Prayer churches and open Christian churches of the first three centuries

Where and how the first Christians met for prayer - the general answer to this is given by the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles, especially the second chapter of the book of Acts, where in verse 46 the following is said: “And every day (the apostles with other believers) remained with one accord in the church and, breaking bread from home, took food with joy and simplicity of heart.” This clearly reveals that the first Christians had common public meetings with the Jews in the church (ἐν τῷ ἱεςῷ) and more crowded and secluded ones in their homes (κατ' οἶκον). The former were a necessary consequence of the emergence of Christianity among Judaism and the close relationship of Jesus Christ and His disciples to the Temple of Jerusalem. Although the confession of Christ and baptism into Him drew a sharp line between Jewish and early Christian society, the Old Testament Scripture and prayer, to the extent that they were part of the church Jewish worship, could serve as a kind of preaching of Christianity for the Jews and prepared them for the latter especially with their educational side. The second, that is, meetings in houses, met the needs of the first Christians, as a special religious society, coming out of their natural desire to retire, perform their own rituals, and pray to their God among their brothers and fellow believers. If the former had a mainly missionary task and were visited by Jewish Christians, then the latter satisfied the religious interests of Christian society and served as a means for mutual unity and relations among its members. In mixed church congregations, of course, there was no place for Christian worship. This last thing happens in Christian home meetings. Over time, the latter took precedence over the former and served as the soil where the Christian rite was born and little by little matured, and those liturgical and disciplinary requirements were gradually formed with which the subsequently opened churches of Christians had to conform. As soon as the seed of a Christian community has been formed, its members, numbering one hundred and twenty people, gather in Jerusalem in a special upper room, where they all remain with one accord in prayer and supplication (Acts 2:13–14,16). It is not known whether this was the same upper room in which Christ celebrated the Easter supper with His disciples and established the sacrament of the Eucharist, as some suggest; but there is no doubt that it was the property of one of the persons belonging to this small community. When the number of members of the Jerusalem community, as a result of the inspired preaching of St. Peter on the day of Pentecost increased significantly and one house, no matter how spacious it was, was not enough, believers began to gather for prayers and breaking bread in their homes in groups or circles. These first meeting places for Christians were prayer churches, chapels in private homes, and not churches in the strict sense of the word. Christianity began with them, as does every newly emerging religious community, in which worship is still in its infancy and therefore does not require complex devices for its implementation, and the external position is not secured, and material resources are not great, so that even if one wants to improve and develop the ritual environment, there are insurmountable obstacles. Christians of the first time, it should be noted, did not have such a desire. What is now called worship or worship was so uncomplicated and monotonous among them that they easily managed with simple home remedies. They observed well-known hours of prayer, the model for which was the custom of the Jerusalem temple and which among Christians acquired a special religious character due to the memories of Christ associated with them. But whether to pray during these significant times of the day or independently of them, of course, it was possible with the complete convenience of home. Christians do just that: they gather for common prayers in the homes of their fellow believers and practice solitary prayer at home. As for the celebration of the Eucharist, at the beginning it was not some complex liturgical action with a wide ritual setting; in its original form it was simple on the outside, but mysterious on the inside, the breaking of bread and the blessing of the cup, performed with well-known prayers by the leader of the meeting. When large gatherings were held on Sunday or in the presence of the apostles, more spacious premises were chosen for them in the houses of wealthy Christian owners, and the divine service itself took place with a more developed ritual atmosphere. In this form he depicts the ap. Paul held prayer meetings of Christians in Corinth, where the reading of Scripture with its explanation, the singing of hymns, and the Eucharist with agapes took place. In the language of the Apostolic Epistles this is called coming together (ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό), and the meetings themselves are designated by the word ἐ ϰϰ λησία. These crowded gatherings, even in the apostolic age, apparently differed from close family circles and were called churches, that is, gatherings of ϰατ’ ἐξοχήν. They are clearly contrasted with houses that served everyday purposes and had no liturgical purpose. So up. Paul, reproaching the Corinthian Christians for indecent behavior at common love suppers, pointing out the greed with which some allowed themselves to use the public table, says in conclusion: “Have you no houses to eat and drink, or do you neglect the church of God and humiliate the poor” (1 Cor. 11:18,20–22,33–34; fn. 14:34–35)? Here the church (ἐϰϰλησία) is something completely different from the house (οἰϰία); it is opposed to it not as a room, not as a place of meeting, but by its purpose for special functions of a religious liturgical nature. Thus, the word ἐϰϰλησία does not give any indication of the appearance of prayer buildings, prayer rooms and is conveniently reconciled with each of them, starting with a simple house and ending with the most perfect Byzantine church. Likewise, the name of Christian churches as a house of worship or simply a house does not always indicate house premises for worship meetings, but is very often applied to churches as open buildings, which they undoubtedly were in the 4th century. This designation is important in the history of church architecture, as a memory of the time when churches were in houses and when Christian worship was entirely confined to their confines. In the same general sense of the meeting, those expressions of the apostle should be understood. Paul, in which he addresses Aquila and Priscilla, Nymphas, Philemon and others, welcoming them along with their home church. “Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus... and the church at home” (καὶ τὴν κατ' οἶκον αὐτῶν ἐκκλησίαν) 1 It’s not about the building, of course, we’re talking here and it’s unthinkable to send greetings to the premises; but what is important for us is the terminology, precisely the connection in which ἐκκλησία is placed here with οίκος, like a religious community with its liturgical center. With this practice in mind, St. John Chrysostom once remarked: “before, houses were churches, but now the church has become a home.” Just as in another place, depicting the strict morals of the first Christians, he expressed himself this way: “they (i.e., Christians) were so pious that they could turn their house into a church” 2. It goes without saying that there can be no question of an exact reproduction of the early Christian house of worship. Not only have no images of it survived, but there is also no satisfactory description of its structure, not even an indication of the environment in which these chapels, at least for the duration of liturgical meetings, differed from ordinary Christian dwellings of that time. Therefore, we have to note only a few details of this archaic Christian church based on brief fragmentary news and random notes that have come down to us from the writers of that time. – After the Ascension of the Lord, His disciples, returning from the Mount of Olives to Jerusalem, ascended to the upper room (ἀνέβησαν είςτὸ ὑπερῶον), where they all remained with one accord in prayer (Acts 1:13). In the upper room (ἐν ὑπερώῳ) Tabitha was laid to await burial (Acts 9:37,39). The same Acts of the Apostles talk about the visit of St. Paul of Troas and about the prayer meeting that the apostle had here with other believers. “During a long conversation with Pavlova, one young man named Eutychus, who was sitting on the window, fell into a deep sleep and, staggering, fell down from the third dwelling and was picked up dead” (Acts 20:9). The house was three-story (τρίστεγσς), and the upper room, in which the meeting and breaking of bread took place, had windows and was illuminated at night by a fairly significant number of lamps. Thus, several simultaneous evidence points to the location of Christian liturgical meetings in the upper part of the dwelling, in the inner room of the upper floor of the house. The author of Philopatrix, a famous satirical work where the morals of Christians are ridiculed, also makes several hints about this situation of Christian prayer houses. “Chance brought me to an unfamiliar house,” he says on behalf of the hero of his work; “Climbing the stairs, I found myself in a room with gilded cornices, which resembled the chambers of Menelaus. Here I found, however, not the beautiful Helen (the culprit of the Trojan Massacre), but kneeling people with pale faces.” There is no reason to see in this place only one caricature and to blame the author for malicious distortion of the matter; in his words it is not difficult to notice features indicating a prayer meeting of Christians in the house of one of their rich members. Christianity, from its earliest times, was not only a religion of the poor. Ananias and Sapphira