JSC "Astana Medical University"

Department of History of Kazakhstan and Philosophy.

On the topic: “Philosophy of the Middle Ages: apologetics and patristics”

Completed by: Nugumanova F.A.

Student 245 gr of the Faculty of OM

Checked by: Daulbaeva Zh.I.

Astana 2015

1. Introduction. General characteristics of the era.

2. Apologetics.

3.Patristics.

4. Literature used.

Introduction. General characteristics of the era.

Having formed in the classical era of antiquity as a regulator of all forms of spiritual development of reality, philosophy successfully performed the functions of broadcasting, storing and multiplying theoretical knowledge in the subsequent millennium.

However, after Christianity began to spread within the Roman Empire, ancient philosophy underwent revision. Carrying out the grandiose work of understanding Christianity, primarily the texts of the Old and New Testaments, the apologists of Christianity and the fathers of the Christian church laid the foundations of medieval philosophy, which was formed over the course of a millennium, and, despite various directions and the struggle of ideas, represented by the end of the 14th century a complete system of knowledge. It was based on evangelical and apostolic ideology in organic synthesis with Greek predominantly rationalistic philosophy.

In the process of processing the ancient spiritual heritage, the church fathers almost did not touch many of the conceptual assumptions of ancient philosophy, the norms of cognitive attitude towards the world, the concept of knowledge and the value coloring of cognitive activity. Not only did theology influence medieval philosophy, but philosophy, in turn, determined the specifics of the religious assimilation of reality, artistic creativity, medieval literature, as well as schools, universities and scientific disciplines.

Religious and secular, mystical and rational, hierarchically organized philosophical knowledge of the Middle Ages can be conditionally divided into several periods: apologetics, patristics, scholasticism. In turn, patristics can very conditionally be divided into eastern and western; in scholastic philosophy there are early (XI-XII centuries) and late (XIII-XIV centuries) periods; in scholasticism one can also conditionally distinguish rationalistic and mystical directions.

Characteristic features of medieval philosophy:

theocentrism - the most important subject of knowledge is God, the human soul;

creationism - the doctrine of the creation of the world by God from nothing;

providentialism - understanding history as a manifestation of the will of God;

eschatology - the doctrine of the ultimate destinies of the world and man;

soteriology - the doctrine of salvation, i.e., about the ways of finding heavenly bliss and getting closer to God;

theodicy - an explanation of why evil exists in the world if God is good and just;

Exegesis is the art of interpreting religious texts.

Apologetics.

Apologetics is a movement in Christian theology and philosophy that advocated the defense of Christian doctrine - mainly during the formation of Christianity and the fight against paganism. The time of the most intensive development of apologetics was the 2nd – 5th centuries. Actually, philosophical ideas can primarily be found in apologies directed against pagans. The central problem is the relationship between reason and faith, pagan philosophy and Christian doctrine.

The understanding by Christian thinkers of the elements of Greek philosophy begins with Justin Martyr (100-166). He believed that there were many points of contact between Christianity and Greek philosophy. Justin believed that the best among philosophers speak of a supreme being to whom everything else owes its existence. He mentions that other philosophers also allow life after physical death, because they know that beyond the limits of the visible, sensory world there is another, true reality. Justin argued that Plato, while in Egypt, borrowed his best ideas on cosmogony and free will from the teachings of Moses, and therefore he can be considered to some extent a Christian thinker. According to him, in many of the above questions, philosophers are essentially right, although he himself does not share certain provisions of their teachings about the soul. Despite this, Justin argued that in the works of philosophers “there are glimpses of truth” that cannot be explained by coincidence. He saw the origins of this coincidence in the doctrine of Logos. According to traditional Greek philosophy, the human mind is able to understand reality because of the Logos, or the all-encompassing mind that permeates all reality. According to Justin, incarnation means the coming in the flesh of the Logos or God's Word.

Justin's student Tatian (died about 175) was proud of the “barbarian” origins of Christianity. In the Word to the Greeks, he extolled Christianity and contrasted it with the philosophy of the Greeks. As you know, the Greeks called everyone who spoke a different dialect “barbarians.” In this regard, Tatian pointed out that “they themselves do not agree on the correct Greek language, for it is spoken differently in different areas of Greece.” Moreover, he argued that people who claim that their language is the greatest of human creations have also invented rhetoric, that is, “the art of selling words to the highest bidder,” and thus defending untruth and injustice. Tatian speaks out even more critically in relation to the pagan gods: Homer and other Greek poets talk about their shameful deeds, such as adultery and infanticide. “You cannot worship gods that are lower than people.” Finally, says Tatian, there is no need to complain that many of the statues that pagans worship, in fact, depict harlots who served as models for sculptors. From this he concludes that “the very pagans who claim that Christians belong to the lower social groups are actually worshiping people from the lower classes.”

The author of the famous paradox “I believe because it is absurd”, attributed to him, is of greatest interest in the history of philosophy, although there is no such formulation in his texts. It was Quintus Septimius Florent Tertullian(c. 160-after 220 AD). He is known as a Latin-speaking apologist who initially received an excellent ancient education in the city of Carthage, practiced law in Rome and was a pagan at that time. He subsequently converted to Christianity and became a priest.

Tertullian is already attacking pagan philosophical wisdom, arguing that not only the ancient mind, but the entire ancient culture perverts human life, subordinating it to false goals and values. Tertullian is an opponent of sophisticated philosophy, effeminate art and depraved cults existing in pagan Rome. Having embarked on this path, the pagans, according to Tertullian, abandoned the natural way of life, suppressed natural human aspirations, and among them, faith in God in its pure and undistorted form by reason. If an inexperienced soul accepts the Christian faith immediately and without any evidence, then a person corrupted by culture must go through the path of simplification and asceticism. Tertullian considers the natural state of man to be common sense, sincere desires and pure, sincere faith. All this can be discovered in the depths of the soul, freeing oneself from culture as a serious illness. This kind of self-knowledge, according to Tertullian, is the path to true faith, which he himself walked, being at first a pagan.

So, for Tertullian, faith is the antipode of reason. As a result, he does not allow reason into the holy of holies and resists exploring the foundations of Christian doctrine. Tertullian believes that we should not look for logic in what seems absurd to us. Moreover, there is no need to look for hidden meanings in something that should be taken literally. This is why faith was given to man, he argues, to perceive literally what is above human understanding. Therefore, the more absurd what is said in Scripture, the more incomprehensible and incredible it is, the more grounds we have for believing in its divine origin and meaning.

God appears to man, Tertullian argues, in the most incredible and unreasonable way. This is exactly how Christ appeared to people. He appeared before the Jews as a humiliated and mortal God, and the Jews did not accept him. But for the Christian soul, Tertullian argues, this absurdity contains a metaphysical mystery and a higher meaning. Tertullian's reasoning is widely known that the humiliation of Christ is not shameful, for it is worthy of shame. The death of the Son of God is certain because it is absurd. His Resurrection is certain, because it is impossible. Subsequently, the formula will be attributed to Tertullian: “I believe because it is absurd.” To be fair, we note that there is no such statement in the writings of Tertullian. But the general pathos of his work is expressed correctly in this formula. And it must be said that his passionate preaching of pure faith, incompatible with reason, influenced many Christian thinkers. But although Tertullian denies reason to explore the foundations of doctrine, he says that it can be used in defending Christianity from attack.

Manichaeism

A little later, the Manichaeans followed in the footsteps of the Gnostics (the name of the doctrine comes from the name of its founder). The teaching of the Manichaeans was also mythological in nature, but it was based on a completely philosophical principle: good and evil are the two original substances of the world of existence, two independent cosmic realities, the mixing and struggle of which determine the current state of things, and division represents the final goal of world development. Transferred to Manichaeism from Persian Mazdaism, this idea entailed other Zoroastrian ideas: the identification of good with light, evil with darkness, an ascetic attitude towards the body, prohibitions on food, etc. Manichaeism, despite the far-fetched teachings, persecution from the fathers churches, including Augustine, did not disappear from the historical scene, but echoed in the Middle Ages with the echo of the great heretical movements of the Bohumilians, Paulicians, and Cathars.

Christian apologetics. Origen, Tertullian

The first attempts to substantiate the Christian worldview by philosophical or, in any case, logical means belong to apologists. The term “apologetics” is characteristic of the early stage of Christian philosophizing, since the writings of the authors of this period were in the nature of apologia, that is, writings that aimed to protect and justify the first Christians in the eyes of powerful paganism. However, in addition to this “intercessory” goal, apologists sought to develop the most convincing and integral Christian position possible (Table 3.1). They possessed not so much originality and depth of thought as ideological conviction and the effectiveness of argumentation: their task was not discovery, but persuasion and proof.

Table 3.1

Structure and main representatives of apologetics

Greek-speaking apologists developed the main types of argumentation in favor of the priority of Christian wisdom over pagan wisdom - universality, simplicity, unity, authority, antiquity. With them begins the centuries-old history of the conscious assimilation by Christian thinkers of elements of pagan philosophical culture.

Compared to the early Greek apologists, Clement and Origen were less hostile to pagan culture and more enlightened. Clement of Alexandria pursues not so much an apologetic as a missionary goal - the conversion of an educated pagan to Christianity. It was Clement who for the first time thoroughly examined the problem of the relationship between faith and knowledge, theology and philosophy, and tried to “Christianize” philosophy and “philosophize” Christianity. Clement is trying to prove that pagan philosophy is not absurd from the point of view of Christian doctrine, according to which it serves as a “preparation” for Christianity and therefore deserves respect and study. The discipline of absolute value for Clement is theology. Philosophy is only the handmaiden of theology, but at the same time it remains the mistress of the other natural sciences.

In the dispute with the Gnostics, the other side of Clement’s position on the issue of the relationship between knowledge and faith is revealed, in which he emphasizes the importance of faith. Clement affirms the accessibility of faith, considers it as a ready-made gift given to a person, and as an integral part of the process of knowledge. He considers the main argument to be the thesis about the inextricable connection between knowledge and faith. Any knowledge, in his opinion, contains an element of faith, and Christian gnosis (knowledge) is the same Christian faith, but brought to understanding through intellectual comprehension. A true Gnostic is a believing Christian, but one who has achieved perfection in the knowledge of his religion. The above allows us to emphasize that Clement of Alexandria was the first in the history of Christian thought to clearly formulate the famous principle of harmony, faith and reason, becoming the predecessors of Augustine, Anselm, Thomas and other classics of the Middle Ages in solving this problem.

Origen is rightfully considered the first systematizer of the ideological and theological views of Christianity. He tried to clarify and rationalize Christian dogmas as much as possible. He valued human reason and philosophy highly, but he placed faith and religion even higher. For him, intellectual activity was not an end in itself, but was a means by which the position of religion could be clarified. On the contrary, Christian dogmas, Origen believed, do not contain anything unreasonable or unnatural. In this regard, Origen's point of view was expressed by the following thesis: “The Bible correctly understood does not interfere with sound philosophy, philosophy correctly applied does not harm the Bible.”

Origen's main theological and philosophical concepts are god, logos, world, soul, freedom. Origen's conclusion about God as pure thought, thinking itself, had a difficultly overestimated significance in the history of Christian teaching. Thanks to him, Christianity gradually freed itself from Stoic influence, replacing it with Platonic idealism and spiritualism. Origen transferred from the ancient storehouses the idea of ​​the immaterial™ of God, the immaterial™ of the soul, the idea of ​​the material sensory world as a reflection of the spiritual and intelligible world.

After familiarizing yourself with the material proposed for study of the literature, try to answer the question: can Origen be called a thinker who laid the foundation for the history of Christian philosophical speculation?

Quintus Tertullian(c. 160-222) - the most prominent figure of Latin apologetics, whose ideological teachers were the Cynics and Stoics.

With a completely negative attitude towards ancient philosophy, Tertullian almost always resorted to Stoic-Cynical arguments in philosophical discussions. However, Tertullian considered all philosophical schools equally alien to Christianity.

He was in deep opposition to his contemporary civilization; he believed that it had generally spoiled and perverted man, suppressed his natural positive inclinations, building on top of them a whole world of artificial and untrue values. To these he included too sophisticated philosophy, effeminate art, extremely perverted morality and too immoral religion.

According to Tertullian, the Christian faith meets the requirement of simplicity, contains the truth in a ready-made form and therefore requires neither proof nor verification. From these reasonings followed the famous formulas of Tertullian: “We do not need curiosity after Christ, we do not need research after the Gospel”; “with regard to the rule of faith, to know nothing means to know everything,” etc.

