: “L. Feuerbach and the religion of man-divinity." Moscow, 1906 Wed. "TO. Marx as a religious type." St. Petersburg, 1907 Willamowitz-Moellendorf: "Geschichte der griechischen Religion". 1901, cited. at Harnack:. Mission uud Ausbreitung des Christentums", 2 Auf.., 248–249, Note. Geffken: "Aus der Werdezeit des Christentums", 26. Wed. text of the gospel story: Matt. 27:13–17, 20–21; Mk. 15:7–11; OK. 23:18–19; In. 18:39–40. Prof. Weinel sees in the persistence of these exhortations a struggle against the revolutionary radicalism of apocalyptic sentiments (let us note by the way that in the further history of Christianity, for example, in the era of peasant wars in different countries, such as the Münder and Anabaptist movement in Germany, the revolutionary wars in England, very revolutionary sentiments were actually clothed in apocalyptic ideas). According to this researcher, these admonitions translated: “Rome is not so bad after all: anything but a revolution.” (Weinel: “Die Stellung des Urchristentums zum Staat”, 1908. His same: “Die urchristliche und die heutige Mission”, 1907, p. 12. You, O Master, gave them the power of reign with your majestic and inexplicable power, so that we, in the consciousness of the honor and dignity given to them by you, would obey them, without in any way contradicting your will. Give them, O Lord, health, peace, harmony and constancy, so that they may freely carry out the rule entrusted to them by You. For /You, heavenly Lord, King of Ages, give to the sons of men honor and dignity, and power over everything that is on earth. Thou, O Lord, direct their minds to that which is good and pleasing in Thy sight, so that in peace and simplicity they may piously exercise the power which Thou hast given them, and be worthy of Thy mercy.” (Th. Zahn: “Skizzen aus dem Leben der Alten Kirche”, 3 Aufl. Leipzig, 190S, p. 313.. See the text of the prayer in v. d. Goltz: “Das Gebet in der ältesten Christenheit” 1901, in the appendix). Knopf: “Das nachapostolische Zeitalter”, 108. St. Justin the Philosopher (2nd century) in his Apology says, for example, “although we worship God alone, in other respects we ourselves willingly serve, recognizing you as kings and rulers of people and praying for that. so that you, under royal power, will be gifted with healthy judgment” (Apol. 17). Particularly interesting is the testimony of Tertullian, known for his rigorism on the issue of soldiering, about engaging in various professions, and a straightforward African by temperament. “We pray to the eternal God for the health and prosperity of the emperors... From Him they receive both power and life... The Emperor is great because he recognizes the God of heaven and earth as his Lord... Through Him he is an emperor and before he became an emperor, he was and is a man. He received the royal crown from the same God from whom he received life. We ask God for the emperors' prosperity, peaceful reign, security of their home, courage of the army, loyalty of the Senate, good behavior of the people, peace of the whole world" (30). Added to this is another interesting argument, showing how pale eschatological sentiments and the impatient expectation of the end had become by the beginning of the 3rd century: “we know that the end of the world, with all the horrors that accompany it, is postponed due to the existence of the Roman Empire. Therefore, while we pray for the removal of this terrible revolution, we also pray for the continuation of the Roman Empire” (Apol. 32), we pray for the emperors, for their ministers, for all powers, for peace, for the well-being of the whole world, for the postponement of the end (pro mora finis)” (39). According to the testimony of the apologist Athenagoras, Christians even prayed for the continuation of the dynasty. Example app. Paul, who referred to his rights as a Roman citizen, says quite eloquently that in case of need, civil rights were also protected. In 217, Tertullian (probably not without exaggeration) writes in his Apology: “We have existed, so to speak, since yesterday and already fill everything: your cities, islands, castles, suburbs, councils, camps, tribes, decuries, court, senate, forum; We only provide you with churches.” In the same one. Apoligi and Tertullian defend Christians from the charge that they are “useless for the connections of public life.” “We are not like the Indian Brahmins and gymnosophists, we do not live in forests, we do not run around people... You and I are in the square, in markets, in baths, in shops, in hotels, at fairs, in all places necessary for communication with others. You and I sail along rivers and seas, carry weapons, cultivate the land, trade, and use the same arts” (42). See generally Harnack: “Militia Christi”, Weinel: “Das Verhältniss des Urchristenthums zam Staate”, Bigelmair: “Die Beteiligung der Christen am öffentlichen Leben in vorconstantinischer Zeit”. Müncben, 1902. On the irrationality of relations between church and state, cf. from Ernst Troeltsch: “Die Trenbung von Staat und Kirche etc.” Tübingem, 1907, p.56 Wed. my essay “The Church and the Social Question” in Questions of Religion, vol. 1. Especially Wed. essay “Early Christianity and modern socialism” (Questions of Phil. and Psych., 1909, III). Wed. Zahn: "Skizzen etc.", Paul Allard: "Les escláves chrétiens. 