were landowners; Philemon, to whom St. Paul was writing an epistle and had a slave for whom the apostle intercedes. The great multitude of Christians in Rome, as catacomb monuments and inscriptions show, consisted not only of slaves, but also of rich and noble people. The presented description of the early Christian house of prayer is so general and pale that it can be attributed to any dwelling, to any room, regardless of the special purpose that they received in the liturgical use of Christians. This circumstance is of particular importance in the eyes of researchers. Since the structure of ordinary dwellings of that time, especially Greco-Roman houses, is quite well known, scientists, by examining the internal arrangement of the latter, hope to give some more definite and detailed indications of the premises and decoration of early Christian chapels. The word οἶκος, which is sometimes used in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles to designate places of prayer meetings of Christians, according to some scholars, in the early days of Christianity meant not houses in general, but a certain structure and purpose of the room in them. If this position cannot yet be considered proven in relation to Jewish and eastern dwellings in general, then it should be recognized as indisputable in relation to Greco-Roman houses. Samples of the latter have been preserved to us in Pompeii and Herculaneum, where they were discovered under a mass of lava ejected by Vesuvius in the 79th year of Christ. Judging by these relatively well-preserved monuments and the descriptions of Vitruvius, a specialist architect of the time of Augustus, Pompeian houses 4, while strikingly similar to each other, almost all were two-story, consisted of many small rooms and were divided into two halves: the front - public and the back - family. Through a narrow passage - our front entrance - we entered from the street into the so-called atrium - a rather large quadrangular hall with a hole in the middle of the roof to allow light to pass through and for rainwater to flow into a stone reservoir located on the floor. A number of small rooms were grouped near the atrium, the economic and everyday purpose of which is now difficult to determine with precision, just like their number and relative position. It is only clear that the Romans of that time lived much more closely and comfortably than we live now. Adjoining the back side of the atrium, directly opposite the entrance from the street, was a tablinium, which served as a kind of office for the owner of the house, where he received visitors on business. This workroom ended the front half of the house, which communicated with the back, accessible only to friends and close acquaintances, through corridors. The central part of the family room was the peristyle - a large magnificent hall, which received its name from the rows of columns placed parallel to the walls. Like the atrium, the peristyle received lighting from above and was also equipped with a swimming pool. On the sides there were small family rooms, such as bedrooms, a dining room, a dressing room and a friend. Continuing our way through the peristyle into the interior of the house, we come across, closer or further from it, an oblong quadrangular room known as οἶκος -a (oecus in Latin). What was this οἶκος? Despite the unevenness of its size and arrangement in different Roman houses, it was still a fairly spacious hall, sometimes divided lengthwise into three parts by two rows of columns that supported the roof. It surpassed the family chambers surrounding the peristyle not only in its vastness and size of windows and doors, but also in its decoration. Its walls were decorated with paintings, the floor was decorated with mosaics, and lamps and chandeliers hung on the walls for night lighting. Constituting the most capacious and honorable part of the owner's half, these tastes or ikos served as a festive dining room or triclinium, in which not only family members, but close acquaintances and friends of the owner of the house gathered for a feast and conversations. These spacious rooms, away from street noise and immodest prying eyes, and at the same time well furnished, could serve, according to scientists, as a comfortable room for Christians during crowded meetings for conferences among themselves, prayers, the celebration of the Eucharist and the suppers of love associated with it. The assumption is very plausible, justified to some extent by the Gospel narrative. The room in which the first believers gathered was intended for suppers and served as a dining room. The resurrected Christ, appearing to His eleven disciples, found them reclining (ἀναϰειμένοις), asked about food and they gave Him part of the baked fish and honeycomb (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:41–42). The likelihood of the assumption increases even more from the fact that Vitruvius and other ancient writers compare the ikos we noted and even identify them with house