Tertullian completely excluded any intervention of philosophy in the sphere of religion, but did not exclude the use of philosophical means to justify religion. Philosophy could only have an explanatory function. Tertullian considered all disputes about the hidden meaning of biblical passages to be useless philosophizing, which can only “upset the stomach.” He preferred a literal interpretation of sacred texts, even if it contradicted the most elementary requirements of logic. Thus was born the maxim attributed to Tertullian: Creologuia absurdum est(“I believe, because it is absurd”).

Tertullian renounced ancient reason and intellectualism, and not reason in general, and believed that the spark of truth in his contemporary world should be sought in the depths of the instinctive nature of man. Only the natural human soul, uninvolved in culture, is Christian, said Tertullian. It is such a soul that easily accepts faith without evidence.

It is important to understand that Tertullian was not only a Christian thinker, but also a church thinker. In the era of sectarian pluralism, he was concerned with the problem of achieving the organizational and ideological unity of the church. He saw the main reason for separatism in Gnosticism, the basis of which, in his opinion, was philosophy. But Tertullian does not criticize ancient philosophy itself, but its use by the enemies of the church. Tertullian became one of the first Christian ideologists to put forward the idea of ​​​​the infallibility of church authority. The best way to find the truth, he said, is not to look for it at all, but only to listen more carefully to what the official church says.

In his doctrine of knowledge and truth, Tertullian always remained true to his basic principle: true knowledge has its source either in faith or in nature. By faith he always understood “pure faith”, without an admixture of rationalism, by nature - the empirically understood material world and human nature as part of this world. At the same time, Tertullian’s principle of faith always turned out to be higher than the principle of nature, since he consistently adhered to the Christian idea of ​​​​the creation of the world by God.

• Let us emphasize that Origen failed to implement Clement’s commandment about the balance of faith and knowledge, since he deviated either towards philosophy or religion.

Irenaeus of Lugudun (c.130-202).

Irenaeus belongs to the East by birth and upbringing, and to the West by activity. His main merit is that he correctly understood the needs of the church of his time and had enough strength and ability to satisfy them.

Saint Irenaeus of Lyons is one of the first Church Fathers, a leading theologian of the 2nd century. Asia Minor Greek (born around 130); around 160 he was sent by Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, to Gaul to preach Christianity; from 177 he was Bishop of Lyons. Nothing reliable is known about the circumstances of his death; later tradition dates it to the persecution of Septimius Severus, around 202. Memorial Day in the Orthodox Church is August 23 and June 28 in the Catholic Church. His supposed tomb in Lyon was destroyed by the Huguenots in 1562.

Irenaeus wrote in Greek, but only fragments of his original writings survive. The main works are five books "Against heresies" And "Proof of the Apostolic Preaching" . The full text of the first has come down to us in a very ancient translation into Latin, and the full text of the second only in the Armenian version.

Irenaeus became famous as a heresiologist. His main work, “Exposing and Refuting False Knowledge” (“Against Heresies”), was written in 5 books against the Gnostics. At the same time, what was important for him was not so much polemics as such, but rather the task of strengthening and sometimes re-creating certain provisions, such as the principles of Christianity. Irenaeus was also interested in the history of Christian communities, compiled lists of bishops, and Eusebius used his information.

Irenaeus's treatise, Contra haereses, contains, firstly, a very conscientious and detailed presentation of Gnostic theories and, secondly, his argument against these theories. The general ideological position of the Gnostics is paradoxical: they combine an extremely pessimistic view of the world with an infinitely optimistic view of gnosis. As an experienced critic, Irenaeus contrasts the Gnostics with a position that is less “ultimate” and at the same time, as if inverted in relation to the Gnostic one: his view of the world is quite optimistic, while his view of knowledge is rather skeptical. The Gnostics claimed to possess the complete truth, which for them meant, first of all, knowledge of God and “divine objects” - the secret meaning of religious symbols contained in Christian scriptures and mysteries. Condemning Gnostic arrogance, Irenaeus insists on two points:

1. The incomprehensibility and transcendence of God;
2. The finitude and sinfulness of the human being and the resulting limitations of his knowledge.

All attempts of the Gnostics to imagine the situation of the creation of the world or the generation of the Logos were doomed to failure in advance, for man can only think in human images and concepts, and divine objects require divine concepts. That is why the Gnostics did not go further than likening the sacramental origin of the Logos to some low animal creation. While condemning the abuse of anthropomorphic analogies and allegories among the Gnostics, Irenaeus indirectly warned against similar errors of his fellow believers, such as Theophilus.

Man, according to Irenaeus, was created “out of nothing,” out of “insignificance,” like all created things. A person carries this “nothingness” throughout his entire life, as a trace of his origin. Hence his imperfection, expressed in his changeability, in the limitations of his knowledge and incompleteness of virtue. But the situation is not hopeless. Although man came from “nothingness,” he was created by God, and therefore there is a divine spark in him - a divine “likeness” consisting of reason and free will. Although he is changeable and imperfect, this very changeability allows him to improve. Even if he knows almost nothing reliably not only about God, but also about the world, he only has to make the right choice, and he will also succeed in knowledge. To know the truth, a person needs a reliable teacher, which, according to Irenaeus, can only be the church, intended for this by God himself. In other words, the only path to true knowledge, according to Irenaeus, begins with faith and passes through the church - a concept that would rule minds throughout the Middle Ages.

Irenaeus saw another fundamental contradiction of Gnosticism in the Gnostic theodicy. The Gnostics, as we know, introduced intermediate emanations - aeons - to free the supreme deity from responsibility for the evil present in this world. Their demiurge is not God himself, but only the lowest of his aeons. But then, as Irenaeus saw it, it turned out that if the demiurge gave birth to an evil world against the will of God, then God is not omnipotent; if according to his will, then God is angry.

Irenaeus understood well that the concept of God must be creationist. According to his conviction, the world is the free creation of a transcendental God. Nature is not an emanation of the essence of the creator, although, being the creation of God, it is full of beauty and goodness. It is precisely this goodness and beauty that allows one to conclude the existence of a creator. Carried away by the fight against the world-hating concepts of the Gnostics, Irenaeus did not want to see anything in the world except goodness and beauty, and this actually led him away from solving the problem of the origin of evil - a problem that, as the future will show, was no less difficult for creationism than for pantheism.

On the same creationist grounds, Irenaeus argues that man was created free and happy and that the culprit of his current pitiful state is his own will. The body is not evil, as the Gnostics claim, for it is part of the essence of man, created in the image of God. Man is not only a soul, but a soul and a body together. The soul is material and is spread, like the finest liquid, throughout the body, animating it and controlling it. The soul is life, and therefore, once it has arisen, it never ceases to be. Reason is not a special principle, but only a natural property of the soul.

All these arguments of Irenaeus represent the initial sum which, together with elements drawn from the Bible, formed the basis of the gradually emerging Christian concept of human nature - a concept that already contained in its very appearance signs of insurmountable duality. On the one hand, man is the creation of God, the crown of nature, a free and rational being, destined for happiness; on the other, a finite and imperfect creature, a wanderer in this world, unable with his mind to distinguish between truth and falsehood, good and evil. Both alternatives were considered Christian in the Middle Ages. The preference for one of them was determined by historical circumstances and the temperament of the voter. Irenaeus also believed that they could be safely reconciled if we pay attention to the fact that both of them are based on faith in the creation of the world, that is, on faith, and not on knowledge, and therefore should simply be accepted without analysis, for Man's final destiny is as much a mystery as his creation. This is precisely the meaning Irenaeus put into his famous saying: "True gnosis is the teaching of the twelve apostles".

The ideas of Irenaeus created traditions in the Orthodox Church that were extremely important for the subsequent development of theological thought. Irenaeus was the first theologian to emphasize the role of the church, canonical scriptures, and religious and theological tradition. He was also the first church theologian to attach decisive importance to the person of Christ.

2. Minucius Felix

Roman lawyer, wrote in Latin. Lived in the 2nd century.

Minucius Felix left us only one work - a dialogue "Octavy" , which was written under Emperor Commodus (180-192). In its form, Octavius ​​is similar to Cicero's dialogues. He borrows much of it from Cicero’s treatise “On the Nature of the Gods.” It is close to classical Roman examples both in the thoroughness of its literary finishing and in its apparent impartiality in presenting the opinions of opponents. But the spirit and content of the dialogue are already Christian: the search for truth ends with the acceptance of faith.

The participants in the dialogue are: Minucius himself, the enlightened pagan Caecilius and his Christian opponent Octavius. Apparently, the last two are also historically real persons. It is known that Caecilius, who later converted to Christianity, became the teacher of Cyprian. Following the ancient tradition, the author of the dialogue gives the opportunity to speak impartially to both the Christian and pagan parties of the dialogue - this is perhaps the only case in the entire history of early Christian literature.

Caecilius is a typical representative of the philosophizing Roman intelligentsia of the late 2nd century. He shares her pessimism and skepticism caused by the beginning decline of ancient society, and at the same time her respect for traditional ancient culture and Roman statehood. Minucius calls him a follower of Cicero.

Caecilius's first, "skeptical" argument is directed against Christian dogmatism. “Have we no right to complain and be indignant,” says Caecilius, “when we observe how some, having neither education nor even any understanding of the sciences and arts, confidently judge the beginning and structure of the world, i.e. ... undertake to solve such questions that philosophy, having a huge number of schools, has not yet been able to resolve?”(Oct. 5). How can one claim to have the truth when it comes to God and his providence? What is above us is not for us (Quod supra nos nihil ad nos) - this should be the final conclusion of human wisdom. If a person managed to get to know himself better, then this would already be enough for his happiness. And further. Christians claim that the world is created and governed by a just God. But experience shows us that the world is rather governed by blind and impersonal forces, for which there is neither good nor evil. In the world, as in the sea during a shipwreck, the fates of good and evil are the same; lightning kills both sinners and saints; if the plague were a heavenly punishment, then everyone would not die from it without distinction. It follows from this that either the final meaning of everything that happens is hopelessly hidden from us, or it simply does not exist. In the first case, to pretend to know it would be impious, for this would mean to pretend to reveal divine secrets; in the second case, to look for something that does not exist would be simply absurd (Ibid. 5). Therefore, Christians are either wicked or fools.

Caecilius's second argument, the “pragmatic” one, follows from the first and boils down to the following. If religious objects are inaccessible to theoretical knowledge and nevertheless religions exist, then the choice of one or another of them is a matter of practical reason. The latter tells us that it is better to follow the religion of the fathers, which is sanctified by centuries-old tradition and accompanied the very formation of the greatness of Rome. Faith in their gods strengthened the Romans in conquering the whole world. The very system and culture of the Romans are imbued with paganism, and betrayal of the public gods is betrayal of patriotism. No new teaching can justify national apostasy (Oct. 6-8).

Caecilius directs his third argument against the actual religious practice of Christians, accusing them of debauchery, ignoring public interests, and subversive activities against the state. He ridicules their barbaric rites and extravagant superstitions (Ibid. 9-11). Finally, Caecilius also speaks out on the essence of Christian teaching, considering in it the most absurd ideas about the end of the world and the resurrection.

In conclusion, Caecilius notes that the very poverty and countless misfortunes of Christians serve as evidence of the vanity of their religion: “What kind of god is this who helps the dead and does not help the living? So leave your prayers to the god of heaven and turn your gaze to what is at your feet.”(Ibid. 12).

So, Caecilius, it would seem, convincingly proved the ideological, moral and even theological inconsistency of Christianity, moreover, its social harm and historical futility. But Caecilius’s argumentation had many weaknesses, which allowed Minucius Felix to admit it to such a large extent into his Christian dialogue. Her main weakness was skepticism. At all times, skepticism has been an unstable and transitional position; at all times he provoked new dogmatism and fideism. By asserting the incomprehensibility of truth by rational means, Caecilius unwittingly encourages his opponent to turn to irrational means, to faith. The ideological success of Christianity in the first centuries of the new era was largely due to the hopelessly skeptical and pessimistic situation that arose in that era in the Roman Empire.

Another weakness is reliance on a sense of imperial patriotism and national traditions. In the 2nd century, that is, during the period of Catacomb Christianity, the main object of hatred of ordinary Christians was precisely the Roman state and Roman traditions. For the oppressed peoples of the periphery, among whom Christianity was born, the victories of Roman weapons were harbingers of slavery and merciless exploitation. The appearance of the most beautiful Roman temples in new territories was accompanied by new exactions and enormous forced labor for their construction. In general, Rome seemed to most peoples, in the words of the Apocalypse, as a “harlot,” its patriotism as imperialism, and its polytheism as an ominous gathering of demons.