4-me ed.” Paris, 1900, Dobschütz: “Sclaverei und Christentum (Realencykl. f. prof. Th. u. Kig, 18), Deissmann, 1. c, Uhlhorn: “Christliche Liebcsthätigkeit in der alten Kirche”, 1882, Harnack: “Die Mission etc.”, Ed. Meyer: “Slavery in the Ancient World”, Friedländer: 1. p. In the year when ap. Paul was brought to Rome, one slave killed his master in Rome. According to the old custom, if the culprit is unknown, all the slaves of the murdered man who were under his roof should be executed; there were 400 of them. But the people were indignant against such bloodshed, the matter was considered in the Senate, which recognized the need for repression, and under the protection of troops the mass execution was nevertheless carried out (Zahn, 1. p. 121–122). One Roman writer reports the response of a noble Roman lady regarding her request not to rush to send her slave to execution (usually by crucifixion), but to investigate the case ahead, so as not to destroy the person in vain: “Are you crazy? Is a man really a slave?” On the contrary, in the pagan view, slaves were considered to have no religion and, in any case, were not allowed to worship together with freemen. (Well compared in Allard, op. cit.). For a more detailed presentation of this issue, see the essay “Early Christianity and Modern Socialism” (Questions of Philosophy and Psychology, 1909, III). Wed. Harnack: "Die Mission", 1, 147–148. See especially Allard, 1. p., livre III. This is especially clear in Ermus, where the relationship between rich and poor is depicted by a comparison with an oak tree and a vine leaning on it, with one mutually helping the other, the first with help and the second with prayers. However, Tertullian also mentions the sharing of property among Christians (Apol. 39). Definitely communist ideas are attributed only to the Gnostic heretic Carpocrates, who allegedly tried to implement Plato’s communion of property (cf. the description of various Gnostic teachings by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons). Geffken: "Aus der Werdezeit des Christenthums". Distinctive features of the Christology of apologists are noted in Spassky: “History of dogmatic movements in the era of ecumenical councils,” volume I. 1906. Ch. I. Wed. Harnack: "Dogmengeschichte", V. I. We have the latest summary of the historical material relating to this in a recent article by Harnack: “Kirchliche Verfassung und kirchliches Recht im 1. und 2. Jahrhundert” (in Realencykl. f. pr. K., 3-te Aufl., Bd. 20, Leipzig, 1908). Wed. also Harnack. "Die Lehre der 12 Apostel", 1884; K. Sohm: "Das Kirchenrecht"; I. Harnack: “Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den 3 ersten Jahrhunderten”; Weizsäcker. "Apost. Zeitalter"; Knopf: "Das nachapostolische Zeitalter"; P. IN . Gidulyanov; "Metropolitans in the first three centuries of Christianity". Moscow, 1906 Weinel: "Die Stellung des Urchristentums zum Staat", 37. The facts relating to this are collected with all the sobriety of historical analysis. cit. essay. Weinel: “Die Wirkungen des Geistes utd der Geister im nachapost.” Zeitalt.. bis Irinäus", 1899. Also Gunkel: "Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes etc". 2. Aufl. 1899. The value of both works increases because both of these scientists belong to the left wing of the liberal movement in Protestant theology and can least of all be suspected of superstitious mysticism. For a description of the general belief in the miraculous in the pagan world of this era, see Wendland, 1. p., ch. 6–7. On ancient Christian prayer, see monograph v. d. Goltz: "Das Gebet in der ältesten Christenheit", Leipzig, 1901. See also Weizsäcker, 1. p., Knopf, 1. p., Zahn, 1. p., Weinel, 1. p. Glossolalia was also not a feature of only church communities; at least, we know glossolalia among heretics. A record has apparently been preserved of the glossolalia of the Gnostics (see Schmidt: “Gnostische Schriften in koptischer Spracbe.” Leipzig, 1892. Quoted in Weinel, 1. c, 80). About agapes, see in Russian the study by Pyotr Sokolov: “Agapes or love suppers in the ancient Christian world.” Seriev Posad, 1906. Such, for example, are the song of the Theotokos, the prayer of Zechariah, Elder Simeon in the Gospel of Luke, or some hymns and prayers from the Apocalypse (according to Weissekker, 5:9-10, 6:11, 5:12, 5:18, 15:3, 11:17, 12:10-12, 19:1-8), messages to Tamothy (1 Tim. 3:16, 2 Tim. 2:11 et seq.) Both prayers obviously date back to the time when the Eucharist and agape were celebrated together. “And as for the Eucharist, give thanks in the following way. First, regarding the cup: “We thank You, Our Father, for the holy grapes of David Your servant, which You showed us through Jesus Your servant. Glory to you forever!”: And regarding