basilicas (basilicae domesticae) - those most magnificent and enormous halls that were built in the palaces of the Caesars and in the chambers of the noblest Roman citizens. But that house basilicas sometimes had a liturgical purpose is proven partly by their similarity to the structure of the first Christian basilica churches, but mainly by positive historical data. In the so-called “Memoirs of St. Clement" it is said that one of the noble Christians in Antioch, named Theophilus, "consecrated the huge basilica of his house under the name of the church" (ut domus suae ingentem basilicam ecclesiae nomine consecret) and handed it over to his fellow believers 5. So the first Christian churches, to put it imprecisely and presumably, were the dining rooms of private houses. By choosing these, and not other premises, for their liturgical meetings, Christians undoubtedly made some adaptations to them, in accordance with the needs of their worship. The table, seats and other necessary accessories of ordinary dining rooms could, of course, serve as a natural setting for Christian prayer meetings and related religious activities, but the latter, of course, could not do without special deliberate devices. The Savior Himself, before celebrating the last supper, sends two of His disciples ahead to prepare the Passover for Him; He performs the latter and institutes the New Testament sacrament in a large upper room, furnished and ready. The example of the Lord was sacred and binding on all who believed in Him. In the absence of positive data, however, it is impossible to say definitely what exactly the concerns of the first Christians expressed in organizing and adapting their home premises in relation to the needs of Christian worship. One can only assume with high probability, however, that these devices consisted of preparing a table for celebrating the Eucharist, a platform for the reader, places for the celebrants and those praying, and a special table, and perhaps a separate room, where the offerings of believers were stored until the substances necessary for the sacrament were separated from them. In the Apostolic Constitutions, the house of prayer, as we will now see, already has rather complex devices necessary for the celebration of the Eucharist by the bishop with the presbyters and deacons serving him, in view of a crowded meeting. True, the monument to which I refer is a little later than the time I am talking about; but we must not forget that the image of the church described in it and the order strictly observed in the latter did not appear suddenly, but developed gradually and, without a doubt, are based on the early Christian house of prayer with its apostolic practice. The custom of home meetings for prayer, caused by the special circumstances in which the young, poor and persecuted Christian community found itself, was not, however, only a forced phenomenon, and therefore did not cease with the apostolic age. Finding support for itself in the patriarchal structure of the family and in the lack of open and fully capacious churches, supported by the cramped position of Christians in the Greco-Roman world, this custom deeply entered into the mores of Christian society and was expressed in the construction of prayer houses or small churches in homes. “And the houses of God” (τοὺς οἶκους τοῦ Θεοῦ) the fathers of the Gangra Council say about the latter, “we honor the meetings that are in them, as holy and useful we accept, not confining piety in houses, but honoring every place created in the name of God” (right 21). In canonical monuments they are more often called οἱ εὐκτήριοι οἶκοι ἒνδον οἶκίας. In these prayer churches, located inside houses, Christians continued to gather for prayer, celebrate the Eucharist, baptize and perform funeral services. However, in view of the heretics and schismatics who appeared from time to time, who adhered to false teachings, special customs and were alien to the hierarchy and public worship, the church authorities began to distrust these closed home meetings and little by little restrict their independence. From here began a long series of positive disciplinary measures, going back to the 4th century, aimed at limiting household gatherings for worship. Thus, the Council of Gangra, whose words about the houses of God we have just cited, excommunicates those who form special assemblies, “not having with them a presbyter by the will of the bishop” (right 6); The Council of Laodicea does not allow the Eucharist to be celebrated in homes (right 58); The Council of Trullo prohibits baptism in a prayer book located inside the house (right 59 fn., pr. 31), and the second Council of Carthage decreed even stricter rules in this regard. Bearing in mind the schismatics of his time, St. Basil the Great also said: “Listen, you who leave the church (τὴν ἐκκλησίαν) and gather in common houses, where you bring pitiful fragments of an (allegedly) honest body: you must offer prayers in the midst of Jerusalem, that is, the Church