The reference to morality was equally unprofitable, for the moral state of pagan society in the 2nd century. was extremely low. Similar weaknesses were contained in all the other arguments of Caecilius. And yet, oddly enough, these arguments were strong enough to keep the intellectual strata of Roman society in the fold of ancient culture for several more centuries. Their alienation from him, of course, gradually grew, but the arguments in his defense remained essentially the same as those of Caecilius. Octavius’s counterarguments were just as typical for the era of the emergence of Christianity.

Octavius ​​first of all objects to the right of philosophers to judge the truth exclusively. Each person is endowed with natural intelligence, so wisdom is available to everyone. So the thesis: what was inaccessible to philosophers is not accessible to anyone is unacceptable for Octavius. Regarding the importance of self-knowledge, Octavius ​​says that it is really important, but, firstly, to limit the mind to self-knowledge alone means to impoverish it, and secondly, even self-knowledge is impossible without knowledge of other things: “In the world, everything is connected and linked by a single connection. It is impossible to know anything reliably about humanity if you do not have a concept of divinity, just as it is impossible to establish fair laws of a private society if we do not know enough about the laws that govern every human society and the world as a whole.”(Oct. 17). In contrast to Caecilius, he emphasizes the beauty, harmony and purposefulness of the world, which, in his opinion, clearly point to a single intelligent creator. Those who explain the structure of the Universe by a random combination of circumstances, by blind chance, seem to him “devoid of mind, feelings and even eyes.” On the contrary, those who knew how to look, feel and think sublimely long ago came to the idea of ​​​​a single God - the creator of the Universe. Among them were the most enlightened philosophers of the Greeks, such as Plato, Heraclitus, Democritus and even Epicurus (Ibid. 18).

From stating the divine principle, Octavius ​​moves on to asserting its incomprehensibility. Using light symbolism, Minucius-Octavius ​​writes: "If we cannot look at the sun, then how can we look at the creator of the sun, at the very source of light? God cannot be seen, he is too brilliant for our eyes; he cannot be embraced - he is too big for hands; he cannot be perceived, for he too great for our feelings. Infinite and immeasurable, it can only be understood by itself. Whatever name I call it, I will diminish it. Whoever does not want to diminish it should not attempt to comprehend it. Our heart is too small for that to contain it, and we only adequately comprehend it when we recognize it as incomprehensible..."(Ibid.). Thus, as can be seen from this quotation, in its emergence, Latin Christian thought was no less inclined than Greek thought towards negative theology. Let us note, however, that this initial tendency did not receive any significant development in the Latin West. The special apophatic technique, which, starting with Clement, was intensively developed in the East, was not created here. That is why the theologians of the Western Middle Ages, when they embarked on the path of apophatics (Eriugena, Thomas, etc.), turned not to Latin, but to Greek sources.

The next argument of Caecilius, which is called pragmatic, is rejected by Octavius ​​on the basis that the authority of ancestors does not free pagan religion from its base essence. He refers to the earthly origin of pagan beliefs and to the too earthly origin of those idols that the pagans worship. According to Minucius-Octavius, the origin of paganism is related to historical reasons. The first of these is the ignorance and excessive naivety of primitive peoples. Hence, they willingly believed various kinds of fictions such as Scylla and Charybdis, Hydra and centaurs, etc. The second reason was that our ancestors gave divine honors to their kings, and when they died, they turned them into their gods. That is why different peoples have different gods, and, moreover, endowed with all human vices. The idolatry associated with paganism looks even more unworthy. “If you take away from your idols,” writes the apologist, “that wonderful beauty that the chisel of great artists imparted to them, there will be nothing left in them except formless matter.”(Oct. 23). Isn’t it funny to worship marble and wooden sculptures, carved with human tools from rough pieces of matter, in which rats and mice live and which are covered with webs by spiders?! (Ibid.).

Such criticism could, of course, have an effect: it touched on the most sore point of the pagan religion, for it was not so much polytheism as idolatry that repelled many, and especially enlightened, Romans from traditional beliefs.

Responding to other accusations brought by Caecilius against Christians, Octavius ​​Minucius defends the purity and spirituality of Christian morality, the political loyalty of Christians, their readiness for martyrdom in the name of faith, and defends the early Christian ideal of poverty. In turn, he subjects to devastating criticism the immorality and fanaticism in the religious and civil life of the pagan world.

Having convinced Caecilius of the advantages of Christian religious practice and morality, Octavius ​​tries to convince him of the absurdity of Christian dogmas, in particular the dogma of the resurrection of the dead. Looking for a rational explanation for this dogma, he refers to the repetition and cyclical nature of natural phenomena as an example of a kind of resurrection of what seemed to have gone into oblivion. Moreover, in his opinion, having accepted the doctrine of creation, we must all the more admit the doctrine of resurrection, for it is more difficult to create something anew than to repeat what has already happened (Oct. 34). Thus, ancient and biblical ideas were intertwined in the dialogue of Minucius Felix in the name of achieving his main goal - proof that Christianity does not contradict the reason revered by the Romans and that, moreover, Christians are the legitimate heirs of ancient philosophers.

Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullian (lat. Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, 155/165, Carthage - 220/240, ibid.) - one of the most outstanding early Christian writers and theologians, the author of forty treatises, of which 31 have survived. In the emerging theology, Tertullian first expressed concept of the Trinity. He laid the foundation for Latin patristics and ecclesiastical Latin - the language of medieval Western thought. For reasons described below, he is not listed among the Church Fathers, but his writings are extremely important for the history of the Church and interesting philosophically.

Tertullian was from Africa. He was born around 155 into a pagan family, received a secular education and became a lawyer - a common career at that time for a young man from a wealthy family. After converting to Christianity in Carthage around 193, he became a presbyter, but then moved to Rome, where he established an extensive legal practice. In addition, he wrote a lot, mainly on theological topics. The tone of his writings - harsh, passionate, polemical - is typical of many African writers, like Tertullian, who had a complex and original character, in which ascetic severity was combined with an ardent desire for truth and merciless intransigence towards opponents.

Like Tatian and many other extremist personalities, Tertullian deviated from Orthodoxy and after 207 fell into Montanism - a heresy that asserted that in Christ we have not received the fullness of revelation, that revelation is not complete, but is in the process of completion through the work of the Holy Spirit . The founder of Montanism, Montanus, rejected the hierarchical organization of the Church and argued that its leadership should belong to special inspired "prophets" (charismatics). The Montanist group founded by Tertullian in Africa proved resilient and existed as late as the fifth century under the name Tertullianism.

Coming, like Minucius, from the Latin rhetorical school, where the spirit of Cicero reigned supreme, Tertullian, unlike Minucius, did not accept either Ciceron’s attitude to philosophy or his high assessment of enlightened reason, having well mastered only the rhetorical and literary technique that made his writings a model early Christian polemical literature. In ideological terms, Tertullian's real teachers were the Cynics and Stoics.

Tertullian was engaged in writing from 193 to 220. (he died shortly after 220). His legacy represents a huge contribution to Christian tradition. It is remarkable that even in some of his works, written after his conversion to Montanism, we find completely Orthodox theology. Tertullian's main works can be divided into three groups (our list is far from complete):

1) Scriptures in defense of Christianity (apologetic). These include one of the most important works of Tertullian - his "Apologetic Treatise" , in which he argues that the persecution of Christians by the state is not justified by the laws of the state itself, as well as a short treatise addressed to the Roman proconsul in Africa, Scapula.

2) Writings against heretics. These polemical writings were directed mainly against the Gnostics. In the book "Refutation of Heretics" Tertullian, using lawyerly techniques, demonstrates the wrongness of the heretics. His main argument is this: heretics cannot use St. Scripture, since it belongs to the Church, and not to them; but they cannot enter into communion with the Church, since their teaching is not contained in Scripture. This essentially circular argument is a typical example of Tertullian's ecclesiological thinking.

Treatise "About Baptism" - the earliest significant writing on baptism that has come down to us - is directed against Quintilla, who taught that baptism is not necessary. Tertullian refuted it as follows: just as in order to enter the Promised Land, it was necessary to cross the Red Sea, so in order to enter the Church it is necessary to pass through the water of the baptismal font. Water is seen as a life-giving element. In this regard, Tertullian first encountered an explanation of the monogram IHTIS, consisting of the initial letters of the title Jesus Christ Te'u I'os Sot'ir (Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior). The word ICHTHYS in Greek means fish, and fish live in water. In addition (and quite possibly precisely for this reason), in early Christian art fish was a symbol of Christ. Tertullian saw the same symbolism in the Gospel episode of the miraculous catch of fish. Later in this book he argued that the baptism of heretics is invalid, and especially noted - in full accordance with the already established tradition - that martyrdom for Christ should be considered as "baptism of blood."

Of Tertullian's other works directed against heretics, it should be noted "Against Praxeus" - a polemical work written when Tertullian had already left the Orthodox Church. Despite this, the doctrine of the Trinity presented in it does not contain any heretical elements theologically. In the book "About the Soul" Tertullian attacks philosophy. The soul, created in the image of God, is by nature “Christian” and can naturally testify to the existence and attributes of God. There is no need for philosophy and education, since nature itself is the teacher of the soul on the path to truth.

3) Essays on moral topics, characterized by extremely strict moral and disciplinary requirements. Of these, the most important are the following: "About Spectacles" , "On Women's Clothing" , "Letter to my Wife" , "Admonition on Chastity" And "The Book of Monogamy" .

No Christian author before Tertullian wielded the pen so masterfully, and few did more to spread Christianity among the educated classes of the Roman public. Tertullian's writings reveal his irresistible and violent temperament. His style is always lively and caustic. The stream of merciless invective directed at his opponents is peppered with memorable aphorisms and bold puns, irony and sarcasm, as well as neologisms, of which he was a master.

Philosophical and theological views of Tertullian

Tertullian's opposition to contemporary civilization is deeper than that of Tatian or Theophilus. He not only condemns its philosophical schools and its moral values, but is also close to the view that civilization in general has corrupted and perverted man, suppressed his natural positive inclinations, building on top of them a whole world of artificial and untrue values. Among them are a philosophy that is too sophisticated, an art that is too effeminate, morality that is too depraved, and a religion that is too immoral. Tertullian sees a way out of this situation in cynic simplification and a return to the natural state. However, in his opinion, this state of simplicity and naturalness can only be achieved through Christian faith, self-knowledge and asceticism.

The Christian faith, according to Tertullian, meets the requirement of simplicity, since it contains the truth in a ready-made form and therefore does not need proof or verification.

To accept it, one understanding is enough, she, " teaching, convinces, and not, convincing, teaches"(docendo persuadet, non suadendo docet) (Adv. Val. 1). The task of every research, every cognitive search is to find something reliable that one can firmly believe in (De pr. 10). The misfortune of the pagans was that they were always looking for and never found. They only knocked on the doors of truth, but did not open them. Therefore, they did not have anything solid, and if in the process of research they attacked the true path, it happened rarely, accidentally and not for long. Search is either the absence of faith, or its loss. One who has already found what he believes in needs no further exploration. From these arguments followed the famous obscurantist formulas of Tertullian: “We do not need curiosity after Christ, we do not need research after the Gospel”; “With respect to the rule of faith, to know nothing is to know everything.”(De pr. 7; 14). The concept of pure faith established here makes it possible to understand many other, at first glance paradoxical, statements of Tertullian. For a supporter of the concept of pure faith, as this apologist was, any intervention of philosophy in the proper sphere of religion was completely excluded, but the use of philosophical means to justify religion was not excluded.

According to Tertullian, philosophy had to forever part with its research and constructive function and retain only its explanatory function. In fact, Tertullian rejected the possibility of allegorical exegesis. He considered disputes about the hidden meaning of biblical passages to be useless speculation, “upsetting the stomach” (De pr. 15) and most often leading to heresy. He preferred a literal interpretation, even if it contradicted the most elementary requirements of logic. If something exceeds the ability of our understanding, this does not mean that it in itself is absurd. Rather, on the contrary, any statement of revelation, which seems absurd to us, hides within itself a deepest secret, deserving the more faith, the less trivial it is. In other words, revelation is incommensurate with human concepts, and the more something in it seems incomprehensible and impossible to a person, the more reason there is to believe in its divine origin and transcendental truth. This is the background of that curious maxim that is usually associated with the name of Tertullian: “The Son of God was crucified; we are not ashamed, although it is shameful. And the Son of God died; this is completely certain, for it is not consistent with anything. And after burial he was resurrected; this is certain, because it is impossible.”(De car. 5). Based on similar statements by Tertullian, the Middle Ages also attributed to him the maxim: "Credo quia absurdum est"(I believe because it is absurd) - a maxim that inspired theologians who defended the concept of pure faith against the intellectualistic claims of so-called rational theology. Even if this maxim was not stated by Tertullian himself, it still fully corresponded to his actual credo, and not only theological, but also worldview. According to Tertullian, one should believe what is counterintuitive from the point of view of ancient wisdom, and perhaps only this should be believed (credo quia ineptum).