the broken bread: “We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge that you showed us through Jesus your servant. Glory to you forever! As this broken bread was scattered on the hills and united into one, so may Your church be united from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom, for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever!” After satiation, give thanks like this: “We thank Thee, Holy Father, for Thy holy name, which Thou hast instilled in our hearts, and for the knowledge, and faith, and immortality, which Thou hast revealed to us through Jesus Thy Servant. Glory to you forever! You, Lord Almighty, created everything for the sake of Your name; You gave food and drink to people for enjoyment, so that they would thank You, because You are omnipotent. Glory to you forever! Remember, O Lord, Thy Church, deliver her from all evil and perfect her in Thy love, and gather her, sanctified from the four winds, into Thy Kingdom, which Thou hast prepared for her, because Thine is the power and glory forever. Let grace come and let this world pass away! Hosanna to the Son of David! If anyone is holy, let him come here, and if not, let him repent. Maranatha! Amen". We have already drawn attention to the eschatological end of this prayer, a sign of its deep antiquity: “Maranatha!” - liturgical formula in Aramaic, used by the ap. Paul (1 Cor. 14:22), meaning “The Lord has come,” can, with a different division of words, mean: “Come, Lord!” (Zahn, 318). Wed. Dobschütz: “Die urchristlichen Gemeinden”, conclusion. chapter. For a comparison of these names, see Harnack: “Die Mission etc.”, Car., III. Such a detailed historical study was recently carried out by Prof. Dobschutz, to whose research: “Die urchristlichen Gemeinden. Sittengeschichtliche Bilder.” Leipzig, 1902 and his: “Probleme des apostolischen Zeitalters”, 1904, and we refer the reader. See also Wei z sä c ker, op. With. and Knopf, op. With. In order not to be unfounded, we must force the ancient Christians themselves to speak for themselves. We will not spare space to cite at least a few of the many. Here is Clement of Rome at the end of the 1st century sending a message to the very Corinthian community that the apostle “planted.” Paul protected with his fatherly hand from many temptations. He calls them to correction, reminding them of what they were before. “You were all humble and free from vanity, you loved to obey rather than command, and to give rather than to receive... everyone was given a deep and wonderful peace and an insatiable desire to do good, and there was a complete outpouring of the Holy Spirit on everyone. Full of holy desires, with sincere zeal and with pious hope, you stretched out your hands to Almighty God and begged him to be merciful if you had unwittingly sinned. Day by night, your podvig was to take care of the entire brotherhood, so that the number of His chosen ones would be saved in good nature and like-mindedness. You were sincere, sincere and did not remember any anger towards each other. Any rebellion and any division was disgusting to you. You cried about the misdeeds of your loved ones: you considered their shortcomings as your own. We were not bored with doing good, ready for every good deed” (St. Clim, Cor. I, Epistle II). Here is an exhortation to the flock of another hierarch of the early 2nd century, St. Ignatius the God-Bearer. “Pray unceasingly for those who do not believe and are lost. For they have hope of repentance in order to come to God. Let them learn, at least from your deeds. Be meek against their anger, be humble against their grandiosity, counter their slander with prayers, counter their error with firmness in faith; against their rudeness, be quiet. Let us not try to imitate them; on the contrary, through our condescension we will prove ourselves to be their brothers, and we will try to be imitators of the Lord. Let someone else endure untruth, suffer a loss, be subjected to humiliation, if only the tares of the devil are not found in you” (Ign. Epistle to Eph.). One of the early apologists, Aristides, describes the life of Christians in the following terms: “Christians have buried the commandments of their Lord Jesus Christ in their hearts and keep them, looking forward to the next age: they do not violate marriage, they do not commit adultery; they do not give false testimony, do not appropriate the property entrusted to them and do not covet the property of others; they honor father and mother and love their neighbors, they judge fairly, they do not worship idols in human form. Whoever treats them unjustly, they admonish him and make him their friend; They try to do good to their enemies. Their women are as pure as maidens, and their daughters are chaste. Their men abstain from all illicit relations and all defilement in the hope of a future world... They persuade servants and maids or children, if any, to become Christians out of love for them, and, once they have become them, they call them brothers without distinction. They live in all humility and goodwill; there is no lie among them. They love each other. They do not leave widows homeless, they do not harm orphans, those who have, share willingly with those who do not have. If they see a stranger, they bring him under their blood and rejoice at him like a real brother, for they are called brothers not in body, but in soul. If one of the poor departs from the world, the one who sees this bears the cost of burial according to his means. If they hear that one of them is in prison or suffering for the name of Christ, they all take care of what he needs and, if possible, free him. If one of them is poor and in need, and they do not have excess means of subsistence, then they fast for two or three days in order to satisfy the needy person’s need for food... If a righteous one from among them departs from the world, they rejoice and thank God, and accompany his body as if he were leaving from one place to another. And if a child is born to any of them, they glorify God, but if it happens that he dies in childhood, they greatly glorify God that he passed through this world without sin. On the contrary, if they see that someone has died in godlessness or in sin, they mourn him bitterly and sigh as for someone who has gone to punishment.” “And each of us,” says Athenagoras, “whom he took according to the laws established among us, had only for childbearing. Just as a farmer, having thrown seeds into the ground, waits for the harvest and sows no more, so with us the measure of desire is procreation.” In the pseudo-Justinian “passage on the resurrection” we encounter the following argument: “if the flesh does not rise, then why do we bridle it and do not allow it to indulge in lusts, why don’t we imitate, as they say, doctors who, having a desperate sick person who cannot get well, allow him to fulfill all his wishes? They know he will die. This is also done by those who hate the flesh and deprive it, as much as it depends on them, of its inheritance: that is why they dishonor it, as if it had to be a corpse. If our physician Christ, distracting us from our lusts, prescribes to our flesh the chaste and abstinent way of life characteristic of it, then it is clear that He preserves it from sins, as having the hope of salvation, just as a doctor does not allow sick people who have the hope of salvation to satisfy their whims.” In this passage the whole difference is clear between pessimistic asceticism, stemming from undefeated dualism and enmity towards the flesh, and optimistic eschatologically colored Christian asceticism, based on love and respect for the flesh, which the incarnate God deigned to bear and deify. “For we see before our eyes that they despise death, and also that, driven by a certain chastity, they renounce the pleasures of love. For among them there are women and men who abstain from sexual intercourse all their lives. Further, there are those who, in self-control and mastery over their soul and in the greatest effort about this, go so far that they are not inferior to true philosophists” (vere philosophantibus). (Quoted in Knopf: “Das nachapost. Zeitalter.” Tübingen, 1905, pp. 132–133). “Their first legislator instilled in them the conviction that they were all brothers with each other; they develop incredible responsiveness; if anything happens that affects their common interests, then they do not regret anything.” Wed. his very interesting and malicious, but obviously not without factual basis, characterization of the methods of Christian mission in pagan homes (Quoted in Harnack: “Mission etc.”, 248–249, Note). Wed. a short but extremely informative excursion into "Lunas und die Freude" in Harnack's newest study: "Die Apostelgeschichte". Leipzig, 1908, pp. 207–210. Never before has the tendency of scientific historical research to converge with church tradition received such vivid expression. Ever since the times of the Tübingen people, it has been considered a sign of good critical tone to reject the historical value of Acts. Ap.” and the possibility of authorship. Luke. And here is the venerable head of church historical science himself, who previously also shared a prejudice against the historical value of “Acts. Apostle", on purely scientific historical and philological grounds, returns to the church tradition and goes towards everything that was considered indisputable in critical science. Eloquent evidence of the instability of historical and exegetical conclusions that modern church historical science so boasts of, and the impossibility of basing one’s religious opinions and beliefs entirely on the data of this science! A curious view of the mid-2nd century, expressed in Ermus’s “The Shepherd,” is that “sadness is the most evil of all spirits and the most harmful to the servants of God... Every rejoicing person does good and thinks about good, and despises sadness. But a sad person is always angry, firstly, because he insults the Holy Spirit, which is given to a joyful person; and, secondly, because he commits iniquity by not turning and confessing to the Lord. The prayer of a sad person never has the power to ascend to the throne of God” (“Shepherd,” II, second commandment). Compare, for example, Geffken, op. cit. Gaston Boissier: "The Fall of Paganism." M., 1892. “Do nothing more for me than to sacrifice me to God now that the altar is ready, and then form a choir with love and sing a song of praise to the Father in Jesus Christ, which God has vouchsafed. to call the bishop of Syria from the East to the West. It is wonderful for me to fall from the world to God in order to shine in Him... Ask God for external and internal strength for me, but so that I do not only speak, but also wish, so that I am not called only a Christian, but actually be one... I write to the churches and tell everyone that I voluntarily die for God... Leave me to be food for animals and through them to reach God. I am the wheat of God: let the teeth of the beasts crush me, so that I may become the pure bread of Christ. It’s better to caress these animals so that they become my coffin and leave nothing from my body, so that after death I won’t be a burden to anyone. Then I will truly be a disciple of Christ, when even my body will not be seen by the world.... Now I am just beginning to be a disciple. Neither visible nor invisible anything will stop me from coming to Christ. Fire and the cross, crowds of animals, dissection, dissolution, crushing bones, cutting off members, crushing the whole body, the fierce torment of the devil will come to me - if only I can reach Christ... I am writing to you alive, burning with the desire to die. My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me that loves matter, but the living water speaking within me calls to me from within: “Go to the Father.” For me there is no sweetness in food that perishes, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the bread of heaven, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born in recent times from the seed of David and Abraham. And the living drink of God - His blood, which is imperishable and eternal love... Remember in your prayer the Syrian church: instead of me, it now has God as a shepherd. Jesus Christ alone will preside over it and your love. And I am ashamed to be called one of its members, for I am unworthy as the last of them and as a monster. But if I reach God, by His grace I will be something...” We have nothing to add to this speech, in which, against the background of the Syrian temperament and Eastern speech, the early Christian, martyr’s enthusiasm is evident. An elderly man, almost a hundred years old, incurred the fanatical hatred of the mob. In view of the threatening danger, about which he was warned supernaturally, at the insistence of his loved ones, he left Smyrna and retired to the village, where he spent time in prayer, as was his custom, “for all people and for the communities of the whole world.” Detectives came to arrest him and, although he could have escaped, he came out to them, greeted them warmly, ordered them to be fed and asked for an hour of time to pray. Not one, but two whole hours passed in prayer, during which the elder “commemorated all the people he had ever met, great and small, famous and unknown, and the entire Catholic Church on earth.” Sentenced to burning and already standing at the stake, he offers his last prayer. In it, he glorified God for the fact that He “has made him worthy of this day and hour, that I, among the martyrs, participate in the hosanna of your Christ for the resurrection of the day of eternal life, soul and body”... “Therefore I praise You for everything, I glorify You, I glorify You through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus. Christ (see Zahn, 1. p. 318–320). Gef fk en, 1. P., 31. On the unreliability of the “acts of martyrdom” as a historical source, see here. But even if we admit strong stylization in them, the very nature of stylization, the mood and worldview that was expressed in it, remains instructive historical evidence. If they want to understand how dear it is for Christianity to defend the world and the flesh, let them only pay attention to the terrible and most dangerous struggle for the church that it had to endure with Gnosticism. A feature of most Gnostic teachings, obviously inspired by the dualism of the Iranian religion, was the recognition of the creator of the world, the Demiurge, as a blind and evil instrument who creates the world as a captivity to the spirit. And this attempt at religious rejection and condemnation of the world and its creator was fought and overcome by Christianity on its way. Those who speak so easily and confidently about world denial in Christianity should think better about the meaning and significance of this desperate life-and-death struggle of Christianity with Gnosticism, which sought to transform Christianity into precisely that ascetic acosmism that is attributed to it. Christianity defended the “peace” against Gnosticism and Neoplatonism. Weingarten: "Die Revolutionskirchen Englands".