of God” 6. It is difficult to determine with accuracy from what time Christians began to build special buildings for their liturgical meetings, when their first open churches appeared, which the Caesarea archpastor points out to the sectarians in the above words. And this difficulty increases even more from the fact that the line separating the home chapel from the church in the proper sense is almost imperceptible and the transition from the first to the latter could be accomplished thanks to the most insignificant adaptations. The prayer building could be more or less prominent and open, judging by what was the position of Christians in a particular area and depended to a large extent on the material resources of the community. How to understand the words: οἶκος, ἐκκλησἰα and other synonymous expressions of writers of the first centuries when it comes to the appearance of church buildings - this question will remain insoluble until we have more specific signs that explain these expressions in relation to the form of early Christian prayer buildings. However, by the end of the second and at the beginning of the third century there was already news of the existence of open churches among Christians, and I will cite the more typical and reliable ones. At the beginning of the 3rd century, most of the regional cities of Asia Minor already had a church hierarchy and Christian communities were grouped around their bishops with a clergy subordinate to them. The planting and building of churches was part of their pastoral concerns and was one of the means of uniting the communities themselves. St. Gregory of Nyssa in “The Sermon on the Life of St. Gregory the Wonderworker" represents his activity in this field: having arrived in Neocaesarea, he "immediately began building the church, because everyone contributed to this enterprise with money and labor. This church is the same one, the construction of which he laid the foundation for, and one of his successors worthily decorated it. We see this church to this day... This great man founded it in the most prominent place of the city, laying, as it were, some foundation of his priesthood and accomplished this work with the help of divine power, as subsequent times testify. For during the strongest earthquake that happened in our times in the city, when almost everything was completely destroyed, when all the buildings, both private and public, collapsed and turned into ruins, this one church remained intact and unharmed. Gregory received an embassy with a request “that he come to them and establish the church they have as a priesthood,” that is, “appoint one of them as bishop of the church they have established” 7. – Another more famous and earlier evidence dates back to the time of Emperor Alexander Severus (222–235) and is associated with his personal attitude towards Christianity. This sovereign was distinguished by religious tolerance and had a rather favorable attitude towards the religious societies of the empire. Respecting Christ as a remarkable historical figure, he placed His image in his shrine (in larario) along with images of Abraham, Orpheus and other domestic gods. The following story makes it clear that the North not only tolerated Christians, but even allowed them to openly worship. The Christians probably acquired a plot of public land (quendam locum, qui publicus fuerat) and wanted to build a church on it. This place must have turned out to be favorable for building a hotel, and the innkeepers began the process with the Christians. When the matter was reported to the emperor, he ordered in favor of the Christians and expressed himself in this way: it is better to let the Divinity be worshiped in this place in any way than to give it to the popinarii (rescripsit, melius esse, ut quomodocunque illic Deus colatur, quam popinarüs dedatur) 8 . - Depicting the calm state of the Christian Church under the emperors who preceded Diocletian, Eusebius does not find words to express his joy at the presentation of this prosperity. “Who and how will describe, he asks, these numerous appeals to Christ, this multitude of meetings in every city and these wonderful gatherings in houses of prayer (ἐν τοίς προσευκτηρίοις), - from which, no longer content with old buildings, Christians in all cities began to build extensive churches from the very foundation" ( εὐρείας εἰς πλάτος ἀvά πάσας τὰς πόλεις ἐκ ϑεμελίων ἀνίστων ἐϰϰλησίκς ) 9 . It is remarkable that the edict of Diocletian is directed with particular force against their religious buildings and commands “everywhere to destroy churches to the ground.” “We saw with our own eyes,” the church historian notes on this occasion, the destruction of houses of worship from top to bottom (ἐξ ὕφους ἐις ἔδαφος) - to the very foundations, and the burning of divine and sacred books among the squares” 10 ... All this shows that churches at that time were already prominent property of Christians and were among the objects subjected to government persecution. And what