In his essay “On the Evidence of the Soul,” Tertullian argues that the natural, uncultivated human soul is a Christian. The basic Christian truths are innate to her, since she is the creation and image of God. So the path to the Christian faith passes not only through revelation, but also through self-knowledge and the testimony of the soul: “These testimonies of the soul are all the more trustworthy because they are, as a rule, simple. Simplicity makes them popular, and the more popular they are, the more universal they are; universality proves their naturalness, and therefore, in a certain sense, divinity.”(De test. 5).

Everything that philosophers and poets have invented is inferior to the evidence of the “natural Christian soul,” since the soul is “older than the word” and since "man precedes the philosopher and the poet". The more natural the soul is, the closer it is to nature, the more disposed it is to accept the Christian faith, for "nature is a teacher, the soul is a student. God is the teacher of the teacher himself"(Ibid. 5). That is why, Tertullian believes, Christ chose for his preaching not sophists and philosophers, but simple fishermen. For the same reason "those who are unwise and simple are more suitable for conversion than those who have been to schools and libraries"(Ibid. 1). The virgin, inexperienced soul, in addition to the fact that it contains in itself the rudiments of Christian attitudes, for Tertullian also has the advantage that, being naive, it easily accepts faith without evidence and thereby best satisfies his concept of pure faith. Any departure from pure faith towards its philosophization inevitably led, in his opinion, to heresy, to a perversion of Christian teaching. Therefore, he saw, and not without reason, the main enemy of Christianity in free philosophizing and devoted so much energy to the criticism of Gnosticism.

His criticism is directed not so much against ancient philosophy in itself, but against its use by the enemies of the church - the Gnostics, who, in his opinion, were the worst epigones of ancient wisdom, who turned it into “sophistication.” He does not actually touch upon the question of the truth or falsity of the teachings of ancient philosophers; he is more interested in their historical role, which is negative, for philosophers became “patriarchs of heretics” (De an. 3).

Thus, in his criticism of ancient philosophy and even Gnosticism, Tertullian’s main task was not to refute these teachings, but to dissociate himself from them. But in order to dissociate oneself, it was necessary to clarify one’s own, or, as it seemed to the apologist, truly Christian, worldview positions. And Tertullian really tried to do this to the best of his ability. In the process of such clarification, he was forced to use the philosophy he rejected, and subsequently, ironically, even take the path of the schism he condemned. Let us dwell briefly on the main ideological ideas of Tertullian.

Tertullian, in his teaching about knowledge and truth, always remained true to his basic principle: true knowledge has its source either in faith or in nature. By faith he always understood “pure faith”, without an admixture of rationalism, by nature - the empirically understood material world and human nature as a part of it. Everything said about the world should also apply to man. At the same time, the principle of faith turned out to be higher than the principle of nature for Tertullian, since he consistently adhered to the Christian idea of ​​​​the creation of the world by God.

Tertullian was almost not interested in cosmology; most likely he imagined the structure of the world in accordance with the opinions of popular philosophy, and its origin in accordance with the Bible. Of course, Tertullian’s world is entirely corporeal and created out of nothing. He pays much more attention to issues of anthropology and psychology and in this he approaches his African compatriot Augustine, who highly appreciated Tertullian, but did not approve of his “materialism.” Man, according to Tertullian, is the unity of soul and body. The body is set in motion by the soul; the soul expresses itself through bodily manifestations. At the same time, in accordance with Tertullian’s general concept, the soul itself is corporeal. Otherwise it would be impossible to explain the psychophysical interaction. Like can only be perceived as like. The soul can feel the state of the external body and influence it (control it) only because it itself is the subtlest body, as if spread throughout the entire human body and giving it shape. The weakening of this formative function of the soul leads to deformation of the human physical body. The corporeality of the soul is also proven, according to Tertullian, by the fact that children inherit not only the physical characteristics of their parents, but also the mental ones. In addition, and this is apparently the main thing for Tertullian, the corporeality of the soul is confirmed by the Bible: “The soul of Lazarus would not have enjoyed the coolness, and the soul of the rich man would not have suffered from thirst in the flames, if they had been incorporeal.”(De an. 6).

Considering the soul to be corporeal, Tertullian at the same time insisted on its immortality, which he justified by the indecomposable simplicity of the soul. However, as a Christian thinker, he was more interested not in the question of the immortality of the soul, but in the question of the immortality of the human being as a whole. He said that the pagans had no idea about the true afterlife; With their idea of ​​​​the immortality of one soul, they did not endow immortality on a person, but only on a shadow of a person. Therefore, Tertullian constantly turns to the theology of resurrection, even devoting a special treatise to it (“De ressurectione carnis”).

Tertullian's ethical-sociological concept is one of the most influential parts of his legacy. Much of what we will later encounter in Augustine’s ethics and “theology of history” was already outlined by Tertullian. This applies primarily to Augustine’s doctrine of the “two cities,” which, although in a more acute eschatological form, was developed in Tertullian’s works. The teaching of Tertullian in question combined a number of ideas that were adopted by paleochristianity and found their clearest expression in the Epistles of Paul. These are the ideas of the pre-election of Christians and the predetermination of the historical mission of the church, as well as the idea of ​​​​ideological irreconcilability of the Christian world and the pagan world, with the admissibility of a certain economic and political conformism. To these were added eschatological ideas close to the Apocalypse, among which the main role was played by the idea of ​​the approaching end of the world and the expected Last Judgment. The sum of these ideas was the yardstick by which Tertullian measured history, contemporary and future history.

Tertullian divided the entire society of his time into two opposing camps: the “camp of the devil” (castra diaboli) and the “camp of God” (castra Dei). He also called the first saeculum (Latin tracing of the Greek term "zones", which in the Paulinian-Gnostic language meant the world, light, age), the second - ecclesia, i.e. church, cathedral, community. Both camps - secular-pagan society and church society - have their own value system, their own special history and special purpose. Saeculum reveres exclusively earthly, transitory and illusory values, and its fate is entirely connected with the fate of this world. It is controlled by demonic forces, which, skillfully manipulating the carnal affections of people, lead this world to destruction. On the contrary, Christian society has as its values ​​the eternal and truly spiritual values ​​of the future heavenly world and is governed by God himself. Accordingly, the last purpose of this society is eternal bliss. All the hopes of a secular person are connected with the possession of this world, but a Christian is a wanderer in this world, and all his hopes are directed to the otherworldly future. The fate of both societies has long been predetermined by divine providence. Even the deadly enmity between them, even the cruel persecution of Christians, was from eternity part of the plans of divine providence. In particular, persecution was allowed by God to strengthen the fortitude of Christians and test their faith. Knowing that nothing happens without the knowledge of Providence, Christians must endure all the trials of fate, opposing the corruption and violence of this world with their patience, peacefulness and moral purity, while humbly awaiting the imminent end of the world and a fair trial.

Tertullian derived almost all of his practical ethics from this general historical concept. Since two antagonistic worlds exist simultaneously in the same Roman state, the relationship of Christians to the pagans must be built taking this circumstance into account. On the one hand, Christians must remember that time is on their side, and therefore should not artificially stimulate the decline of Roman society through political or economic means. In this area, as we would say now, they must establish relations of peaceful coexistence with the pagan world. On the other hand, Christians should not make any compromises with this world in the field of ideology and morality, maintaining the purity of their beliefs and morals. Here there can be nothing in common between the two worlds (nihil communionis). In the words of Tertullian, "It is permissible to coexist with pagans, but sharing common morals with them is unacceptable".

In general, most of Tertullian's surviving works are devoted to problems of specific church politics and practical ethics. But in a number of important cases he was no stranger to abstract sociologizing and moralizing. In such cases, he always relied on the Stoics and Cynics and used legal argumentation.

Tertullian considered freedom and original sin to be two defining properties of human moral nature. Proof of freedom “The law itself, which God has made, serves, for the law is not made for those who do not have the power to obey or disobey it.”(Adv. Marc. II 6). So, according to Tertullian, law can only have meaning where there is freedom. Created free in the likeness of God, man, at the same time, like all created things, was created finite and limited. Unlike the absolutely good will of God, which is always oriented only towards good, human free will, not possessing absolute good by nature, must always choose between good and evil. A person becomes virtuous not by nature, but by choice. This led to Tertullian’s moral theodicy: the source of moral evil in the world is not God, but man, or rather, his free choice. Already in the person of his progenitor Adam, man chose not good, but evil and thereby introduced him into the world (Ibid). But sometimes Tertullian, in his interpretation of the origin of evil, was more inclined to the dualistic concept of the Gnostics. Evil is not so much chosen by a person as it is rooted in his very nature and can only be eliminated by leaving this life: “In our nature there is a struggle between the principles of good and evil, which must end in victory of either the first or the last. In this cruel and, one might say, eternal struggle, victory can only be brought to us by magnanimous death...” The world in which we live , there is a dungeon. Getting out of it should be the only desire of the “true righteous”(Adv. Marc. II 1). Similar reasoning is characteristic of those works of Tertullian, which were written to encourage persecuted Christians and encourage them to voluntary martyrdom. Turning to the persecutors themselves, Tertullian reasoned differently: he saw world evil not in human nature itself, but rather in social injustice, in the violation of natural and civil laws. References to natural and civil law are typical of Tertullian's apologetic works such as the Apologeticus and To Scapula. In these works, Tertullian makes his main argument the principle of freedom of conscience. "Natural and civil law“,” he writes to the Roman governor Scapula, “ demands that everyone worship what they want. The religion of one is neither harmful nor beneficial to another. The adoption of a particular religion should be done by conviction, and not by force. Sacrifices to the deity must be made with the consent of the heart."(Ad. Scap. 2). Freedom is a property of human nature, and therefore the right of everyone to be free, including in the choice of religion, is a natural right. This right is universal and should have no exceptions. If the Roman state allows the Egyptians to worship animals, if it tolerates the existence of the most senseless and savage cults and at the same time does not allow Christians to worship their spiritual God, then it thereby deprives the law of universality, and therefore abolishes it (Apol. 24).

Tertullian's Ecclesiology

Tertullian's theological views were formed in the context of his polemics with various Gnostic heresies. In the book “Refutation of Heretics” (or “Baptism against Heretics”) we find his views on the Church, very close to the views of St. Irenea. Like Irenaeus, Tertullian refers to the authority of Tradition, preserved primarily by the “apostolic” churches: "... Every teaching that is consistent with the teaching of these indigenous apostolic churches, as ancient as faith itself, is undeniably true, because it was received by the churches from the apostles, by the apostles from Jesus Christ, by Jesus Christ from God, and therefore every other the teaching must be false, contrary to the truth..."("Refutation of Heretics", 21)

Tertullian sets out the rule of faith in the same terms as St. Irenaeus, although it is known that they did not know each other and never met. This rule of faith has the same structure as our Creed. Indeed, the creeds developed from the most ancient rules of faith, which were memorized by the catechumens during their catechetical instruction. The rule of faith, says Tertullian, is inherited by us from the apostles appointed by Christ himself. From his text it follows that no one can simply go and found a new church without any continuity with the past, understood as the unity of a common faith. From this follows the central principle of Orthodox ecclesiology: by virtue of the unity of the common faith, all churches are identical to each other, none of them is higher or better than the other, and in fact there is only one Church, founded by Christ. All the diversity of churches exists only as evidence of this Church in different parts of the world. Therefore, no church can claim primacy over the others on the basis of some external sign. So, the self-determination of a single Church is based on the unity of the faith it professes, and this unity is the main weapon against heretics. Unity of faith in time and space is the key to unity and communication between churches.

The doctrine of the Trinity and Christ

Tertullian's great merit lies in the fact that for the first time in the history of Christian thought he used expressions that subsequently became firmly established in Orthodox Trinity theology. Thus, he said that the Son has the same essence as the Father; and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son; he first used the word "Trinity" in Latin; and finally, he taught that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have one divine nature. His understanding of St. Trinity, however, partly suffers from subordinationism. Son, i.e. the divine Logos (Word), the second person of the Trinity, in his understanding is, as it were, split into two concepts: “Meaning” and “Word”. At first, the Logos did not have an independent personal existence and existed in God only as His “Meaning”; Only at the creation of the world did this “Meaning” become the “Word”.

In general, given the level of Trinitarian theology of that time, in Tertullian we find a completely sound understanding of St. Trinity. The same can be said about his Christology (the doctrine of Christ). Sometimes his description of Christ almost coincides with the Chalcedonian definition of faith: "...in Jesus Christ God and man were united,...God lived among people as a man, so that man could learn to live a divine life" and so on. Sometimes Tertullian says that "God was crucified on the Cross" but it is immediately stipulated that one should avoid teaching that "The Father suffered with the Son". All this is not clearly stated, but given the poverty of the theological vocabulary in the second century, it must be recognized that Tertullian’s theology was surprisingly Orthodox. On the whole, the great theologians of the second century - Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian - present a remarkable division: their teachings show strong similarities, despite the absence of any communication between them, so it must be recognized that the only guiding principle for these theologians was a sense of unity who guides the Church.

Moral

In his writings on moral themes, Tertullian, among many other issues, discusses Christian attitudes towards military service: Now let's see whether a believing Christian can labor in military service and whether it is possible to allow military men to become Christians, even if they were simple soldiers, so that they do not need to make sacrifices or impose a death sentence. There is nothing in common between the divine and human oaths, between the banners of Christ and the banners of the devil, between the camp of light and the camp of darkness... and, having disarmed Peter, the Lord loosened the belt of every soldier from that time forward. ("On Idolatry", 19)

Obviously, for Tertullian, the issue rested not on the possibility of killing in battle (as it would be natural for a person of our culture to assume), but on the obligation of the highest military ranks to make sacrifices to pagan gods and the need to impose death sentences on war criminals. Tertullian is clearly against Christians serving in the army, but the New Testament argument “he who takes the sword shall perish by the sword” comes last in his reasoning. The main objection stems from the fact that military service, like many other professions in Roman society, involved participation in pagan rituals. Christians should not enlist in the army, especially since there was no forced conscription in the Roman Empire.

Tertullian believed that not only military service, but also many other professions were unacceptable for a Christian. At the same time, he insisted that Christians should be allowed into public ministry. The fact was that the Roman authorities prohibited Christians from holding positions related to socio-political service, on the grounds that they were considered dangerous sectarians and traitors (for the same reason: they refused to participate in pagan rituals). In his Apology, Tertullian argued for the moral superiority of Christians over pagans. He argued that, contrary to all accusations, Christians are by definition alien to any factions or sects and that accusations of treason are unfair for the simple reason that Christians are loyal to the whole world: Therefore, it is necessary to deal with us with meekness, or at least consider as permissible that religion that cannot be reproached for anything that, in fairness, should be feared from forbidden gatherings. They are prohibited, if I am not mistaken, for public peace, so that the city is not torn apart by opposing parties: they could easily confuse the meetings of the people and the Senate, interrupt... speeches and public spectacles, and especially at a time when the most violence can be corrupt. As for us, we, not being possessed by a passion for fame or honor, do not find any benefit for ourselves in forming crowds or conspiracies. We never interfere in public affairs: the whole world is our republic.("Apology", 38)

Regarding marriage, Tertullian was a supporter of absolute monogamy. This is what he advises his wife in the event of his (Tertullian’s) death: And so, if I die before you according to the will of God, then none other than God will destroy your marriage. Why would you restore what God has destroyed? Why should you give up the freedom given to you in order to impose new shackles on yourself?!.. We can judge what harm a second marriage brings to holiness when we pay attention to the charter of the Church and to the decrees of the apostles, who elected only “the husband of one wife” as bishops. (1 Tim. 3:2) and only widows who “had been the wife of one man” (1 Tim. 5:9) were admitted to priestly service, so that the altar of God would always remain pure and sinless. ("Message to the Wife", 1.7)

From this text it follows that in the early Christian consciousness there was a single ethics for both the clergy and the laity. The requirement of monogamy, on which Christian tradition so insists (Eph. 5:22-33), is a unique characteristic of the Christian religion alone. Christianity attributes divine origin to marriage. Each individual marriage has an eternal dimension that relates it to the divine archetype, and therefore its unique mystical meaning is inimitable.

In conclusion, another interesting example of Tertullian’s moral teaching. In his instructions to women regarding clothes, hairstyles and jewelry, he speaks not only of his strict ascetic character, but also of his negative attitude towards the achievements of technology and crafts, which allow people to distort and embellish nature, without caring about their inner beauty before God: So, in relation to your attire and many of your outfits and embellishments, you must in every possible way cut off, reject and expel this exorbitant luxury that is unnecessary for you. What good is it for you that people will notice on your face the signs of a pious, humble, simple, modest Christian, conforming to the rules of the Gospel, while in all other parts of your appearance you will begin to exhibit vain pomp and indecent effeminacy? It is easy to understand how this luxury is contrary to Christian purity and what path it leads to the greatest disorder... This is so true that without the help of this luxury, a well-built face is usually considered mediocre, unpleasant, devoid of its charms... people add natural beauty with blush, whitewash and other aids. (“About women’s clothing”, 9)

To summarize, it should be noted that medieval theologians could not forgive Tertullian for his apostasy from the true faith. In their works, the founder of Latin theology is mentioned infrequently and not particularly approvingly. Only a few, like St. Cyprian and Blessed Jerome were able to appreciate his literary talent and his sharp mind, prone to paradoxes. It was only in the 19th century that Tertullian was fully rediscovered as one of the most significant Latin authors of his time and a key figure in the formation of Western Christianity. In theology, he was interested in aspects not so much metaphysical as practical and legal - and this brings him closer to the teachers of the Catholic Church of subsequent generations.

4. St. Cyprian of Carthage (c.200-258)

Cyprian enjoyed great authority as the "father of the hierarchy", an ideologist of the Episcopal Church and a church administrator.

Cyprian was born around 200-210. in Carthage in a family with good income and social status. Having received a good education, he became an outstanding rhetorician, widely known in the city and with connections in political circles. He had a lawyer's practice. Around 245, already middle-aged, after much deliberation, he converted to Christianity under the influence of Presbyter Caecilius. He soon became a presbyter himself, and then was elected bishop of Carthage at the unanimous demand of the entire Carthaginian church and held this post from 248 to 258. As a bishop, he showed excellent organizational skills and made an important contribution to the formation of the Episcopal Church, to the development of its social doctrine, cult, and dogma. After the persecution of Decius in 250, he fought for the purity of the church, and as a result of the persecution of Valerian in 257-258. was arrested and executed (beheaded) for refusing to perform Roman religious rites.

Cyprian wrote his works in Latin. He was a student of Tertullian and, according to Jerome, did not miss a single day without reading the works of his teacher. In turn, Cyprian himself became an authority for Augustine. Cyprian's style is drier than Tertullian's and simpler than Augustine's. But in general he is characterized by imagery and eloquence. In the works of Cyprian we find approximately the same problems as in Tertullian, on whom Cyprian was strongly dependent theologically, without, however, possessing the tendency to extremes and the immoderate temperament of his teacher.

Creations of St. Cyprian can be mainly divided into apologetic and ethical. His creative legacy is quite extensive and covers a wide range of topics: the doctrine of the church (“On the unity of the Catholic Church”), Christian prayers, as well as the sacraments, virgin life, and charity. A special place in Cyprian’s writings is given to the persecution of Christians, martyrs and confessors, and the problem of the “fallen” (“On the Fallen”). In addition, 81 letters from Cyprian to various persons have been preserved.

Three long letters have reached us, essentially written in the form of treatises. The letter "To Donatus" describes Cyprian's conversion to Christianity and discusses the nature of baptism as the entry into a new life filled with the peace and happiness of the Christian faith. The letter "To Demetrian" (Ad Demetrianum, c. 252) presents a refutation of the pagan Demetrian, who argued that Christians were to blame for war, sea, famine and drought. These misfortunes were explained by the reluctance of Christians to make sacrifices to idols. Cyprian argues that idolatry and especially persecution of Christians arouse the wrath of God. The Letter To Quirinus is very important to historians of the Latin text of the Bible because it contains many Old Testament quotations in the early Latin translation, organized under various headings.

All R. III century St. Cyprian wrote “The Book of the Vanity of Idols” (De idolorum vanitate), in which he proves that the pagan deities are nothing more than kings, to whom they began to worship after death. Anti-Jewish polemic of St. Cyprian dedicated the "Three Books of Testimonies" (Testimoniorum Libri III, c. 249).

Cyprian's writings on ethical topics also show similarities with the writings of Tertullian. We know of several short treatises, of which the following are of particular interest: “On the Dress of Virgins,” “On the Benefit of Patience,” and “On Jealousy and Envy.” The small book On Mortality, written during the plague that broke out immediately after the persecution of Decius, describes the Christian attitude towards death: nothing distinguishes Christians from pagans so much as the spirit with which they welcome the end of life. Cyprian condemns the custom of mourning the dead, since for a believer, death in Christ leads to immortality and eternal reward, freeing him from the labors and hardships of this world for settlement in the true fatherland.

The earliest commentary in the history of Christianity on the “Our Father” (or “Book of the Lord’s Prayer”), which appeared at about the same time as Origen’s commentary in the East, also belongs to this section. In this short treatise the author's attention is focused on the ideas of the unity of the Church and its communal character: The Teacher of the world and the Teacher of unity, first of all, did not want prayer to be performed separately and privately, so that the one praying would pray only for himself... We have a national and common prayer, and when we pray, we pray not for one person, but for the whole people, because we - the whole people - are one. God the Teacher of peace and harmony, who taught unity, wanted one to pray for everyone, just as He alone carried us all.("On the Lord's Prayer"). This theme of unity runs through all the ecclesiological writings of St. Cyprian.

The petition for daily bread, according to Cyprian, refers to the Eucharist. This explanation helps to understand why in the liturgy the Lord's Prayer immediately precedes communion. It should also be noted that the request for daily communion does not mean that the liturgy was celebrated daily, but reflects the custom of taking St. gifts to take home with you and partake of yourself every day. In the same book, Cyprian speaks of the need to pray seven times a day at certain times - a Jewish custom inherited by the early Church and which became the daily circle of prayer for Christians.

The main contribution of St. Cyprian in church tradition is his teaching about apostates ("fallen") and the related question about the nature of the Catholic Church. The word "catholic", introduced into use by St. Ignatius the God-Bearer (“where Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”), by the time of St. Cyprian had already firmly entered into use and was applied not in a geographical sense, but in the sense of integrity, the indivisible integrity of each church community. Its meaning was so specific that it entered Latin and the Creed without translation in its Greek form, ecclesia catholica. In Slavic languages, the word “catholic” was translated as “cathedral”: in Greek, katholikon is the main church of the community, where everyone goes, i.e. in Slavic "cathedral".

The book “On the Fallen” discusses the question of how to deal with those Christians who, during persecution, made sacrifices to idols, but then had the intention of repenting and returning to the Church. Cyprian believes that persecution befell the Church for the sins of Christians, who by the middle of the third century enjoyed greater freedom, which lulled their vigilance, giving rise to immorality and neglect of matters of faith: ... the all-merciful Lord arranged everything so that what happened seemed more like a test than persecution. After all, everyone began to care about increasing their inherited wealth and, forgetting about how the believers acted under the apostles, rushed with an insatiable desire to increase their property. Sincere piety was not noticeable in priests, pure faith in ministers, mercy in deeds, deanery in morals. Men have disfigured their beards, women have painted their faces... They enter into marital alliances with infidels, and offer members of Christ to the pagans. They not only swear recklessly, but also commit perjury. With proud arrogance they despise the leaders of the Church, with poisonous lips they slander each other, and with stubborn hatred they create mutual discord. Very many bishops, who should admonish others and be an example for them, having ceased to care about the divine, began to care about the worldly: leaving the see, leaving the people, they wander through foreign regions, trying not to miss trading days for selfish profit, and when the brothers The churches are hungry, they, carried away by covetousness, insidiously take over the fraternal incomes and, by lending more often, increase their profits. Why don’t we deserve to suffer for such sins?..("About the Fallen")

After such an introduction, Cyprian gradually moves on to the problem of apostasy as such, listing its various causes. He speaks of those who performed pagan sacrifices before they were forced to do so; about parents who unnecessarily brought children to participate in pagan rituals. He writes with particular indignation about those who despised their faith for fear of losing their property.

The question of what to do with apostates, St. Cyprian decides quite unequivocally: only God can reconcile them with the Church, and therefore reconciliation can take place where God dwells, that is, in the Church. It is not heroes, not confessors who should accept the fallen into the Church, but bishops, as ministers of the sacraments, for the point here is not a person’s personal merits: it is not confessors who celebrate the Eucharist, but the Church as a whole, headed by a bishop, regardless of his behavior and human qualities. Developing the same theme. Cyprian speaks of the relationship between the bishop and the Church: ... The Church will not depart from Christ, but it is made up of a people committed to the priest, and a flock obedient to its shepherd. From this you must understand that the bishop is in the Church and the Church is in the bishop, and whoever is not with the bishop is not in the Church. Therefore, in vain do those flatter themselves who, not having peace with the priests, think by their insinuation to win some over to secret communion with themselves: The Catholic Church is one - it should neither be dissected nor divided, but should be completely united and sealed by the bond of priests, mutually tied to yourself.(Letter No. 54 “To Florence Pupian about slanderers”).

In this letter, as in almost all of his writings, St. Cyprian first of all affirms the absolute unity of the Church and the equally absolute unacceptability of schisms. The same idea is central to his second famous book, “On the Unity of the Church.” The main theme of this book is the proof of the prerogative of bishops in the reconciliation of apostates. The first three introductory chapters speak of the unity of the Church and the danger of heresies and schisms. They pose a greater danger than persecution, for they destroy faith, distort the truth and violate the unity of the Church. Every Christian is obliged to belong to the Catholic Church - the one and only Church founded on Peter. Here it should be emphasized that by unity Cyprian understands the sacramental unity of the Church headed by the bishop: the reconciliation of the fallen is carried out by Peter (i.e. the bishop), and not by those who suffered for the faith.

This famous fourth chapter, quoted in the decisions of the First Vatican Council, develops the idea of ​​the “throne of St. Peter” (cathedra Petri). The question is what exactly did St. mean? Cyprian. In our time, most scholars, including many Roman Catholics, agree that when speaking about the “throne of St. Peter” as the foundation of a single Church, Cyprian did not mean the Roman see, but any local church. In his particular case, he is, of course, thinking about the Church of Carthage. Entirely following the ecclesiological tradition of St. Ignatius and Irenaeus, he sees in each local church the one and only Catholic Church in its entirety: the local church is not a particle, not a piece of the Church, but the whole Church.

In the same spirit, St. Cyprian also speaks about the unity of the episcopate. Both the apostles around Peter and the elders around the bishop each have equal authority, and all twelve are present invisibly in every local church. The bishopric is the same everywhere; nothing can be added or subtracted from it. Bishops of local churches do not have part of the power, but all of it. All Cyprian's sayings about St. Peter are only an expression of the early Christian idea that each local church, headed by a bishop, is the heir of Peter, who was considered as a model, a center, the basis of the unity of the entire Church as a whole. This idea was a reflection of the nature of the local Christian community, outside of which, Cyprian pointed out, there is no salvation: “No one can have God as a Father who does not have the Church as a mother.”

Cyprian played an important role in the development of the church doctrine of the sacraments (baptism, communion, confession). Baptism and communion are associated with the acquisition of grace by the believer. Grace is a saving power, an emanation of Jesus Christ, the spirit poured into a person. Cleanses from sin and drives out unclean spirits. Through the doctrine of grace, the idea of ​​spiritual equality is derived: grace is given equally to everyone.

Regarding Christology, Cyprian does not present an original concept. Jesus Christ is the mediator between God and people, He is the “Word”, the educator and teacher of the human race, the author of Salvation. The death of Christ is an atoning sacrifice for the sins of people. This act showed people the path to eternal life. Cyprian does not share Tertullian's teaching about two substances in Jesus Christ. He represents the Trinity as complete and indivisible. Jesus Christ is co-eternal with the Father, although He is the Son. Cyprian still speaks vaguely about the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is understood as the sacrament of unity. God the Father is the creator of everything, and everything he created is perfect. There is also an original interpretation of the Trinity: "There is one God, and one Christ, and one church, and one pulpit founded on rock.", that is, the church appears here as the third member of the Trinity.

Of interest is the treatise “On Mortality,” the purpose of which was to encourage Christians as death approaches. Cyprian writes here about heaven and hell and equates the kingdom of God with the kingdom of heaven. Attention to eschatology was due to the persecution of Christians in the middle. III century The theme of renunciation of the world runs through many of Cyprian’s works. His favorite saying: "Do not love the world, nor the things in the world".

Cyprian, like Tertullian, is considered one of those Christian ideologists who had the idea of ​​progress in earthly history. Cyprian's worldview is imbued with providentialism. Cyprian implies the complete dependence of human actions on the will of the supernatural absolute: “We submit to the will of our redeemer in all the actions of our service to him... Let us be ready to do the will of God in everything.” But, on the other hand, Cyprian speaks about the freedom of a person to choose his own path: a person, left to his own will, goes either to death or to salvation.

Submission to the will of God for a Christian is real freedom: faith, through an increase in grace in a person, gives freedom; the more faith, the more grace for a person. In the treatise “On the Lord's Prayer,” Cyprian explains what it means to do the will of God: humility, steadfastness in faith, modesty in words, mercy, decency in everyday behavior, non-infliction of offense, the ability to endure it, etc. In his treatise to Quirinus, Cyprian continues to develop a code of Christian ethics, while simultaneously setting out the norms of relations within the church.

Cyprian acted as Tertullian's successor in relation to pagan philosophy - the same intolerance can be traced in his works, although, unlike Tertullian, he did not specifically polemicize with heretics, with the exception of the Novatians, but mentioned a number of heresies, mainly of a Gnostic nature.

Tertullian is credited with the phrase: “I believe because it is absurd.” What did this mean? Why did the famous theologian rebel against excessive philosophizing, asserting: “The Son of God has risen: this is certain, for... it is impossible”? And how are heresies connected with philosophy and the denial of philosophy with heresy? Philosophy teacher Viktor Petrovich Lega tells the story.

Apologist turned heretic

Last time we talked about Clement of Alexandria, who defended philosophy, recognizing its usefulness for theology, but there were also thinkers who defended the opposite point of view. One of the brightest is Tertullian. Tertullian denied philosophy in principle, considered it a harmful teaching and the source of all heresies. Let's figure out why he formed such a negative opinion about philosophy.

We know very little about Tertullian's life. It is only known that he lived in northern Africa, in Carthage. There are different assumptions even about whether he was a priest or not. But one thing is certain: in the last years of his life, Tertullian abandoned Orthodoxy and fell into the heresy of the Montanists; subsequently he became disillusioned with this heresy and founded his own heretical teaching, which was distinguished by extreme rigorism: the demand for a complete renunciation of meat, family life, wine, etc. .

The Gospel is just an allegory?!

What is the reason that Tertullian vehemently opposes philosophy? One of them - perhaps even the main one - is the emergence of heresies and in particular the Gnostic heresy, which was especially popular at that time. Actually, Gnosticism is not even a heresy, because it is a teaching very far from Christianity, based on various philosophical concepts, primarily on the philosophy of Plato. The Gnostics argued that Christianity is a teaching for the plebeians, for the people, and the true meaning of the Gospel teaching is accessible only to initiates, only to those who know philosophy, who can, through simple Gospel examples and images, see the true meaning of that deep picture of the universe that is hidden in the Pleroma - in the fullness of everything - and is revealed through the eternal levels of existence - eons... And somewhere at the lowest levels it is embodied in some specific people - for example, in Christ, in the Mother of God. Well, at the very bottom, of course, we are. According to the Gnostics, the gospel story necessarily requires an allegorical interpretation.

This is what Tertullian is indignant against. How is this “allegorical”?! The Gospel is an absolutely truthful, historically impeccable story about the life of God Incarnate, about the life of His disciples, who then went to preach the Truth throughout the world. Tertullian, first of all, insists on the literal understanding of the most difficult passages of the Gospel: the Immaculate Conception, the Resurrection, the Ascension, the miracles that Jesus Christ performed. Because this is exactly what the Gnostics pointed to when they said: “This cannot be! It is obvious that in these miracles there are hidden some signs, some higher levels of being - the Pleroma, eons ... "

"No! - answered Tertullian. “These miracles may seem absurd to us, they may seem madness to us, but we believe in them because they are absurd.” This phrase is often repeated: “I believe because it is absurd,” but in fact Tertullian did not say exactly that. He has many phrases like this, so in principle this thought does not distort his teaching. So, he said: “The Son of God has risen - this is certain, for it is impossible.” The conjunction “for” or “since” can cause confusion. Suppose one could say this: “The Son of God has risen: this is certain, although it seems impossible”; “I believe, although it seems absurd.” But Tertullian says: “No, I believe, for this is absurd." How to understand this “for”?

The Atheist Argument

This phrase is very fond of atheists who say: “How amazingly naive you Christians are! You honestly say that you are idiots: “we believe in absurdity”, “we believe in a round square”, “we believe that snow is black and soot is white”, “that man has risen and God has become man”. You yourself admit that your faith is stupid, absurd! And how can I argue with you after this?..”

This phrase would become clearer to modern people if it were translated as follows: “I believe, for it is wonderful.”

But this is not what Tertullian meant. The absurd, in his opinion, is what seems absurd from our point of view, in our world. The Son of God, who became man, has risen, that is, man has risen - this is absurd, this cannot be. I know that every person dies. But the fact that a certain person was resurrected - I I believe, but I don’t know. Because this can't be true. I believe in something that cannot happen in our world, but is possible if God intervenes in it. Therefore, this phrase would become more understandable to a modern person if it were translated as follows: “I believe, for it is wonderful.”

The miracles performed by Christ and the miracles of which He Himself was the subject: the Incarnation, Transfiguration, Resurrection, Ascension - these are the main places in the Gospel. And it is to them, first of all, according to Tertullian, that you need to pay attention! There is nothing divine in the fact that Christ walked through the field and plucked ears of corn - well, I can also go to the field and pluck ears of corn! This is where His human nature is revealed. But when He was resurrected, it was precisely His Divine nature that was manifested in this, and since from the point of view of the earthly world the resurrection of man is impossible, then it is simply necessary believe.

Do we, thanks to our knowledge of Plato, understand the Gospel better than the apostles?

Thus, knowledge about the world is possible, but when God begins to act in the world, events acquire a miraculous character, and it is impossible to understand or explain them from the point of view of human knowledge; one can only believe in the reality of these events. And therefore, according to Tertullian, no philosophical interpretations of the text of the Gospel will help us - they will only hinder us! They will lead us away from the correct, literal understanding of the Gospel. But it is precisely the literal understanding of the Gospel events that shows us their truth, and allegory... Well, what kind of allegory can there be?! Firstly, by interpreting the New Testament allegorically, we thereby show that we do not believe in the reality of the gospel events. And secondly, we don’t actually believe in God because we don’t believe in God. What, God didn’t know how to reveal the truth through the prophets, through the apostles? The apostles did not know how to express it correctly, in what words? And we, who know Plato, do we, thanks to this knowledge, understand the Gospel better than the apostles?.. This is pride, conceit. Only through a literal reading of the Gospel do we understand its true meaning.

Therefore, Tertullian considered philosophy to be the source of all heresies. In one of his works, he touches on the reasons for the emergence of various heresies, finds the reason in various philosophical teachings and asks the question: why did Christ choose ordinary people as disciples - fishermen, publicans, and did not take philosophers, did not take the Pharisees? “The foolish things of the world” (1 Cor. 1:27) He chose to shame even philosophy itself. …It is from philosophy that heresies themselves receive incitement. Hence the eons, some indefinite forms and the trinity of man in Valentin: he was a Platonist. Hence Marcion’s god, who is better because of his serenity: this one came from the Stoics. And the Epicureans especially insist on the opinion that the soul perishes. And all philosophers are alike in denying the resurrection of the flesh. And where matter is equated with God, there is the teaching of Zeno; where we are talking about the fiery god, Heraclitus appears there... Pathetic Aristotle! He composed for them dialectics - the art of building and destroying, feigned in judgments, resourceful in premises, narrow-minded in proofs, active in wrangling, burdensome even for itself, interpreting everything, but never clarifying anything... Keeping us from them, The apostle especially indicates that one must beware of philosophy when he writes to the Colossians: See to it that no one captivates you with philosophy and empty deception, according to human tradition, contrary to the Providence of the Holy Spirit (cf. Col.: 2, 8)” (On prescription against heretics, 7).

In simplicity of heart

Tertullian utters a famous phrase (words from which the Russian philosopher Lev Shestov even borrowed as the title of his work, “Athens and Jerusalem”): “So, what is Athens to Jerusalem, what is the Academy to the Church, what are heretics to Christians? Our institution is from the portico of Solomon, and he himself conveyed that the Lord must be sought in the simplicity of the heart (Wis. 1, 1).” “In simplicity of heart” is a very important moment for Tertullian. He does not protest against reason - he protests against the abuse, from his point of view, of reason, against excessive intellectuality, excessive learning. God must be sought in the simplicity of the heart, and then God reveals himself to every person, and not just to the philosopher, because the soul is Christian by nature. “Oh, the testimony of the soul, by nature a Christian!” – Tertullian exclaims in one of his works.

True, in another work he writes: “The soul usually becomes a Christian, and is not born one.” But one does not contradict the other, because by nature we are all Christians, that is, it is normal and natural to be a Christian, just as it is normal and natural to think and breathe. However, unfortunately, not everyone becomes real Christians; this requires effort.