these churches were like can be partly judged from the following story by Lactantius. In Nicomedia, the residence of Diocletian, a church belonging to Christians was destroyed, and these are the circumstances under which its destruction occurred. “At the first dawn of the day, military and police officials with a significant detachment of guards came to our church and, breaking down the doors, began to look for images of the Deity, burn sacred books, rob and destroy everything. Some stole all kinds of things, others fled out of fear. Galerius and Diocletian looked at this disgrace with indifference, for the Nicomedia church was built on a hill and could be seen from the palace. They discussed among themselves whether to burn this sacred building.” Out of fear of a fire that could threaten neighboring buildings, it was decided to break it down. “Then the Praetorians armed with axes and other weapons approached him, and although the church was very high (editissimum), it was destroyed to the ground in a short time” 11. From this it can be seen that the Nicomedia church was a rather large building, rising to a considerable height and surrounded by public buildings. But the ability to break it, even with the help of an entire cohort, shows that it was not a building of solid construction and did not stand out in this respect from ordinary residential buildings. To complete this essay, I will give a few more news and considerations about the position, appearance and internal structure of the first open Christian churches. Tertullian, in his treatise on idolatry (cap. VII), speaking of Christian artists who were engaged in the preparation of pagan statues, expresses himself in one place in this way: “Isn’t it bitter to see how a Christian, leaving idols for a while, comes to our church; how he comes from the demon's workshop to the house of God" 12. These words themselves, of course, do not directly indicate the existence of the church as an open building intended for public worship; The expressions: ecclesia and domus Dei can be rightfully accepted here in the sense of a liturgical building, in the meaning of a prayer church. But Tertullian has another place in his essay against Valentinian, from which it is clear that he is talking about an open church, as a building with a specific purpose and an established, so to speak, architectural plan. “The house of our dove,” he says in his usual figurative language, is simple, always in an elevated and open place and facing the light: the image of St. The East loves the Spirit – the image of Christ” 13. Here, by the house of the dove (domus columbae), in contrast to heretical assemblies, Tertullian means Christian assemblies and their focus - the Christian church. To reinforce this idea, I will cite a very similar passage from the second book of the 57th chapter of the Apostolic Constitutions, where the structure of the Christian church is described in more specific and detailed terms. Although the second book of the Constitutions will be slightly younger than the above-mentioned treatises of Tertullian and is recognized in its present form as a work of the third century, it should not be overlooked that no typical architectural form appears at once as a deus ex machina. “Let it be, it is said here, that the building will be oblong, facing east, with pastophoria on both sides to the east, like a ship 14. In the middle, let the bishop’s throne be placed, on both sides of it let the presbyters sit, and let the deacons stand around, dressed in full vestments... By their order, in another part of the building, let the laity sit with complete silence and decorum, and let the women sit separately, observing silence. In the middle, let the reader, standing on a certain elevation, read the books of Moses... And let the gatekeepers stand at the entrances of men, guarding them, and deaconesses at the entrances of women."... In the eighth book of the same monument, the first part of the church (βῆμα) or the altar with the altar ( ϑυσιαστήριον), near which the clergy was located, headed by the bishop, who celebrated the Eucharist 15. From the canonical letter of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea († after 264), it is also known that not only full members of the Christian community, but also different classes of penitents occupied their specific places in the church. So the mourners stood outside the gates of the house of prayer (ἔξω τῆς πύλης τοῦ εὐκτήρίου), listening inside the gates in the vestibule (ἔν δοϑεν τς πύλης ἔντφ νάρϑηϰι), and those falling were placed already inside the gates of the church itself (ἔσωθεν τῆς πύλης τοῦ ναοῦ). From the above evidence and historical and canonical data it is easy to see that the existence of open churches, quite clearly defined inside and outside, among Christians of the late second and third centuries constitutes a positive historical fact and by itself eliminates the idea of ​​the opposite. But despite this, not very long ago they objected to this fact and