But, while verbally abandoning philosophy, Tertullian, without noticing it himself, fell under the influence of the most widespread philosophy at that time - Stoicism. Stoicism was so popular that for many it became not just a philosophy, but a natural worldview. Philosophy, they believed, is the complex syllogisms of Aristotle, these are the ideas of Plato, and Stoicism is not philosophy, but simply a normal, reasonable, everyday view of the world.

I think that for this reason Tertullian accepts other provisions of Stoicism, in particular the doctrine of the complete materiality of everything - even God. And Tertullian finds confirmation of this in the Holy Scriptures. After all, he takes it literally! This means that reading about what God said and the prophet heard, he concludes that the prophet has ears and, accordingly, God has a tongue. Of course, it may not be the same as a person’s. But the fact that everything that exists has a body is obvious to Tertullian.

Our soul is also corporeal - by the way, the Stoics also taught about this: they spoke about different types of matter - about the gross matter of the body and the subtle matter of the soul. And Tertullian says that the soul is subtly corporeal, and finds confirmation of this in the Gospel - for example, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, which describes how the soul of the rich man suffers from thirst, and the soul of Lazarus enjoys the coolness. But can some spiritual, ideal Platonic essence enjoy the coolness? Of course, here is a clear indication of the physicality of our soul!..

Due to the rejection of “excessive philosophizing,” Tertullian retreated to a heresy that was more understandable to him

It is possible that precisely because of the rejection of philosophy, the rejection of the “excessive philosophizing” that existed, as it seemed to Tertullian, in the Church of his day, he retreated to a heresy that was more understandable to him, closer, more strict, closer to the literal understanding of the Holy Scriptures. So, in my opinion, such neglect of philosophy is not in vain. But often an excessive passion for philosophy is not in vain, as the example of Origen shows, which we will discuss in the next conversation.

We meet the outstanding Christian apologist writer as an adult. Relatively little is known about Tertullian’s childhood and adolescence. He was born around 160 in Carthage in the family of a centurion (centurion) of the proconsular troops, in a pagan environment (“We came from your midst,” he addresses the pagans). In his youth, he received the usual education for wealthy people of that time: he graduated from a rhetoric school in Carthage and a special law school. Then he went to Rome, where he acted in court as both a lawyer and a prosecutor, gaining quite wide fame for himself. There is reason to believe that the lawyer of the same name, mentioned in the Pandects (the main component of the Corpus juris civilis, a monument of Roman law from the time of Emperor Justinian, 6th century), is identical. We find information about the life of Tertullian in his own writings and mentions of him by ancient writers - Eusebius Panphilus, Bishop of Caesarea (IV century), and Blessed Jerome († c. 420).

During the Roman period of his life, Tertullian, by his own admission, indulged in all the pagan pleasures of riotous metropolitan life, was a lover of thrills, theatrical and circus shows (gladiator fights), and considered madness. “But sensuality could not satiate and lull the soul, and the wondrous sight of the extraordinary firmness of the martyrs turned the persecutor into a friend of the unjustly persecuted: [around 190–105] Tertullian received Holy Baptism. The following year he married a Christian” (N.V. Savelyev - Rostislavich. Tertullian and his century. St. Petersburg, 1848, p. 5). Returning to his native Carthage, Tertullian left government service; he devoted his leisure time to the study of philosophy and theology. In 195 he was ordained presbyter.

While still at school, Tertullian learned Greek, which he spoke fluently; he knew well the works of some ancient philosophers, lawyers, and physicians, and was fluent in the art of oratory (it was no coincidence that he was compared to Demosthenes). Tertullian dedicated his knowledge and talents received from the Lord to the service of Christianity. Already in the rank of presbyter, he took up active writing. The language of his writings is replete with legal terms: he skillfully uses his knowledge of jurisprudence, exposing pagan judges in violating elementary legality. Defending, Tertullian sometimes uses arguments that were given by Greek apologists, such as his older contemporaries - Tatian or Bishop Theophilus of Antioch. But what was rather chaotic and confusing for them, under the pen of Tertullian, formed into a coherent system, logical and inspiredly convincing. It is unlikely that Emperor Severus (193–211) was aware of the writings of Greek apologists. But we have little doubt that Tertullian’s writings were known to him. A zealous defender of Christianity, he became a defender of the true achievements of Roman society, defended the principles of justice, equality of citizens before the law, freedom of conscience, and respect for the views of others. He loved to teach and instruct, but perhaps even more, he loved to argue and denounce. The proconsul and his council, pagan society, zealots of Old Testament legality, heretics, unworthy clergy - he brought down on everyone the force of his denunciations and all the bitterness of ridicule. His style, excited, uneven, burning, well reflected the paradox of his bold thought and his frantic nature. He minted short formulas of unforgettable beauty and power, and he also dissipated in the repetition of rather monotonous, almost colorless phrases; he could write simply and convincingly, but he left some texts that needed to be solved like riddles, and sometimes he stooped to court twists and chicanery. A man of great and clear mind, he sometimes forgot to turn to him for advice; He perfectly described the life of the Christian community, peaceful and orderly, but he lived without knowing peace himself, alien to all worldly prudence. Tertullian’s rejection of the contemporary Roman (pagan) civilization was deeper than that of the Greek-speaking apologists - Tatian (born about 120) or Bishop Theophilus of Antioch (late 2nd century): “He not only condemns its philosophical schools. .. but also close to the view that civilization in general has spoiled and perverted man, suppressed his natural positive inclinations, building on top of them a whole world of artificial and untrue values. .. Tertullian sees a way out of this situation in cynic simplification and a return to the natural state. However, in his opinion, this state of simplicity and naturalness can be achieved only through the Christian faith, self-knowledge and asceticism” (G.G. Mayorov. Formation of medieval philosophy. Latin Patristics. M., 1979, pp. 111–112).

True faith, and not superstition, Tertullian believed, is always a feat, a breakthrough into the sphere of the spirit; the strength of faith can be directly proportional to the apparent absurdity (absurdity) of its provisions from the point of view of ordinary everyday reason. “I believe because it is absurd” (“credo, quia absurdum”) - this saying is attributed to Tertullian not without reason: corresponding paradoxes can be found in his writings. But the contrast between faith and reason that seems so sharp is removed if we consider them in the context of Revelation, which gives “unreasonable” faith a super-rational meaning. For Divine Revelation is incommensurable with human, rather limited ideas; and the more the truths of Revelation seem incomprehensible and impossible, the more reason there is for belief in their transcendence and truth. Rejecting reason grounded in everyday life, Tertullian also rejected elitist intellectualism, alien to faith: “What do Athens and Jerusalem have in common? At the Academy and the Church? (“De pracscriptione haereticorum”, ch. 7).

This statement is often quoted, reproaching the thinker for obscurantism, even by Christian theologians. At the same time, it is somehow forgotten that Tertullian’s saying is a reminiscence of a much deeper, fundamental thought of the holy Apostle Paul: “But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews, and foolishness to the Greeks, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks, Christ, the God of God.” Strength and God's Wisdom" ().

Tertullian valued human and natural reason, natural common sense very highly (see: De testimonio animae, chapter 3). According to his deep conviction, the human soul, unspoiled by civilization, is Christian by nature: “Let a person begin to listen to the voice of his soul, and then the True God will not be unknown to him” (“De testimonio animae”, Chapter 2). That is why the Lord Jesus Christ chose the apostles not from philosophers and scribes, but from simple fishermen. Any departure from pure faith towards its rationalization and philosophization is fraught with a perversion of Christian teaching and heresy. Therefore, Tertullian devoted so much strength and energy to the criticism of Judaism and Gnosticism. It was no coincidence that he called the synagogues of that time “sources of persecution” of Christians: Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Caesarea (IV century), describes in “Church History” with what joyful haste the Jews collected brushwood for the fire to which the Hieromartyr Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, was sentenced, † 167 (see Theological Works, collection 24, pp. 127–128). Hence the pathos of Tertullian’s famous work “Against the Jews” (“Adversus Judaeos”).

With the evolution of Judaism in the 1st-2nd centuries. The spread of Gnosticism is also closely related. Gnosticism appears during this period as an attempt to find a certain ideological synthesis of various religious and philosophical movements and esoteric traditions, which objectively created the ground for the emergence of a wide variety of heresies.

Tertullian wrote not only against the Gnostics in general, but also against individual Gnostic schools (against the Valentinians, against Hermogenes, against Marcion) with his characteristic passion and ardor. Abstract metaphysics and pure “philosophical” speculation were alien to him: he either ridiculed the Gnostics, or simply forbade them to use the Holy Scriptures and interpret it: there is no need to search and explore when everything has already been found and explained: “Why Athens when there is Jerusalem?”

It was these words that turned out to be fatal: the fanatics of subsequent centuries used them in their campaign against ancient culture in general. Philosophy, which Clement, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of bright, broad mind, considered a gift sent from God to the Hellenes in order to “prepare the way for the Lord,” was declared a relic of paganism. Origen, presbyter of Alexandria, subsequently had to justify himself that he was engaged in “secular sciences” and defend the educational program of the Alexandrian Catechetical School (the first Christian university), into which these sciences were introduced. Speaking about Tertullian’s maximalism, we should also say about his passion for Montanism. In 200–207 Tertullian joined the apocalyptic community, the founder of which was a certain Montanus from Phrygia (according to Eusebius Pamphilus, Montanus began to prophesy in 172, announcing the imminent descent of Heavenly Jerusalem).

Montanism revealed severe ascetic features: it prescribed a more strict spiritual discipline than that accepted by the Church at that time, in particular, intense fasting (dry eating), flight from persecution, second marriage in the event of the death of one of the spouses, etc. were prohibited. Professor I.V. Popov believes that Tertullian’s rigorism could not be satisfied with the degree of moral strictness that characterized the morals of the church majority at that time - and this is the reason for his passion for Montanism (Lecture notes on patrolology. Sergiev Posad, 1916 p. 09).

Let us add that Tertullian was attracted to the Montanist community by the attempt to revive the spirit of apostolic Christianity in the face of the threat of the secularization of the Church. The spiritual enthusiasm and prophecy of the Montanists were internally close to Tertullian, who was inclined to consider them “pneumatics” (“spiritual”), as opposed to ordinary Christians - “psychics” (“spiritual”). It is important not to forget that the Montanists recognized all Christian Sacraments and holidays; there were no dogmatic differences between them and representatives of other Christian communities.

In the truths of the faith, which Tertullian defended in his writings against heretics: Marcion, Valentinus, Hermogenes, Praxeus and others, the Montanists agreed with the Church. Therefore, Tertullian the Montanist, rightly emphasizes Archpriest A.M. Ivantsov-Platonov wrote his works against heretics, remaining completely orthodox. “One can even say more: the Montanists treated the Gnostic and Patripassian heresies with more ardor and passion than the Orthodox... If they can be reproached, it would be more likely for excessive ardor and harshness against heretics than for a lack of zeal for the defense of Christian truth” ( Heresies and schisms of the first three centuries of Christianity. M., 1887, p. 242).

Apparently, Tertullian understood the falsity of the ascetic extremes of the Montanist community. Subsequently, he moved away from the Montanists and founded his own community in Carthage, according to the testimony of Blessed Augustine (“De haeresibus”, cap. LXXXVI). This community had its own temple - a basilica: its remains were annexed to the Church by St. Augustine at the beginning of the 5th century.

Tertullian died at an old age, around 222–223.

The ancient teachers of the Church spoke with great praise of Tertullian's learning and talents and were well acquainted with his creations. The Hieromartyr Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage († 257. Comm. August 31), read the works of Tertullian every day and considered him his teacher (Filaret, Archbishop of Chernigov and Nizhyn. Historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church. Vol. 1. St. Petersburg.. 1859, p. 184 ). Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Caesarea, mentioned him as “one of the most illustrious” (“Ecclesiastical History”, book II, chapter 2), and Blessed Jerome of Stridon († c. 420) said that “in his learning and accuracy Tertullian’s intelligence is superior to others” (“On Famous Men,” ch. 53).

According to prof. L.P. Karsavina, Tertullian is “one of the most striking, irreconcilable and rhetorically fiery opponents of gnosis... one of the most characteristic representatives and even founders of Western Christianity...” (Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church. Disclosure of Orthodoxy in their creations. Paris, 1920, p. 61). “Tertullian is not only a Christian thinker in the broad sense, but also an ecclesiastical thinker,” emphasizes G.G. Mayorov (op. cit., p. 116). Archpriest Georgy Florovsky believes that the ancient church custom of contrasting the Church and heresy, first of all, as love and discord, communication and loneliness, used by A.S. Khomyakov, goes back to Bishop Irenaeus and Tertullian of Lyon (Paths of Russian Theology. Paris, 1937, p. 278).

The influence of a on Byzantine (Greek-speaking) theology was, however, relatively small. This is explained, first of all, by the fact that he wrote in Latin. In addition, the reputation of a “montanist” created a certain prejudice towards him. And, naturally, one should not look for dogmatic certainty from him: Tertullian lived before the era of the Ecumenical Councils, when the very language of theology was just being created.

As a writer he stands at the origins of church Latin. Being a bilingual writer, equally fluent in two languages ​​- Greek and Latin, he was able to find or create equivalent new formations in the Latin language to convey complex theological terms from Greek.

According to the calculations of the German researcher G. Gendler, he created 982 new terms in Latin (“Von Tertullian bis zu Ambrosius.” Berlin, 1978, S. 22). It should be especially noted that the origin of the central Christian term Trinity (from the Latin Tria†unites) goes back to Tertullian. “Many of his ideas,” notes V.V. Bychkov, served as a model, a “rule” (regula fidei) for his Latin followers right up to [Blessed] Augustine” (Aesthetics of Late Antiquity. M., 1981, p. 48). It is also worthy of attention that Tertullian writes with reverence about the Mother of God - the Virgin (“Apologeticum”. Ch. 21) long before the holy Cappadocian fathers.

Tertullian's anthropology is of significant interest to modern theological thought. In his works, he sought answers to many cardinal questions of existence: about the nature and origin of the soul, about the purpose of man, about his future (posthumous) life, etc. We can say that the inquisitive philosopher Tertullian acted as a “brilliant questioner” of antiquity. Unlike later “questioners” closer to our time, such as Lev Shestov, Tertullian had the deepest faith and inner conviction that he was right; asking, he answered.

The soul, according to Tertullian, is “the breath of God” (“Dei flatus”) (cf.:). In this matter he follows Plato, for whom the soul is “divine, rational, monotonous and indivisible” (“Phaedo.” 80a). However, Plato's unconditional spiritualism is alien to him. Based on the testimony of the Holy Scriptures about the relative corporeality and possible (under special conditions) visibility of the soul (;), he teaches that the soul is a “corpus sui generis” (“body of its kind”), has its own appearance (habitus, effigies), a boundary (terminus), three dimensions (“On the Soul,” ch. 8). Tertullian considers Plato’s theories about the pre-existence of souls “fabulous” and resolutely rejects (ibid., chapters 20 and 27), as well as the opinion that the soul is created only at the very moment of birth. Citing references to Holy Scripture (, etc.). Tertullian argues that the development of the soul is connected with the growth of the body. The body for Tertullian has great value, it is “cardo salulis” (“anchor of salvation”) for the soul; “The body is washed [in the baptismal font] so that the soul may be cleansed of stains; the body is anointed so that the soul is sanctified; the body is marked so that the soul is strengthened; the body is overshadowed by the laying on of hands, so that the soul is sanctified by the Spirit...” (“On the Resurrection of the Flesh,” chapter 8). Tertullian does not teach about the destruction of the body, but about its change (demutatio) in the life of the next century, when the body will be resurrected in transformed flesh.

During his lifetime, Tertullian was famous both among Christians and pagans. Death did not destroy this fame: of the works of Latin writers, only his “Apology” was soon awarded translation into Greek. Time has erased his mistakes and errors; In the grateful memory of posterity, he remained a courageous fighter for, fearless in word and pen, defending eternal truth.

* * *

Tertullian’s “Apology” (other Russian names for the same work: “Apologetic”, “Apologetics”) is perhaps the most famous of his works. “The question of the time of origin of “Apologetics” has been dealt with by as many scientists as have not dealt with any other question related to this work, and their opinions on this issue are different” (I. Shcheglov. Apologetician of Tertullian. – “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy.” 1887. No. 9, p. 3). Some researchers believe that the Apology was written by Tertullian shortly before his death, but the majority is inclined to believe that this work dates back to 197–199. N. Shcheglov convincingly proves that the “Apology” was written in 199–200, considering the following words from chapter 35 of this work to be the key to resolving this issue: “Where do Cassia, Nigra and Albina come from? Where did those who lay in wait for the emperor “between two laurels” come from? Where do those who practiced on the palaestra come from to strangle him? Where did those who burst into the palace with weapons in their hands come from? They are more daring than all the Sigerians and Parthenians... And now every day they expose members and supporters of criminal parties: the trees were cut down, but the shoots survived” (cited new translation).

European scientists Baronius and Mosheim recognized the mentioned attackers, who are discussed further in Tertullian, as followers of Albinus, and Tillemon, Lumper and Boehringer as followers of Niger. Niger was killed in 194 at the Battle of Les, and his followers continued to resist until 196, until they were defeated in Syria by Emperor Septimius Severus. The persecution of their remnant falls on the years 199–200, when, in all likelihood, the Apology was written. There is reason to believe that around 204 Tertullian undertook a journey from Carthage to Rome, where he presented to the Senate his “Apology” - an eloquent word in defense of Christians.

This polemical work of Tertullian brought the author well-deserved fame and became widely known in the medieval world. Suffice it to say that “Apology” was among the printed publications during the “cradle” period of book printing: it was published in the original language in Venice in 1483 and 1494, in Paris in 1500 and 1502. In the XVII-XVIII centuries. Editions of the Apology appeared translated into various European languages: French (1636), English (1655), Spanish (1657), German (1682), Italian (1756) and others.

The first translation into Russian known to us belongs to Bishop Afanasy (Ivanov) of Kolomna and Tula (M., ed. Synodal Printing House, 1802).

K.M. Mazurin, one of the subsequent translators of the Apology, wrote about this translation: “A very accurate translation of Apologetics, although, of course, outdated in language” (Tertullian and his works. M., 1893, p. XXVI).

In 1847, a translation of “Apologetics” by E. Karneev was published in St. Petersburg. This translation was most likely made with the French intermediary translation in mind; in places it is inaccurate, in others it is a transcription; The phrases and insertions missing from the Latin original, added to the French translation of Genoude, are also present in the translation by E. Karneev. This translation has certain literary merits; N. Savelyev-Rostislavich in his review calls it “wonderful” (op. cit., p. 36), Archpriest A.M. Ivantsov-Platonov – “quite expressive” (Heresies and schisms of the first three centuries of Christianity. M., 1877, p. 235).

“If you, the primates of the Roman Empire, in an open and elevated place, and almost at the very top of the city for the presiding judgment, cannot clearly examine and examine before everyone what exactly is the cause of Christians,” Bishop Athanasius begins the translation of the Apology, and continues: then allow the truth, even through the secret path of silent writing, to reach your ears. She doesn't ask for anything less about her business; because she is not surprised at her condition, knowing that she is a stranger on earth, and that she conveniently finds enemies among strangers. And yet she has a birth, a home, hope, grace, and dignity in heaven, while at the same time she desires one thing, so that they do not condemn her without knowing about her. What do the laws that rule in their kingdom lose if she is listened to? But will their power be more glorified by this, so that they will condemn even the truth they have heard?” (Quinta Septima Florent Tertullian Defense of Christians. M., 1802, pp. 2–3).

We present below the same fragment translated by E. Karneev, K.M. Mazurin, N. Shcheglova and, finally, a new translation. Even such a very limited comparison will help us understand the differences in the stylistic manner of the translators and some of the features of their translation.

From the translation by E. Karneev:

“If you, the supreme rulers of the Roman Empire, pronouncing judgment publicly, occupying the highest places in the state, do not have the power in the eyes of the people to carry out accurate research regarding Christians ... then at least let the truth reach your ears through my modest written explanations . does not require mercy, because persecution does not surprise her. Alien on earth, she has no doubt about finding enemies. Daughter of heaven, she has her throne there, there she finds her hopes, her due trust and her glory. Here she wants only one thing: not to be condemned before she is heard. What fear can you have about your laws, allowing truth to defend itself in the seat of their dominion?” (Tertullian’s works. Part 1. St. Petersburg, 1848, pp. 1–2).

From the translation by K. M. Mazurin:

“If you, the authorities of the Roman Empire, do not wish to allow Christians to defend their cause before the tribunal, where you sit on the most elevated place of the city for the public administration of the court; if, out of fear or shame, you deny the right of every accused person to answer his accuser... then let the truth reach your ears, albeit in a secret way with the help of silent letters! She does not ask for mercy, because she is not surprised by her situation. She knows that she lives on earth, and that among strangers it is always easy to meet enemies; and as for the rest, it has its origin, root soil, hope, love, glory in heaven. All she wants is for people not to judge her without knowing. What will the laws ruling the empire lose if the defense of truth is heard? Or perhaps the power of the latter will be revealed with greater brilliance if they condemn the truth without hearing it?” (Tertullian and his creations. M., 1893, p. 6).

From N. Shcheglov’s translation:

“If you, representatives of the Roman authorities, presiding in an open and high place, almost at the very top of the state, in order to conduct a trial, are not allowed to clearly examine and personally examine what the actual matter of Christians is... then let the truth be allowed reach your ears, at least by the secret path of silent letters. She does not beg for anything for her cause, because she is not surprised at her situation. She knows that she lives on earth as a stranger, that it is easy for her to find enemies among strangers; but at the same time she also knows that she has her origin, home, hope, self-love, honor in heaven. Now all she wants is for people not to judge her without recognizing her. What will the laws ruling in their kingdom lose if they listen to her?” (Creations of Q. Sept. Flor. Tertullian. Part 1. Kyiv, 1910, pp. 81–82).

From the new translation:

“If you, representatives of the Roman state, standing in full view of the helm of power, to create justice and openly conduct investigations and proceedings; If it is impossible for you to find out what is wrong with Christians, let these silent lines convey the truth to your ears in a roundabout way. She doesn't ask for anything for herself; Nothing in her situation surprises her. She knows that she is a wanderer on earth, that enemies can easily be found among strangers, that her homeland and her abode are in Heaven; She hopes in Heaven, where there is both mercy and love. She wants one thing: don’t judge her without knowing anything about her. Listen to her: what will be lost from the laws, from their unlimited power in the state, if they listen to her?”

By comparing these different translations, one can be convinced that each of them in its own way enriches the perception of the original, helps to grasp its semantic overtones, and penetrate deeper into the author’s intention. The last translation, with all its formal laconicism and lapidary style, has, perhaps, the greatest semantic capacity and significance: here obviously that wonderful metamorphosis took place, that crystallization of meaning, when each phrase, even taken out of context, does not lose its transparency and depth.

In conclusion, we present the full text of the preface to the first Russian edition of Tertullian’s Apology (M., 1802), which has long become a bibliographic rarity. The preface is not signed, but, in all likelihood, belongs to the author of the translation - Bishop of Kolomna and Tula (later Archbishop of Novorossiysk and Dnieper) Afanasy (Ivanov).

* * *

“Tertullian Quintus Septimius Florent, theologian, a native of the city of Carthage in Africa, from a noble family, a man most enlightened in various sciences, famous around the year 200 A.D. The story about him is this. He was a presbyter of Carthage, born of a pagan father who served as a centurion in an infantry regiment under the command of the Proconsul, the governor of the province. Soon after accepting the Christian faith, with his excellent talents, he became its zealous defender. He was very skilled in Philosophy, laws, History and pagan Theology. He was famous for his eloquence, understood the Holy Scriptures very well and was distinguished by his piety. In his young years, according to Jerome, he wrote a book about the concerns of marriage and, a few years later, about objections to the claims of heretics (de praescriptionibus contra Haereticos), of which a list was composed from the very beginning of the Church. Then, in order to restrain Severov’s fury against Christians, persecution and stop the mouths of slanderers, he published in Rome a very learned Apology, or defensive argument, which, during the most cruel city ruler in the Parthian land from Plautian, raged against Christians, in the absence of the emperor, concealing his name, he inscribed it to the city governors and judges. He also published other works against apostates and heretics, Marciopites, Valentinians, Jews and others, whom he struck with the lightning of his eloquence and the power of his arguments more than he convinced. This gave Vincent the opportunity to say: Tertullian has so many words, so many thoughts; and how many thoughts, so many victories. But, unfortunately for the entire Christian Church, this famous teacher fell into some errors. However, this Apology

Sigerius is a wrestler with whom Emperor Commodus loved to train. He subsequently strangled Commodus (193); Parthenius is a nobleman who enjoyed the favor of Emperor Domitian, but took part in a conspiracy that led to the death of the ruler (96).

Saint Vincent of Lyria (lat. Vincent of Lerans, † before 450, commemorated May 24) is a monastic theologian, author of the spiritual instruction “Commonitorum” (under the pseudonym “Peregrinus”).