found that Christians persecuted by pagans could not perform their divine services openly, and therefore could not have special churches. Remaining within the limits of historical fact, not suspecting the authenticity of the documents from which we borrow the information presented by us, and there is no reason to suspect, one cannot help but see in this objection some misunderstandings and stretches, with the explanation of which the matter itself takes on a completely different look. First of all, there is no need to insist on the large number of such open churches among Christians of the second and third centuries and to assume in them monumental buildings in the full sense of the word, built at great expense and luxury. The early Christian religions could only arise in those areas where the position of Christians was somewhat secure from pagan violence, and when government officials were not distinguished by fanaticism and cruelty. That there were such persons, that for Christians there came times of peace of more or less duration, this can be seen already from the quoted words of Eusebius. Despite some exaggerations and his pessimistic view, the named historian speaks of Valerian’s successors and some other emperors as persons who were disposed towards Christianity or, at least, were indifferent to it. If we also remember that Christians of the second and subsequent centuries continued to perform their services and prayers in private homes, then a significant percentage of Christian places of worship should go to this type of church. It cannot be thought that Christian meetings in these houses were always secret and forbidden. The government could have known about these gatherings and not prevented Christians from gathering, and this was especially likely at a time when well-meaning and fair people were at the head of the government. Now Christians only had to take one step forward and their house of worship could easily turn into a Christian church in the strict sense of the word. Adapted to open worship and a large gathering of Christians, marked on the outside with a cross or some other external, visible sign indicating its sacred-religious purpose, such a house of worship was exactly the same open church that is now being discussed and the possibility of which was suspected by old Protestant researchers. Apparently, their other objection, directed from Christian spiritualism and which has not lost all its significance even for our time, had more force. The meaning of this objection is that the Christians of the first times were alien to religious appearance, did not build altars and temples in contrast to the pagans, and thereby aroused the suspicion of the government, which saw in them people hiding and escaping the world, recognized them as a secret sect, and considered their meetings immoral and criminal. The reason for this conclusion is provided by the reviews of some apologists: Minucius Felix, Arnobius, Origen and others, who, in response to the reproach of the pagans addressed to Christians that they have “no temples, no altars, no generally accepted images,” not only do not deny this fact, but apparently directly agree with it and see in this lack of religious appearance among Christians a direct advantage of Christian worship in comparison with pagan. According to Origen, Christians do not build churches to their God, because their bodies are churches of God. According to Minucius Felix, Christians do not need churches and altars at all. “Do you think,” he asks the pagans in his Octavius, that we are hiding the object of our worship if we have neither temples nor altars? What image of God will I make, when man himself, correctly considered, is the image of God? What church shall I build for Him, when this whole world, created by His power, cannot contain Him? And if I am a person who likes to live spaciously, then how can I imprison such a great creature in one small building! Isn’t it better to keep Him in our minds, to sanctify Him in our hearts?” 16. But what, strictly speaking, follows from here in relation to the question that concerns us? The fact that Christianity, as a religion of spirit, posits the whole essence of relationships with God in serving Him in spirit and truth; but this in no way implies a denial of religious appearance and, in particular, churches in principle. Christians were content in their religious relations with the most modest liturgical setting, which for the Romans of that time seemed something impossible and seemed like a denial of external worship in comparison with massive altars, monumental buildings and generally artistic objects of pagan cult. Accustomed to this ostentatious side of the cult, the pagan looked down on a religion poor in these forms and reproached its supporters for their absence. The Christian apologist argues ad hominem, pointing out the meaning and power of religion in its spiritual content. Without this apologetic device, he would remain in deliberate contradiction with the positive data with which he was familiar from his own experience. So already up. Paul mentions the existence of an altar (ϑυσιαστήριον) or throne (τράπεζα). Ignatius the God-Bearer says that Christians should have one altar, just as there is one Christ. In the Revelation of John the Theologian (Rev. 11:1–2) the ideal church of God, the dimensions of which were to be taken by the viewer, consists of three parts: an altar, a place for worshipers and an outer court or vestibule. Tertullian clearly speaks of a throne or altar when he calls it altare and ara. Thus, the comments and judgments of apologists about the absence of churches and altars among Christians cannot be accepted in their own sense and contradict factual data. But even if we leave these judgments to the apologists, we would be wrong to take them as an expression of the views of the entire Christian society of that time and to identify the sublime ideas of the learned defenders of Christianity with the actual state of affairs. That Origen, for example, in his review stands on abstract ground and does not convey a historical fact - this can be asserted on the basis of his own words, as soon as he descends from this elevated area into the world of ordinary everyday relations and comes face to face with the concepts of the majority. Starting from this latter, in one of his conversations he says about the Christians of his time that they paid respect to the servants of God, willingly followed their instructions, with sincere disposition and complete readiness tried to decorate the church and serve at it, but cared little about the internal purification of themselves. This one-sidedness is, of course, a drawback in the eyes of the preacher, but where there was harmony between the disposition of the soul and piety, the full expression of the Christian moral ideal was achieved. Elsewhere, Origen directly states the fact of the existence of churches among Christians of his time when he says that on the occasion of the earthquake for which the Christians were accused, persecution began against them and their churches were burned. Thus, the argument of opponents of the existence of open churches among Christians of the second and third centuries is refuted by the internal meaning of the evidence they cite in their favor and by the available facts. It is based on tendentious thought, which has now lost all meaning, thanks to the successes of hysterical science and especially archaeological discoveries. In Russian on this issue, in addition to special works, we know the articles: V. I. Dolotsky “On Christian Churches” and N. V. Pokrovsky “The Origin of the Christian Church” (Christian Reading, 1847, II, 453; III, 131; IV, 282; 1879, II, 501); prot. M. Bogoslovsky “On Churches” (Reader for general lyub. spiritual enlightenment. 1875, I, 399) and N. F. Krasnoseltsev “On Ancient Christian Architecture” (Rules. Sob. 1874, III, 103, 296. Rome 16:3–4; n. Col. 4:15; Flm. 1:2, etc. In Math. ΧΧΧII: τότε aἱ οἰκίαι ἐκκλησιαι ἦσαv, νυυὶ δὲ ἡ ἐκκλησία οἰκία γέγονε. In Epist. ad Rom. XXX : οΰτω γὰρ ἦσav εὐδόκιμοι, ὡς καὶ τὴν οἰκίαν ἐκκλησίαν ποιῆσαι. The time of writing and the author of the named work are positively unknown. In the old days, Philopatris was attributed to the famous Lucian of Samosata, but historical criticism recognizes it as a work not earlier than the 4th century and even much later. In any case, there is no reason to deny that the author of Philopatrix is ​​familiar with ancient Christian orders. For a description of Pompeian houses and the plan of one of them, see Klassovsky: Pompey and the antiquities discovered in it, pp. 65–74, 176–178, St. Petersburg, 1856. Recognize s. Clement., X, 71. Created. St. Gregory of Nyssa in Russian. transl., part VIII, pp. 159–160, 170–171. Lamprid. Vita Alexandr. Sever cap. XLIX. Histor. Eccles. I, VIII p. 1; Russian translation vol. I, pp. 468–469. Ibid. VIII. 2; Russian translation vol. I, pp. 470–471. De morte Persecut. cap. XII; Russian transl., part 2, p. 168. Created. Tertullian in Russian. translation Part 1, pp. 122–123. Adv. Valentinian. cap. III: nostrae columbae domus simplex in editis semper et apertis ad lucem; amat figura Spiritus Sancti orientem Christi figuram; Russian translation Part IV, p. 32. Ό οἶκος ἔστω ἐπιμήκης κατ’ ἀνατολὰς τετραμμένος ἐξ ἑκατέρων τῶν μερῶν τὰ παστοφὸρια πρὸς ἀνατολήν, ὅστις ἔοικε νηί. Pastophoria, according to the generally accepted opinion, are the side compartments of the altar, where the deacons brought the remains of the Eucharist after communion and where, presumably, the offerings of believers were first folded and stored together with liturgical accessories. Constitution. Apostol. lib. VIII cap. 13; Laodice. personal right 21. Regulation Apostle in Russian translation pp. 89–91, 266–268, 281 and others. Sochin. ancient Christ apologists in Russian translation P. A. Preobrazhensky, pp. 317, 320, 358. M. 1867; Disputat. adv. gent. lib. VI cap. 1; Contra Celsum I, VIII, c. 9. You might be interested in: