Ivan Reversov
Apologists
Defenders of Christianity
Reversov IP Defenders of Christianity (Apologists). - St. Petersburg, 1898
Reissues: St. Petersburg: Satis, 2002.; Russian pilgrim, 2007 (title from this edition)
.
Professor of the Kazan Theological Academy Ivan Petrovich Reversov was known at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries as a researcher of ancient church writing, however, in addition to purely academic works that reveal the significance of apologetics in the history of the Ancient Church (Essay on Western apologetic literature of the 2nd and 3rd centuries (Study from the field of ancient church writing) Kaz., 1892;), I.P. Reversov published books that played a significant role in Russian education. His "History Textbook" and "Notes on New History" went through many editions, which were used by several generations of high school students.
Table of contents
Conditions for the emergence of apologetics
Tasks and methods of ancient apologetics
The Significance of Ancient Apologetics
St. Justin the Philosopher
Apology I
Apology II
Conversation with Tryphon the Jew
Tatian
Speech against the Hellenes
Athenagoras
Athenagoras the Athenian philosopher Christian petition for Christians
Athenagoras the Athenian Christian philosopher on the resurrection of the dead
St. Meliton, Ep. Sardinian
Excerpt 1st
Excerpt 2
The speech of Meliton the Philosopher, which he held before the emperor Antoninus, to teach him the knowledge of God and show him the path of truth
St. Theophilus of Antioch
Book one
book two
Book Three
Ermiy
Hermias the Philosopher mockery of pagan philosophers
Tertullian
Apologetic
To the nations
to the scapula
About the testimony of the soul
Against the Jews
Mark Minucius Felix
Octavius
Conditions for the emergence of apologetics
The oldest Christian apologetics, i.e. literary defense of Christianity, was caused by those unfavorable conditions in which the Church of Christ was in the first three centuries of its existence.
It was a difficult time for the Church, when Judaism, and after it Greco-Roman paganism, strained every effort to humiliate, weaken and, if possible, destroy Christianity, not embarrassed to achieve this goal by any means, even the most cruel and unjust. There were many reasons that created such a hostile and unparalleled attitude towards Christianity in the history of religions, but the most important of them was that special character of Christianity, by virtue of which it declared itself the only true and saving religion, the religion of the universal (universal), having to replace all other religions. . Naturally, such a claim to world significance should have caused the most bitter hostility towards it on the part of peoples who valued the existence of their religions and believed in their immutability and eternity,
The Jews were the first to pay attention to Christianity, since the first Christians came out of their midst and sent their sermon about Christ to them before other peoples, showing them the fulfillment in His person of promises and prophecies about the Messiah long and passionately awaited by the Jews. But the vast majority of the Jews rejected this sermon, because they, with their deeply sensitive nature and under the influence of the unfavorable conditions of their political life, distorted the true concept of the Messiah. According to them, He should appear in the form of a glorious, warlike king who will conquer the whole world under the rule of the Jews and thus reward them for many years of humiliation. Could the majority of Jews, therefore, recognize as the promised Messiah Jesus of Nazareth, who came from a poor family, lived under the most modest conditions, in appearance who did not have any signs of royal dignity and who ended his life on the cross along with two robbers? On the other hand, the recognition of the crucified Jesus as the Messiah would be tantamount to self-condemnation for the Jews, since it was only at their insistent desire, and not at the request of Roman law, that Pilate put Him to death on the cross. Consciousness, however, in its error, and even more so such a fatal one, is not easy for everyone, but for the self-conceited and stubborn Jews in every error, it was especially difficult. It was more comforting to think that they themselves did not commit a terrible crime, bringing their Messiah to death, but that the new religion preaches a completely false doctrine, which therefore needs to be destroyed in every possible way. Finally, The main reason for the Jewish hostility to Christianity was the Jewish and Christian point of view on the law of Moses, which was different to the point of opposition. The Jews greatly valued this law, considering it to have the same eternal existence as Judaism itself, and the only means of salvation. Adherence to it was so strong that even the Jews who converted to Christianity, people who, therefore, somewhat renounced the narrowness of Jewish concepts, very often insisted on the need to observe it not only for natural Jews, but also for converted pagans. [1] .
If the Jews who converted to Christianity looked at the law of Moses in this way, then those who remained in Judaism valued it even more, insisted even more fanatically on its eternal existence and significance. Meanwhile, Christianity declared that the law of Moses with the advent of the Savior had lost its significance, that, consequently, Judaism had ended its historical role and should give way to the Christian religion. This last circumstance most of all armed the Jews against Christianity, so that they became the very first and bitterest enemies of the Christians. Before others, their hatred was incurred by the apostles as zealous and fearless preachers of the word of God, who openly taught about the divinity of Jesus Christ and His resurrection from the dead, and by this preaching of theirs, as well as by numerous miracles, converted the people to Christianity, sometimes in droves. It is quite clear that both the sermon that directly or indirectly denounced the murderers of the Savior and the results of this sermon were hated by the fanatical Jews. Therefore, they resorted to various means to force the apostles not to divulge their doctrine. They repeatedly forbade them to preach about the crucified Jesus, and when simple prohibitions did not work, they put them in prison (Acts 4, 3; 5, 18), subjected them to corporal punishment (5, 40) and even planned to kill them several times (5, 33; 9, 23-24), but the apostles miraculously or accidentally each time got rid of the danger that threatened them. Like the apostles, other believers were persecuted. Once the persecution of them took on such a dangerous character that they, saving their lives, scattered from Jerusalem to "different places in Judea and Samaria" (8, 1). Future Apostle Paul then still Saul, “breathing with threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord” (9, 1); “He tormented the Church, entering houses and dragging men and women, he gave them to prison” (8, 3). In the history of the apostolic age there were even cases when the Jews, in a fit of fanatical hatred for Christians, martyred the followers of Christ. So, Archdeacon Stephen (7, 58-59) and the first Bishop of Jerusalem, Jacob the Righteous (Eusebius, "Church History", book II, ch. 23), were stoned. The hatred of the Jews for Christians was so obvious and well-known that King Herod, to please them, executed Jacob, the brother of the Lord (Acts 12:2). In the age of the apostolic men, according to the legend, the apostolic husband Barnabas, one of the main companions and collaborators of the Apostle Paul, was martyred by the Cypriot Jews. But God kept His Church. The Jews could not cause especially great harm to Christianity, because they themselves were dependent people, having fallen under the rule of the Romans even before R. X.. From A.D. 70, after the Jewish revolt, the rights of the Jews were even more limited by the Roman authorities and they became even more powerless. Killing Christians was against the law; for them the Jews could be liable, and therefore such murders were rare. Deprived of the opportunity to independently persecute and oppress Christians, the Jews in impotent rage resorted to a shameful means - to slander and incite the Roman authorities and people. According to St. Justin the Philosopher, the Jews “sent chosen people from Jerusalem to all the earth to divulge that a godless Christian heresy had appeared, and to spread slander against Christians, which are usually repeated by all those who do not know Christianity” (“Conversation with Trypho the Jew”, ch. 17, cf. ch. 108). Finally, the time came when this also proved useless, since paganism itself, and apart from Jewish incitement, turned its attention to Christianity and hated it.
Paganism, which had all the material means to inflict enormous harm on Christianity, was therefore a more dangerous enemy for it than Judaism, but due to the action of God's Providence, the pagans turned their attention to Christianity even when the number of Christians increased significantly, when Christianity was relatively strong for the struggle. with a terrible enemy.
Among the pagans, Christians were primarily noticed by people whose interests were directly affected by the spread of Christianity, such as all those to whom paganism gave their daily bread - idol makers, temple architects, sculptors, painters, suppliers of victims, fortune-tellers, and especially, of course, priests. With the spread of Christianity, the demand for their knowledge and works decreased, and at the same time their earnings also decreased, and therefore they naturally had to hate Christianity, which caused them material damage, thus affecting their most sensitive place. Feeding malice towards him, they, like the Jews, began to incite the people against Christians, resulting in frequent persecution of Christians. According to the book of the Acts of the Apostles, the first hostile uprising of the people against the Christians was initiated in Ephesus by a silversmith, Demetrius, who made small silver temples of Artemis (19, 24-40). The more time passed, the more noticeably the number of idolaters decreased, the more people interested in this hated Christians and looked for opportunities to avenge their losses on them.
Further, people began to notice Christianity, to whom, if it did not cause any losses or any other material harm, then, in any case, it seemed strange, sometimes worthy only of contempt, and in other cases - censure and hatred. From the outside, according to the social position of the members of the Christian church, it seemed contemptible. Indeed, Christianity, which promised comfort in the future for humiliation and calamity in the present life, taught about the equality before God of all people, regardless of their wealth or nobility of origin, preached that in the Kingdom of God there is no difference between a slave and a free, most likely it was inculcated among downtrodden and destitute people, for whom real life represented only hardship and torment and did not give any comfort. These were mostly small workers, barely earning a living, and especially slaves, people completely powerless, who were completely dependent on the arbitrariness and even the whim of their masters. A wealthy and noble pagan looked at such people with contempt, as miserable dregs of society, often not recognizing their human dignity. Their belonging to Christianity gave him reason to think that the very religion of their low dignity, if it is professed by such people. Caecilius in Minucius Felix's Octavius calls them people of "a miserable, despicable sect who recruit followers from the very dirt of the people into their impious society, from gullible women who are deluded by the frivolity of their sex" (ch. 8). Celsus scoffs at the fact that "various woolen workers, shoemakers, leather workers, the most uneducated,
In addition, the first preachers of Christianity came from Judea, they were even considered Jewish sectarians, and this also did not hinder Christianity, because the Jews did not enjoy respect among the pagans because they themselves, as God's chosen people, looked down on paganism and, if possible, they kept aloof from him: they did not buy bread, oil, wine and other items from the pagans, did not accept them as witnesses, etc.
If the social position of Christian society evoked only a contemptuous attitude towards it in the pagans, then the life and teachings of Christians, misunderstood by the pagans, who did not penetrate into their innermost essence, but judged them only by hearsay, aroused unkind feelings in the pagans. So, for example, the pagans did not understand the meaning of the secret meetings of Christians somewhere in the catacombs or in general in any hidden places and, on the basis of the rumors spread by the ill-wishers of Christianity, interpreted them in a bad way. Unwilling to understand that the secrecy of Christians was forced in order to protect their prayer meetings from the crude intrusion of pagans into them, they thought that the secrecy of these meetings serves as a cover for the vices or crimes of Christians - debauchery, infanticide, etc. In the present case, the rumor had for itself, as it were, some probability, since the Christians themselves spoke about love suppers (agapas), about the slaughter of a lamb, about eating flesh and blood, and whole legends about the immorality and criminality of Christians were created from incomprehensible phrases. In addition, there were Christian sects, for example, the Nicolaitans, Carpocratians and others, in which depravity was legalized as one of the means of mortifying the flesh, and the pagans did not know how to distinguish good Christians from bad ones, and did not give themselves this trouble, accusing all Christians indiscriminately. On the other hand, as new evidence of the moral licentiousness of Christians, the pagans interpreted the love of Christians for each other, their calling each other brothers and sisters, their brotherly kisses. about eating flesh and blood, and from incomprehensible phrases whole legends about the immorality and criminality of Christians were created. In addition, there were Christian sects, for example, the Nicolaitans, Carpocratians and others, in which depravity was legalized as one of the means of mortifying the flesh, and the pagans did not know how to distinguish good Christians from bad ones, and did not give themselves this trouble, accusing all Christians indiscriminately. On the other hand, as new evidence of the moral licentiousness of Christians, the pagans interpreted the love of Christians for each other, their calling each other brothers and sisters, their brotherly kisses. about eating flesh and blood, and from incomprehensible phrases whole legends about the immorality and criminality of Christians were created. In addition, there were Christian sects, for example, the Nicolaitans, Carpocratians and others, in which depravity was legalized as one of the means of mortifying the flesh, and the pagans did not know how to distinguish good Christians from bad ones, and did not give themselves this trouble, accusing all Christians indiscriminately. On the other hand, as new evidence of the moral licentiousness of Christians, the pagans interpreted the love of Christians for each other, their calling each other brothers and sisters, their brotherly kisses. in which debauchery was legalized as one of the means of mortifying the flesh, and the pagans were not able to distinguish good Christians from bad ones, and they did not give themselves this trouble, accusing all Christians indiscriminately. On the other hand, as new evidence of the moral licentiousness of Christians, the pagans interpreted the love of Christians for each other, their calling each other brothers and sisters, their brotherly kisses. in which debauchery was legalized as one of the means of mortifying the flesh, and the pagans were not able to distinguish good Christians from bad ones, and they did not give themselves this trouble, accusing all Christians indiscriminately. On the other hand, as new evidence of the moral licentiousness of Christians, the pagans interpreted the love of Christians for each other, their calling each other brothers and sisters, their brotherly kisses.
As for the Christian doctrine, it seemed to the pagans either strange, or repulsive, or directly hated, as a deviation from the legal norms. It seemed strange to pagans that Christians consider God to be an exclusively spiritual being and, worshiping Him, have neither temples, nor images of a deity, nor victims, while Greco-Roman paganism imagined the gods as humanoid beings (anthropomorphism) and considered worshiping them possible only under visible images (under the guise of idols), she considered sacrifices a necessary accessory of worship, and supplied her piety in the construction of many and magnificent temples. The pagan Caecilius, for example, says: "Why do they (Christians) have no temples, no altars, no generally accepted images?" (Mark Minucius Felix, Octavius, ch. 10). The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ was even worse accepted by the pagans. The pagans reproached the Christians for what they considered to be God a man betrayed by a shameful, slavish execution on the cross. Not understanding the salvific significance of the sufferings on the cross and the death of Jesus Christ, the pagans saw in them only a punishment for some misdeeds. According to them, Christ was either a villain, or rather, a rebel, like many others who appeared in Judea after its conquest by the Romans, and the authorities punished Him with the most shameful execution to frighten others and to establish public peace. There are also legends about this. According to Hierocles, Jesus Christ, expelled from Judea, recruited a gang of 900 people and was engaged in robberies (Lactantius, "Divine Instructions", book 5, ch. 3). A repulsive impression on the pagans was also made by that Christians venerate the instrument of shameful execution - the cross. This convinced them that the cult of Christians fully corresponds to their reverence for God as a man-villain. “So,” says Cecilius, “they have altars, decent for villains and robbers, and honor what they themselves deserve” (“Octavius”, ch. 9). The cynical rumor added further that they worshiped both the head of an ass and even worse objects ...
No matter how strange and even repulsive the religion of Christians and their objects of worship seemed to the pagans, however, the pagans could still somehow reconcile with them, since there were many unsightly things in the pagan religions, but there was one circumstance that inevitably forced the pagans to be hostile to Christianity . Although the pagans themselves at this time did not all and not always sincerely believe in their gods and reverently honor them, nevertheless they at least officially considered it their duty to recognize the gods and observe external forms of worship. For the Roman pagans, in particular, this was very important, since their religion was closely connected with the state and the prosperity of the latter was directly dependent on the existence and steadfastness of the former. As a result, Christians, who denied pagan gods, as false, moving away from serving them and not taking part in solemn festivities in honor of them, by this they simultaneously offended both the religious and national feelings of the Romans: they seemed harmful atheists, since the pagans did not consider the Christian God to be God, they seemed enemies of the nation, if not included in her interests. In addition, the Romans had a superstitious belief, formed over the centuries, that disrespect for their gods entails divine punishment in the form of various state and social misfortunes. In the first centuries of Christianity, there were indeed many such misfortunes in the Roman Empire, and the pagans naturally considered the Christians responsible for them, insulting the gods with their disrespect for them. On this basis, especially stubborn and bitter hatred of Christians was mainly created. Therefore, sometimes it was enough for one skillful incitement, especially from clever priests, at the moment of some kind of excitement of passions, for a dull hostility towards Christians to break through in an effort to destroy them, to demand their execution. “Down with the atheists”, “down with the Christians”, “Christians to the lions, Christians to the fire!” - the frenzied crowd shouted during folk festivals, among circus performances, or about public misfortunes. There were times when the authorities yielded to the demands of the mob, and sometimes she personally dealt with the hated Christians. According to Tertullian, the crowd did not even spare the corpses of Christians, tearing them out and blaspheming them. However, before the 2nd century AD, there were few cases of execution of Christians at the request of the crowd. And common sense and respect for the law made Roman rulers more likely to deviate than to fulfill the desire of the people. But this continued only until the Roman government paid due attention to the Christians and until Christianity was brought under the influence of old and new laws that were hostile to it.
From the beginning of the second century A.D. the situation of Christianity has changed for the worse, since a new and, at the same time, the most dangerous has joined its former enemies. Until that time, the Roman government paid no attention to Christianity as an insignificant Jewish sect, which, due to its insignificance, both quantitatively and qualitatively, could not arouse any attitude towards itself other than contempt, and in any case could not seem dangerous to such firmly established institutions like the Roman state and its state religion. In addition, fortunately for Christianity, in the first period of its spread in the Roman Empire, the throne was occupied by bad emperors, who, busy with their eternal affairs more than state affairs, could not pay due attention to Christianity and understand its significance. By the end of the first century, circumstances had changed. Christianity made too rapid progress, penetrating into all strata of society, not excluding the highest ones. The Christian society numbered thousands of its members even in Rome itself, not to mention other cities of the empire. Along with this, we see the best emperors on the Roman throne, who delved into all state needs, sought to strengthen the state both from the outside and from the inside and give it the brilliance of the flourishing period of the republic. Such emperors could not fail to notice the extraordinary success of Christian preaching and the multiplication of Christians. They had to make sure that Christianity is far from being a simple and safe Jewish sect for the state. From the numerous cases of clashes between pagans and Christians, little by little the universal character of Christianity became clear, who was supposed to convince the government that Christianity threatened to undermine the national religion and the state system closely connected with it. Having every reason to cherish both one and the other, and even making every effort to strengthen them, the government understood that now it was impossible, as before, to ignore Christianity and do without certain relations towards it, undoubtedly hostile. Therefore, the government either placed Christians under existing laws that were unfavorable to Christianity, or issued new ones specifically directed against it. that now it is impossible, as before, to leave Christianity unattended and to do without certain attitudes towards it, undoubtedly hostile. Therefore, the government either placed Christians under existing laws that were unfavorable to Christianity, or issued new ones specifically directed against it. that now it is impossible, as before, to leave Christianity unattended and to do without certain attitudes towards it, undoubtedly hostile. Therefore, the government either placed Christians under existing laws that were unfavorable to Christianity, or issued new ones specifically directed against it.
First of all, from the Roman point of view, Christianity, as not sanctioned by Roman law, was an unlawful religion (religio illicita), which, therefore, had no right to exist. True, Rome was notable for its wide religious tolerance towards all religions, allowing all the peoples subject to it to freely practice the cults established among them, no matter what character they differed in, even as wild and frantic as the worship of Bacchus and Cybele, and as gloomy as the cult of the Persian Mithras. It was allowed to send these cults in Rome itself. According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, "people who belonged to a thousand nationalities come to the city (Rome) and worship their native gods here according to their foreign laws." Even Judaism was no exception among other religions. The Jews enjoyed the right to worship their God everywhere, including in Rome. The state only obligated strangers to respect the Roman cult, not to impose their religious beliefs on Roman citizens, to celebrate their rites modestly, without public proof, somewhere on the outskirts of Rome. Roman tolerance went even further. The state itself accepted foreign cults. The gods of all countries and peoples subordinate to Rome were gradually accepted into the Roman pantheon, one after another, and the native Romans were not forbidden to worship any of them, but only under the indispensable condition to keep at the same time the domestic state cult and give it preference over foreign ones. without public proof, somewhere on the outskirts of Rome. Roman tolerance went even further. The state itself accepted foreign cults. The gods of all countries and peoples subordinate to Rome were gradually accepted into the Roman pantheon, one after another, and the native Romans were not forbidden to worship any of them, but only under the indispensable condition to keep at the same time the domestic state cult and give it preference over foreign ones. without public proof, somewhere on the outskirts of Rome. Roman tolerance went even further. The state itself accepted foreign cults. The gods of all countries and peoples subordinate to Rome were gradually accepted into the Roman pantheon, one after another, and the native Romans were not forbidden to worship any of them, but only under the indispensable condition to keep at the same time the domestic state cult and give it preference over foreign ones.
For all that, Rome could not allow the existence of Christianity and had to persecute it as an unlawful religion. The exclusive attitude towards Christianity was explained by the exceptional position of Christianity itself, which differed too sharply from all ancient religions and, in the opinion of the government, could not be brought under a common scale with them. Allowing both foreigners and Romans to worship whatever gods they like, and even accepting them into their own pantheon, the state knew that it allowed the veneration of national gods, and this was very important from the Roman point of view. Respecting their gods for the fact that they allegedly contributed to the glory and power of Rome, the Romans also saw in foreign gods the patrons of those peoples who revered them. Therefore, with superstitious fear, they were afraid to offend these gods, so as not to incur their wrath. On this basis, even the Jewish religion, which is so different from all religions, was considered permissible among them. It can be further assumed that the Romans were inclined to think that the foreign pagan gods were essentially similar to their own, only they had different names and appeared in a different form. In relation to Christianity, they could not be guided by such considerations. The Christian religion was not national, since it was not tied to any particular people, like the pagan and Jewish religions. She did not even have behind her the authority of antiquity, which would in any way reconcile with her existence, since in the eyes of the Romans antiquity was honorable and worthy of respect. The Christian God has not declared himself in any way, his worshipers suffer a bitter fate. Therefore, there is nothing to fear from Him, and there is no need to stand on ceremony with Christians, since they can be exterminated without fear of incurring the wrath of their God. On the other hand, foreigners respectfully treated the Roman cult, did not attempt to humiliate and defame it, while the natural Romans, who professed a foreign cult, were obliged to honor the native gods and really honored them. Christians, no matter what nation they belong to, alone among all subjects did not comply with this requirement of the Roman law. They not only refused to worship the Roman gods, but also blasphemously (from the Roman point of view) spoke of them as false gods, sometimes going so far as to assert that all paganism is the work of demons. Under these conditions, one could not expect the government to treat Christianity with the usual tolerance; it would be quite surprising if it
Seeing the Christians' disrespect for the Roman gods, the government could also charge them with a public accusation that the state was suffering misfortunes through the fault of Christians. Stated by the government, this accusation could bring even greater persecution to Christians than the same accusation leveled against Christians by the people.
Nor could the government be indifferent to Christianity's claim to universal significance. Its desire to become a single all-encompassing religion was tantamount to the destruction of all paganism, including Roman. Without contradicting the primordial and dearest convictions of the entire Roman people, the government could not allow this. Religion was too important for the state. After all, according to the Romans, the state owed its power to her, since the Roman gods turned out to be stronger than other gods. She, therefore, served as a pledge and security for his further glorious existence. Therefore, the state side of religion was always highly valued by every patriotic Roman, and any inclinations to shake its authority were protected by law. By an unfortunate coincidence for Christians, the clash between Christianity and paganism took place at the most unfavorable moment for the first. If, in general, the law and the government patronized Roman paganism and protected it, then from the time of the empire deliberate efforts were made not only to preserve the state significance of the Roman religion, but also to present it all with a strong vital appearance. Government support for religion was the more intense, the more the internal weakness of the Roman religion was felt, which no longer satisfied the religious feelings of the pagan and did not resist the court of philosophical and historical criticism, as a result of which an almost universal disbelief in the Roman gods appeared. Trying to revive paganism and give it an external brilliance, the emperors aimed to mask or paralyze this unbelief. Thus, Augustine restored churches that had fallen into disrepair during civil wars, built several new ones, resumed religious holidays, giving them a magnificent and solemn appearance, and tried to revive ancient traditions. Even such emperors as Tiberius, Claudius and Nero, who did not particularly care for the welfare of the state, considered it necessary to support the Roman religion by laws and by their own example. As for the best emperors, like Vespasian and members of the Antonina family, they showed unconditional respect for the national religion in view of its importance for the state. Christians who did not appreciate this religion and spoke of its destruction were enemies of the state, who did not deserve any indulgence. He resumed religious holidays, giving them a magnificent and solemn look, and tried to revive ancient traditions. Even such emperors as Tiberius, Claudius and Nero, who did not particularly care for the welfare of the state, considered it necessary to support the Roman religion by laws and by their own example. As for the best emperors, like Vespasian and members of the Antonina family, they showed unconditional respect for the national religion in view of its importance for the state. Christians who did not appreciate this religion and spoke of its destruction were enemies of the state, who did not deserve any indulgence. He resumed religious holidays, giving them a magnificent and solemn look, and tried to revive ancient traditions. Even such emperors as Tiberius, Claudius and Nero, who did not particularly care for the welfare of the state, considered it necessary to support the Roman religion by laws and by their own example. As for the best emperors, like Vespasian and members of the Antonina family, they showed unconditional respect for the national religion in view of its importance for the state. Christians who did not appreciate this religion and spoke of its destruction were enemies of the state, who did not deserve any indulgence. they considered it necessary to support the Roman religion by laws and by their own example. As for the best emperors, like Vespasian and members of the Antonina family, they showed unconditional respect for the national religion in view of its importance for the state. Christians who did not appreciate this religion and spoke of its destruction were enemies of the state, who did not deserve any indulgence. they considered it necessary to support the Roman religion by laws and by their own example. As for the best emperors, like Vespasian and members of the Antonina family, they showed unconditional respect for the national religion in view of its importance for the state. Christians who did not appreciate this religion and spoke of its destruction were enemies of the state, who did not deserve any indulgence.
The gravity of their guilt was aggravated by the fact that, along with the general rejection of the Roman religion, they did not recognize that essential appendage to it, in which it was enriched from the time of the empire - the cult of the Caesars, while it had all the data to become the most popular and revered. It also expressed Roman patriotism, since in the person of the deified representatives of the state, the state itself was essentially idolized, loyal feelings were also expressed, especially towards good sovereigns, who brought prosperity and glory to the empire. He flattered the vanity of the emperors and, consequently, by his diligent administration it was possible to win the favor of the omnipotent lords. He, finally, represented the charm of novelty, tempting for the Romans who had lost faith in the old gods. As a result, the Romans so willingly honored him, that soon after its origin he became the head of the state religion, and, like everything related to it, became strictly obligatory. All inhabitants were obliged to take part in it, since everyone enjoyed the Roman world and lived under the auspices of the empire. Each loyal subject had to have in his house an image of the emperor between his penates. If someone, through negligence or disrespect, did not want to express divine honor to the emperor, they treated him as the greatest criminal. After Augustus' death, several senators were punished on charges of disrespecting Augustus as a god. In the reign of Nero, Senator Frazeya Pet, according to contemporaries - the embodiment of virtue, was forced to open his veins, as he was accused that he had never made sacrifices for the well-being of the sovereign, or for his heavenly voice, did not believe in the divinity of Pompeii. The foreign subjects of Rome, wishing to curry favor with the world rulers, not only accepted this cult, but in expressions of true or imaginary reverence for the sacred person of the emperor sometimes even surpassed the Romans, especially the inhabitants of the East, where the apotheosis of kings existed before, and where flattery and servility were in great go. With a certain amount of servility, the cult of the Caesars, which in itself aroused reverence and devotion, assumed the harshest forms of servility. They began to deify not only the dead emperors, but also the living, not only the emperors themselves, but also members of their family, even their favorites and favorites. Feasts in their honor were celebrated with all sorts of solemnity and pomp, temples in their honor were built in abundance everywhere, both in Rome and in the provinces, - and they did not spare either private or public funds for their decoration. In the temples of other gods, images of emperors stood alongside them. And with such enthusiasm of all Roman subjects for the administration of the imperial cult, with such scrupulousness of the Roman authorities in cases of disrespect for him, the Christians refused to give divine honors to the emperors! One can therefore judge how hostile the Roman society and the Roman government, and especially the emperors themselves, must have been towards Christians, in view of the disdain of Christians for that which was made an indispensable duty for every subject and which many were sincerely fond of. Under this condition, it was easiest to bring the charge of lèse majesté with all its consequences against the Christians. If, as we have seen, even the senatorial title did not save from punishment for not recognizing the divine dignity of the emperor, then the Christians, generally hated, had nothing to expect mercy. History has noted that the two most severe persecutions of Christians in the second century took place in cities which, like Lyons and Smyrna, were centers of imperial cult, and both persecutions were evidently connected with festivities in honor of the emperors. All condemnations of Christians to execution, to exile were made after the Christians finally refused to make sacrifices in honor of the emperor, smoke incense in front of his statue and swear by his genius. On the contrary, notorious Christians who outwardly performed all this were often set free. that the two most cruel persecutions of Christians in the second century took place in cities which, like Lyon and Smyrna, were centers of imperial worship, and both persecutions were apparently connected with festivals in honor of the emperors. All condemnations of Christians to execution, to exile were made after the Christians finally refused to make sacrifices in honor of the emperor, smoke incense in front of his statue and swear by his genius. On the contrary, notorious Christians who outwardly performed all this were often set free. that the two most cruel persecutions of Christians in the second century took place in cities which, like Lyon and Smyrna, were centers of imperial worship, and both persecutions were apparently connected with festivals in honor of the emperors. All condemnations of Christians to execution, to exile were made after the Christians finally refused to make sacrifices in honor of the emperor, smoke incense in front of his statue and swear by his genius. On the contrary, notorious Christians who outwardly performed all this were often set free. how Christians finally refused to offer sacrifices in honor of the emperor, smoke incense in front of his statue and swear by his genius. On the contrary, notorious Christians who outwardly performed all this were often set free. how Christians finally refused to offer sacrifices in honor of the emperor, smoke incense in front of his statue and swear by his genius. On the contrary, notorious Christians who outwardly performed all this were often set free.
But Christians not only refused to honor the emperor as a god, they in some cases showed him disrespect and in general as a sovereign. Avoiding everything pagan for fear of being defiled by it, they abstained from common official festivities in honor of the emperors - on the days of their accession to the throne or on the occasion of victories. It even happened that Christians, in excess of rigorism, avoided even such innocent things as lighting up their houses or decorating them with greenery. If, according to their position, for example, Christian soldiers, they involuntarily had to participate in such festivities, then they tried to show, as far as possible, their little involvement in them. Not to mention the refusal to participate in the sacrifices, while the pagan soldiers had wreaths on their heads, they held them in their hands, considering the crowning of the head to be something pagan. All this was supposed to arm both society and the government against Christians. Seeing Christians absent from the feast, seeing their houses not illuminated or adorned with garlands, and their soldiers not crowned, the pagans might think that Christians do not sympathize with the joy of the people and the emperor, and on this basis consider them enemies of Caesar (hostes Caesarum). The emperor himself could be offended by this even more, and therefore all discovered cases of such disrespect for the emperor entailed the punishment of guilty Christians, which could then spread to all Christians in general, since all of them could be considered guilty by the pagans of disrespect for the person of Caesar. and their soldiers not crowned, the pagans could think that the Christians did not sympathize with the joy of the people and the emperor, and on this basis consider them enemies of Caesar (hostes Caesarum). The emperor himself could be offended by this even more, and therefore all discovered cases of such disrespect for the emperor entailed the punishment of guilty Christians, which could then spread to all Christians in general, since all of them could be considered guilty by the pagans of disrespect for the person of Caesar. and their soldiers not crowned, the pagans could think that the Christians did not sympathize with the joy of the people and the emperor, and on this basis consider them enemies of Caesar (hostes Caesarum). The emperor himself could be offended by this even more, and therefore all discovered cases of such disrespect for the emperor entailed the punishment of guilty Christians, which could then spread to all Christians in general, since all of them could be considered guilty by the pagans of disrespect for the person of Caesar.
Avoiding participation in the imperial festivities, some Christians generally shied away from public life: they did not enter the military service, did not hold state and public positions, did not even enter into simple relations with pagans, since everywhere and everywhere it was possible to be defiled by paganism, which penetrated into everything. , even special occasions. With a small number of Christians at first, this was not particularly noticeable, but with the growth of Christian society, this was especially striking to the pagans. Not knowing the motives that prompted Christians to do this, but, having recognized, not attaching importance to them, the pagans, adhering to the state principle that every citizen should serve the state to the best of his ability, saw the removal of Christians from public service as a failure to fulfill civic duty. Alienation of Christians from common pagan life was interpreted as hostility to society, hostility to the fatherland. In both cases, the Christians were punished, because the state could not tolerate such members who did not comply with its laws or were hostile to it.
If the mere removal of Christians from general civil life led to suspicion of the hostile attitude of Christians towards the state, then the government should have looked even more suspiciously at the secrecy of Christians, at their secret meetings in remote places and mainly at night. It thought that Christians kept secrets because in silence and solitude it was more convenient for them to invent and carry out their criminal anti-state plans. This was reflected in the usual suspicion of the Roman government, which was intimidated by various conspiracies and was ready to see political goals even where there were none at all and could not be. Especially from the time of the empire, when conspiracies followed one after another, it made special efforts to destroy and prevent the emergence of all corporations, for whatever purpose they were drawn up. For example, in Nicomedia, which often suffered from fires, an artel of workers was established whose duties were to put out fires, but Trajan forbade such an artel, saying that such societies or colonies easily turn into malicious gatherings, under whatever name and for whatever purpose. they were not established. The same Trajan in the year 99 issued a decree against all kinds of geteria, which, in its severity, surpassed all the laws on secret societies that existed before him. The suspicion of the Romans also extended to religious societies not sanctioned by the government, because they feared that religious purposes were only an object, and behind them were hidden political designs. Naturally, the government could look at the Christian community with its secret meetings as a political corporation hostile to the state, especially since that the Christians themselves gave rise to this, imprudently speaking about the expectation of a new kingdom, which, obviously, is not identical with the Roman one, about the imminent violation of Rome, etc. Christianity, therefore, was brought under the category of heterias and, like any unlawful society, was subject to strict liability before the court of criminal laws.
Thus, all relationships between the Roman government and Christianity must have resulted in the persecution of Christians. From church history it is clear that the persecution of them in different parts of the empire did not stop until the issuance of the famous decree of Constantine the Great, but sometimes, on the basis of imperial edicts, they took on a nationwide character and therefore caused especially great harm to Christianity. The most systematic persecutions fall on the reign of the best emperors, while under the bad emperors, they either did not exist at all, or they were of an accidental nature, as, for example, under Nero, who began to persecute Christians in order to lay the blame for the Roman fire on them. Trajan (99-117) laid the foundation for systematic persecution. By nature, he was not a cruel despot in the spirit of Nero or Domitian. It was a just and kind sovereign; philanthropic ideas were not alien to him, but as an emperor who set it as his task to strengthen the state and religious foundations, and, moreover, extremely suspicious of all manifestations of separatism in the state, he could not favorably treat Christianity, which stood out from the general course of Roman life. Considering his attitude towards Christians, insofar as they were expressed in his decree, it must be assumed that for him the universal character of Christianity, which could even more restore him against Christians, has not yet become clear, but also that Christians in life and teaching did not fit under the general warehouse of Roman life, forced him to use restrictive measures against them. His very acquaintance with Christianity and the attitude towards him that arose from this happened quite by accident. In the year 99 Trajan issued an edict against secret societies, referring mainly to the region of Bithynia, where much unrest was noted. The ruler of this region, Pliny the Younger, was surprised when they brought before him a mass of people accused of violating the above decree and calling themselves Christians. The most conscientious interrogation with the use of even torture for some of the accused did not reveal their participation in any forbidden society, any of their criminality. It turned out only that they profess a special religion, not belonging to the number of permitted ones, which they adhere to with unshakable tenacity, and, on the basis of its instructions, refuse to burn incense and drink libations in front of the images of gods and emperors. As a zealous official, Pliny considered it necessary to punish them for this too, but in view, on the one hand, novelty of the case, and on the other hand, the multitude of the accused, he hesitated: did he do the right thing, and therefore, setting out in a letter to the emperor all the circumstances of the case, he asked for his guidance for a further attitude towards Christianity. Trajan answered him in the form of a decree that Christians were not to be found along with other criminals; likewise, anonymous denunciations of them should not be accepted, but if they are presented in court and caught, they should be punished. Trajan did not precisely define the measure of punishment, saying that for different cases there should be a different punishment, but the usual punishment in such cases was the death penalty. Thus appeared the first imperial edict specifically directed against Christians. Apparently, this decree was quite favorable to Christianity, because special searches and anonymous denunciations of them were still forbidden, but in essence he was cruel. According to its meaning, Christianity in itself, regardless of the quality of its followers, should be punished as an unlawful religion. He thus gave a formal right to persecute Christians. After this decree, even out of personal enmity or revenge, it was possible for everyone to represent Christians in court, and if the accusation of belonging to Christianity is proved, legal retribution for this will not slow down.
New decrees against Christians came out 50 years after Trajan, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180), and again from the sovereign, who was the decoration of the Roman throne both in the governmental and in the universal human sense. As a ruler, Marcus Aurelius won the love of his subjects, grateful to him for their prosperity, so that the warmest, as it were, kindred relations were established for him: young men called him father, adults called him brother, and old people called him son. As a person, both in himself and in his convictions, he was the personification of kindness and humanity. Once he exclaimed: “I desire nothing in the world so much as the resurrection of many dead, and not the condemnation of the living to death.” And yet, this humane and loving sovereign was the most cruel persecutor of Christians. And, as a person who deeply believes in pagan gods, and as a Stoic philosopher, whose convictions were diametrically opposed to many points of Christian doctrine, and as a sovereign who took the interests of the state close to his heart, Marcus Aurelius had to persecute Christians who denied paganism, established principles that were contrary to Stoic philosophy, and actively or passively resisted state laws. During his reign, the most severe decrees were issued against Christians, which the apologist Meliton calls barbaric in cruelty. According to these decrees, the government ordered not only to seize Christians who declared themselves as such, but also to look for them if they were hiding. Denunciations were not only allowed, but also encouraged, and informers, according to Meliton, received a reward from the confiscated property of the accused. To force Christians to renounce Christianity, severe torture was introduced. Even those who renounced Christianity were imprisoned and subjected to torment, guided by public rumor about the vices and crimes of Christians committed by them in their prayer meetings.
In the middle of the third century, an anti-Christian edict was issued by the emperor Decius (249-251). He tried to revive the policy of Trajan (in honor of the latter, he took the name of Trajan), and therefore the persecution of Christians was part of his political program. An excellent description of Decius' attitude to Christianity is given by St. Cyprian. According to him, Decius, with greater peace of mind, could endure the appearance of a rival in the imperial crown than the placement of a new bishop in Rome. Decius Trajan's plans included either converting Christians to paganism, or completely destroying them. Therefore, on the basis of his decree (250), Christians were found everywhere and forced to renounce Christianity, and they were not content with verbal renunciation, but demanded in confirmation of it to actually express their respect for the pagan religion - through the sacrifice. Those who refused this or declared themselves Christians were subjected to torture and made the laughingstock of the crowd, and when these forms of exhortation did not work, they were put to death. The destruction of the church was part of the political program of every sovereign who cared about the welfare of the empire and hoped to restore the former greatness of Rome.
It is hard to imagine what Christians had to endure during these difficult times of persecution. The torturers were inexhaustible in inventing torture and torment to force Christians to renounce their beliefs. According to Eusebius, the martyrs were cut with scourges to the deepest veins and arteries, so that even the insides were revealed; under them lay sea shells and sharp fragments; they stretched their legs on wooden decks; they were put on hot iron, or applied to the most delicate parts of the body; they put them in murderous dungeons, starved them, burned them at the stake, gave them to be eaten by wild animals, etc. Sometimes even the tormentors themselves got tired of tormenting, and through the death penalty put an end to the torment. Christians became almost an inevitable part of the circuses, where many wild animals were released on them, and the people were delighted to see how hungry beasts tormented the defenseless. Neither age, nor gender, nor rank, nor fortune saved from torment. The mere name of a Christian was enough for all sorts of cruelties to be applied to a person who called himself a Christian.
Hated by Jews and pagans, persecuted by the authorities, in both cases endangering the lives of its followers, Christianity at first only suffered passively from its enemies. The patience of the martyrs and the firm confession of Christianity were the only answers to all the tricks of the persecutors and tormentors. Christianity could not put up material force against its enemies. At first, there were very few Christians and, consequently, a material struggle with mighty Rome was unthinkable for them. But even then, when the number of Christians increased immeasurably, when it was possible to "measure one's strength", Christians abhorred this means of struggle, as inconsistent with their convictions. If material means were unsuitable, then it was possible to turn to the pagans a moral tool, the word of persuasion, expressed in the book for all to hear from the pagans and especially addressed to the emperors, who, by virtue of their enormous power, could be both the most dangerous enemies of Christianity and its patrons, if they were convinced of its correctness. The opportunity to wage this kind of struggle against paganism appeared only in the 2nd century, when educated people and scientists began to join the Christian society. The desire to provide all possible assistance to suffering brethren forced every educated Christian to take up his pen to defend the innocent Church from vain accusations and to justify its existence, and no one considered himself entitled to refuse this. “Everyone,” says Justin, “who can proclaim the truth and does not proclaim it, will be condemned by God” (“Conversation with Tryphon the Jew”, ch. 82). In particular, the defenders of persecuted Christianity were pagan philosophers and lawyers converted to Christianity. They possessed knowledge of literature and laws, eloquence and dialectics, the properties necessary for the fight against pagan enemies. Filled with holy zeal for faith and ardently conscious of their duty, they devoted all their strength and talents to their high service. They were not embarrassed that, speaking in defense of Christianity, they could incur the wrath of the government, and perhaps death itself. The spectacle of the suffering and insults of Christians and the desire to help the defenseless forced them to distract themselves from selfish calculations. The result of such a noble attitude was the appearance of a number of apologies (defensive speeches), in which their authors, the apologists, appealed either to the emperor and the authorities with a request to enter into the plight of persecuted Christians, to judge them fairly and not to deny them civil rights, or they tried to make clear to the whole pagan world the causelessness of his enmity towards Christians, teaching and life which not only do not justify the accusations raised against them, but incomparably surpass the teaching and life of the pagans themselves. The good mood of individuals then passed into a pious custom, so that until the third century there was not a single church writer who would not write apologies, and from the third century, converts were sometimes forced to write apologies to prove the sincerity of their conversion. So, for example, the bishop of Sikka then only received Arnobius into his communion, when he wrote the apologia "The Seven Books of Objections Against the Gentiles". Thus, the persecution of Christians and Christianity by pagans was the cause of the appearance of an extensive apologetic literature.
* * *
The second century is especially rich in apologies, so that it can be called the age of apologists. At this time, they wrote their apologies Square (about 126), Aristides (about 130), Justin the Philosopher (between 140 and 155), Tatian (about 160), Claudius Apollinaris (about 176), Athenagoras (about 177), Theophilus (about 180), Meliton of Sardis (about 180) and Hermias (at the end of the 2nd century) [2] .
In the third century, the apologists were Tertullian (198-211), Minucius and Felix (about 217).
1. The controversy on this subject took on such a sharp character that it threatened to shake the inner peace in the church; therefore, an apostolic council was held in Jerusalem, at which it was decided that the fulfillment of the Mosaic law was not obligatory for the converted Gentiles (Acts 15).
2. The writings of Quadratus and Claudius Apollinaris have not survived to our time.
Tasks and methods of ancient apologetics
The unfavorable conditions for the existence of Christians in the hostile Jewish-pagan world, which caused the appearance of apologetics, determined its task in essential terms.
Since Christianity encountered hostility from everywhere, being attacked, insinuated and persecuted, it was the direct task of the apologists to prove the groundlessness of this hostility and all the consequences that flowed from it. To do this, it was necessary to explain to all the enemies of Christianity that, as a divine religion, the only true and saving one, both from the dogmatic and moral side, it stands immeasurably higher than all other religions, that, according to its prescriptions, Christians lead a pious, highly moral life, alien to vices, crimes, and all those reproaches with which their enemies stigmatize, and that therefore Christians have, if not a priority, then at least an equal right with others to an existence free from any constraint and the practice of their religion.
This already vast task, which required a mass of all kinds of arguments, was further complicated by the fact that the enmity of various opponents of Christianity arose from various motives; consequently, the apologists, in order to more successfully fulfill their task, had to take into account each of these motives separately, proving their inconsistency in relation to the views of their opponents. Thus, for example, the Jews, who were fanatically attached to the law of Moses, who believed in its eternal existence and significance, and who hated Christians for denying it, had to be explained that this law had a temporary and transformative character, preparing people for the acceptance of the Messiah, but now, with the advent of to the land of the Savior, it lost its meaning, since in Jesus Christ all the types, promises and prophecies about the Messiah indicated in the law were fulfilled. Now the new law, given by Christ himself, has gained strength and significance. The pagan masses, who leveled all sorts of, most often dirty, accusations against Christians, had to be shown that all these accusations, while not actually confirmed, despite the frequent appearance of Christians before the court, at the same time contradict the general moral disposition of Christians, which follows from the prescriptions of their religion. People who criticize the religious side of Christianity, considering it a human institution, full of incomprehensible, strange and even reprehensible, needed to prove its divine origin and character, and to find out the deep meaning and significance in seeming oddities. The Roman government, which persecuted Christians for violating state laws, needed to be told that the application to Christianity of the old laws on forbidden religions is contrary to the Roman practice of wide religious tolerance, and the issuance of new laws specifically directed against Christians does not correspond to the general spirit of Roman legislation, since on the basis of these laws Christians are held accountable and punished for the mere profession of Christianity, regardless to their behaviour. If the government sees in Christianity a secret society with hostile plans against the state and laws, then from the interrogations of Christians, from the study of their whole life, it can be convinced that Christians in general lead an impeccable moral life and, in particular, are good, faithful citizens, never participating in anti-government conspiracies,
Finally, in addition to the factual evidence that the good life and lofty teaching of Christians give them the right to freely practice their religion, the apologists could also take a principled point of view, pointing out that religion is a matter of conscience, and therefore there should be no coercion in relation to it.
The fulfillment of such a complex task in its entirety and in all its details was extremely difficult for each of the apologists and not always necessary, because different times put forward different requirements that had to be met preferentially over others. Therefore, most apologists specialized in some particular issues and developed them in detail, while other issues were either passed over in silence or touched on them only in passing. So, for example, only Justin and Tertullian paid attention to the fight against Judaism, while others ignored him as a harmless enemy. Hermias does not defend Christianity and Christians at all, but is busy only ridiculing pagan philosophy and philosophers. However, the task assigned to apologetics was completed by the totality of the works of all the apologists of the 2nd and 3rd centuries,
In carrying out their task, the apologists were not constrained by the choice of means and methods for the struggle: each led it as he understood his task and as required by the conditions of the time and place in which he lived and acted. But with all the diversity of individual, temporal and local conditions, all apologists, with only a few exceptions, adhered to two main methods. The first of them, the most natural and most necessary, which follows directly from the requirements of the task, can be called positive, apologetic. Its essence boiled down to the fact that the apologists justified Christians from the accusations raised against them through the disclosure of Christian doctrine and life, the impeccability of which was supposed to free Christians from persecution. After the high dignity of the Christian doctrine and the purity of the Christian life were proved, The right of Christians to an existence free from constraint could also be proved indirectly, through criticism of religions hostile to Christianity. The revelation that the Jewish religion, although true and divine, and paganism, as a complete deviation from divine truth, cannot satisfy either the religious or moral needs of man, clearly proved the injustice of man, clearly proved the injustice of those who persecuted a better religion, themselves holding on to religions that have either lost their meaning or have none at all. This second method can be called negative, polemical. It served, as it were, as an addition to the first, emphasizing the superiority of Christianity even more clearly, and therefore the apologists used both together, but at different times and under different conditions, not to the same extent.
The apologists of the second century held predominantly to the first method. They comprehensively justified the Christians from the accusations raised against them, asked for a fair trial over them and their right to a secure existence. The critics of paganism, with which all the apologists mainly dealt, they touch only lightly, forced to make a comparison of persecuted Christianity with paganism persecuting it, in order to give triumph to the former. Where possible, they soften the errors of paganism, pointing out glimpses of truth in it, and are especially sympathetic to pagan philosophy, sometimes seeing in it a preparation for Christianity and very often referring to its authority as a proof of the truth of Christian teaching. When they had to come across such abnormalities of paganism, which could not be mitigated with all the desire to do so, then they represented it as the work of evil demons, who led the pagans from truth to falsehood. A typical representative of this kind of apologists was St. Justin, who, in his condescension towards paganism, went so far as to consider some of the ancient pagan philosophers to be Christians. Such a soft attitude towards paganism is explained by the fact that at the time when these apologists wrote, the hope for a voluntary reconciliation of paganism with Christianity had not yet been lost. In addition, many of the apologists of the second century submitted their apologies to the emperors; consequently, to irritate them with a sharp condemnation of the pagan religion, which they cherished, was both untimely and imprudent. Instead of the expected benefit, it would bring only one harm to Christians. Finally, Christianity was not yet so strong
On the other hand, the apologists of the third century, under completely different conditions, devoted much attention to the second method. The politicism of their predecessors was unsuitable for them, because in view of the increasingly strict edicts of the emperors regarding Christians, it was impossible to count on an amicable agreement between the old and the new faith. On the other hand, the external successes of Christianity and its awareness of its strength and significance were so great that the apologists were no longer afraid to tell the pagan world the bitter truth about it. Therefore, they mercilessly criticized the foundations of pagan doctrine, and the pagan cult, and pagan customs. Pagan philosophy, in which the apologists of the second century found glimpses of truth, is condemned by the apologists of the third century as a means of reinforcing the errors of the pagans. The participation of demons in the creation and maintenance of paganism,
The Significance of Ancient Apologetics
Apologetics, which began a new era in Christian history, when the Church of Christ entered into an active struggle with the ancient world, was of the highest importance for contemporary paganism and Christianity, and partly preserved it to the present day.
The appearance of numerous apologies, the authors of which boldly defended Christianity and even attacked paganism itself, showed this latter that Christianity, hitherto little noticeable and passively enduring all kinds of oppression, now began to recognize itself as a force confident in itself to such an extent that it can not only to seek equal rights with paganism, but also to speak of their superiority over it. Even if we assume that the content of the apologies was unknown to the majority of pagans, then the very fact of their appearance should have made a strong impression on the pagans. Indeed, he made them treat Christianity differently than before. If until that time the educated pagans considered it below their dignity to enter into any relationship with the "monstrous superstition", as Christianity was called by Tacitus, Pliny and Suetonius), then already from the second half of the second century such an indifferent and arrogant attitude towards him became impossible: he had to be reckoned with as a major force. Therefore, the educated pagans, casting aside their learned pride, entered into a bitter struggle with him. The philosopher Crescent had with St. Justin an oral debate about faith, and when he was powerless to defeat him with reasonable arguments, he denounced him to the authorities, which resulted in the death sentence of St. Justin. The famous rhetorician Fronton, the teacher of the emperor Marcus Aurelius, on the basis of a superficial acquaintance with Christianity, spoke out against him with a book. Platonic and Neoplatonic philosophers like Celsus, Philostratus, Iamblichus, Hierocles went even further: in order to most successfully fight Christianity, they considered it necessary to get to know him as closely as possible - for this they read the sacred Christian books, studied the dogmas. Having studied Christianity from its primary sources, Celsus wrote The True Word, the most solid of all anti-Christian works.
The learned pagans sacrificed their pride even more when, in order to protect paganism from the just reproaches of Christians against it and to equate it with Christianity, they carried out a reformation in paganism, known under the name of Neoplatonism. In the form of the doctrine of the One principle of all that exists, of the Mind, the conscious power of the One, of the Soul of the world, the creative power of the Mind, it included many points of the Christian doctrine - about the Highest God, from Whom the Son is born and the Holy Spirit proceeds, about angels, about the soul and human body, etc. In addition, the Neoplatonist Philostratus wrote a biography of Apollonius of Tyana with likening him to Jesus Christ, and Porphyry and Iamblichus compiled a biography of Pythagoras with the same tendency. These were thus the first signs of the triumph of Christianity over paganism, prepared by the advent of apologetics,
A less perceptible, but still undeniable, significance of apologetics for paganism can be seen in another respect. For pagans familiar with apologies, these latter made it possible to recognize Christianity not in the distorted form in which it was portrayed by rumor, but in its true light, as containing divinely revealed teaching and distinguished by the highly moral life of its followers. This was supposed to dispel the prejudice that the pagans had towards Christianity, being insufficiently familiar with it, and in the end prepare the way for the transition to Christianity. Of course, the apologies did not produce a quick and decisive change in the opinion of the pagan society, because public opinion, which has developed over the centuries, does not immediately yield to new ideas. It struggles with them for a long time, but at the same time, if these ideas are true, they gradually overcome prejudice and become public property. So it was in the struggle between Christianity and paganism. Initially, knowing Christians only by hearsay, paganism stained them with various vices and crimes, but upon closer acquaintance with them, one should have become convinced of the groundlessness of such a characterization of Christians. By the end of the third century, accusations of immorality against Christians had already ceased. This is how the view of the pagans on Christianity has changed. Under all other conditions, this change could also be influenced by apologetic literature, which most persistently testified to the impeccability of Christian doctrine and life. paganism stained them with various vices and crimes, but upon closer acquaintance with them, one should have become convinced of the groundlessness of such a characterization of Christians. By the end of the third century, accusations of immorality against Christians had already ceased. This is how the view of the pagans on Christianity has changed. Under all other conditions, this change could also be influenced by apologetic literature, which most persistently testified to the impeccability of Christian doctrine and life. paganism stained them with various vices and crimes, but upon closer acquaintance with them, one should have become convinced of the groundlessness of such a characterization of Christians. By the end of the third century, accusations of immorality against Christians had already ceased. This is how the view of the pagans on Christianity has changed. Under all other conditions, this change could also be influenced by apologetic literature, which most persistently testified to the impeccability of Christian doctrine and life.
Apologetics was no less important for contemporary Christianity. In difficult times and under difficult conditions for Christianity, when it appeared, the courage and selflessness of the defenders of Christianity served as a means of encouragement for people who saw themselves surrounded by enemies from everywhere. At the sight of apologists, persecuted and hated Christians could be convinced that they were not left in misfortune, that they had bold intercessors ready to defend their rights at the risk of their lives. The conviction of this poured courage into weak hearts, prone to cowardice and despair. Moreover, it tempered people with firm will, and made them more calm in enduring misfortunes, made Christians members of the militant Church.
In addition to the moral impact of apologetics, for its time and those closest to it, it also had scientific and dogmatic significance, since the apologists laid the foundation for the disclosure and scientific substantiation of dogmas. They worked hardest to reveal those dogmas that were disputed by the pagans, and they paid the main attention to those aspects of them that were refuted by the pagans. Because of this, questions about the unity of God, about God as Creator and Provider, about the Divinity of Jesus Christ, about the resurrection of the dead, were developed by them more than proper Christian dogmas about the redemptive meaning of the suffering and death of Jesus Christ, about the relationship of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, etc. .
Ancient apologetics has not lost its significance to the present day. For us, firstly, it is of historical interest, as a monument depicting the external and internal state of contemporary Christianity and paganism, these two world religions, of which one expressed the age-old deviation from the truth of almost all mankind, and the other remembered people and made up for this truth through the teachings imparted by the Only Begotten Son of God. Apologetics depicts how a colossal struggle for world significance took place between them, and in the gradual phases of its development shows how paganism strained its last efforts and used all means available to it, while Christianity more and more expressed the hope of an imminent triumph.
Ancient apologetics, then, stands in direct connection with the present. Those opinions that were expressed by the pagans against Christianity are often expressed by its modern opponents. Thus, the modern apologist can borrow from his ancient brethren not only the techniques and methods developed by them for combating unbelief and denial, but also the very objections against it, adapting them, of course, to the modern state of knowledge in general and theological science in particular.
St. Justin the Philosopher
St. Justin, son of Priscus, grandson of Bacchus, was born in the Samaritan city of Shechem, which at that time was called Flavius of Naples (the new city of Flavius) in honor of the emperor Flavius Vespasian, who restored it from the ruins after the Jewish war of 70 years. A significant part of the population of this city were Greek and Roman colonists, among whom the family of Justin belonged. His parents, as wealthy people, gave him the opportunity not only to receive a general education, but also to fill it with a special philosophical one, in which he showed a special interest, for which he later received the title of Philosopher.
From an early age, Justin was distinguished by a penchant for philosophizing, a desire to find the truth, to resolve eternal questions about God and the ultimate fate of man. Finding no answer to the demands of his inquisitive mind either in the sciences he studied, or in the pagan religion, fundamentally false and therefore untenable in every respect, he turned to philosophy, which was considered the source of wisdom and claimed to own the truth. In search of true wisdom, he visited representatives of various philosophical trends, but almost all of them, for one reason or another, did not satisfy him. He did not like the Stoic because, according to his school's doctrine of the self-sufficient human personality, the source of good and evil, happiness and unhappiness, he was not interested in the question of God and the afterlife. The Peripatetic (follower of Aristotle) pushed him away with greed, demanding advance payment for learning. The Pythagorean did not accept him as one of his students, because he did not know music, astronomy and geometry, which were considered a preparatory step for the study of Pythagorean philosophy. Only with the Platonist Justin, apparently, found what he had been looking for for so long. The sublime teaching of Plato on the subjects that occupied Justin so much fascinated him, and he, in his own words, “hoped to achieve the contemplation of God, this ultimate goal of Platonic philosophy” (“Conversation with Trypho the Jew”, ch. 1). But at the very height of the enthusiasm for Platonism, when the desired goal seemed to be so close, one event happened that produced a radical upheaval in Justin's soul and convinced him that, looking for the truth,
Once, while walking on a deserted seashore and indulging in reflection, he met a respectable unfamiliar old man and got into a conversation with him. Little by little, the conversation turned from ordinary subjects into a philosophical dispute, and the stranger, learning about Justin's passion for Platonism, began to prove to him that this best of philosophical systems contains a lot of contradictions and is not able to give a complete knowledge of the truth, since from it it is impossible to know not only the essence of God, but even the nature of the human soul and its purpose. The arguments of the elder were so strong and convincing that Justin, with all his adherence to Platonic philosophy, had to recognize their validity and became convinced of the unsatisfactory teachings of Plato. Deeply saddened by the loss of his faith in the philosophy of Plato, from which he expected so much, and at the same time, passionately desiring to find the truth, Justin exclaimed: “What teacher can you trust, where can you expect help if even these philosophers do not have the truth?” (“Conversation with Tryphon the Jew”, 7 ch.). In response to this, the elder pointed to prophetic books written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, from which one can obtain knowledge “about the beginning and end of things and about everything that a philosopher should know.” “Pray,” the stranger concluded his speech, “so that the doors of light will be opened to you, for these things cannot be seen or understood by anyone unless God and His Christ give understanding” (“Conversation with Tryphon the Jew”, ch. 7). The conversation ended there, the elder left, but his words made a deep impression on Justin. “Immediately,” he says, “a fire was kindled in my heart, and I was seized with love for the prophets and those men who are the friends of Christ;
Love for the "friends of Christ", i.e. to Christians, was born in Justin even before the conversation with the elder. The fearless confession by Christians of their faith, firmness in enduring torments and readiness for martyrdom convinced Justin of the groundlessness of those views on Christians, which were held by the majority of pagans. “When I was still enjoying the teachings of Plato,” he says, “I heard how Christians are being carried around, but seeing how they fearlessly meet death and everything that is considered terrible, I considered it impossible that they were given over to vice and debauchery” (“Apology II ”, Ch. 12). After a conversation with the elder, when Justin delved into the books of Holy Scripture, assimilated their lofty teachings and became better acquainted with Christians who adhere to the teachings of these books, he finally became convinced of the superiority of Christianity over paganism and, as a seeker and lover of truth, he could no longer hold on to lies (paganism) and became a Christian. His baptism took place in the thirties of the second century.
Having received baptism and fully cognized the divine truth, Justin began to spread it as zealously as he had previously diligently sought it. With the preaching of Christianity, he was in Egypt, in Asia Minor and twice in Rome, where, according to Eusebius and Photius, he founded a theological school. For greater success in preaching, even after his conversion to Christianity, he did not take off his philosophical cloak, which, on the one hand, attracted more listeners to him, as a philosopher, and gave more authority to his words, and on the other hand, made it known that he was a follower philosophy, only not pagan, replete with delusions, but Christian, true.
In an effort to spread the Christian doctrine among people of different nationalities and different religious beliefs, at the same time he was a zealous defender of the hated and persecuted Christians, proving the injustice of such an attitude towards them orally and in writing.
The brave preacher and defender of Christianity, who spoke out loud, not embarrassed by the fact that among the listeners there could be people hostile to Christianity, paid with his life for his holy zeal for faith. In Rome, he was presented to the court of the prefect Rusticus, firmly confessed before him his faith in Christ, refused to sacrifice to the gods, and for this he was sentenced to death (approximately in 166 in the reign of Marcus Aurelius). The Church gave him the name of a martyr and canonized him among the saints.
The best and indisputable monuments of the apologetic activity of St. Justin are his two apologies (large and small) against the Gentiles and "Conversation with Trypho the Jew" (an apologetic-polemical treatise against the Jews).
Apology I
The first apologia of St. Justina was written about the persecutions that took place during the reign of Antoninus the Pious (138-161) and is addressed to the emperor himself, his son Marcus Aurelius, the Holy Senate and all the people of Rome, as a petition "for people from all nations unjustly hated and persecuted" (ch. 1 ).
“You are called pious and philosophers,” says St. Justin to the emperor and his son - and you are known everywhere as guardians of the truth and lovers of science: now it will turn out whether you really are like that ”(ch. 2). “Our duty is to present our teaching and life for everyone to consider, and your business is to listen to us and be good judges” (ch. 3).
As good judges, Justin points out to them that it is unfair to judge and punish Christians for the mere fact that they are called Christians, as has been practiced in Roman courts since Trajan's famous decree to Pliny the Younger. “The name alone,” says Justin, “cannot provide a reasonable basis for either praise or punishment, unless something laudable or bad is revealed from the very deeds. We are accused of being Christians. If one of the accused denies and says only that he is not a Christian, then you let him go, as if you no longer have any evidence of his guilt; but if someone declares himself a Christian, then you punish him for one confession, whereas it would be necessary to investigate the life of both the one who declared himself a Christian and the one who renounced, so that from the very deeds it turns out what one and the other is” (ch. 4) . "We ask, he says elsewhere, “so that those who are reported to you should be judged according to their deeds, so that the one found guilty should be punished as a criminal, and not as a Christian; but if anyone turns out to be innocent, let him be set free, like a Christian who has done nothing wrong” (ch. 7).
In view of the fact that various accusations of Christians were associated with the name of a Christian among the pagans, Justin tries to dispel this false view. To the accusation of Christians of atheism, based on the fact that Christians do not worship pagan gods and do not make any sacrifices to them, he says: “We confess that we are atheists in relation to such imaginary gods (invented demons), but not in relation to the most true God , the Father of righteousness, chastity and other virtues, and pure from all evil. But we honor both Him and the Son who came from Him, as well as the Spirit of the prophet” (ch. 6). “We do not bring many sacrifices, we do not make wreaths of flowers in honor of those that people made and, having placed in temples, called gods; for we know that they are soulless and dead and do not have the image of God. And is it necessary to tell you when you yourself know How do artists shape matter, hew and cut, melt and forge, and often from worthless vessels, by means of art changing only the appearance and giving them an image, make what they call gods? This is what we consider not only contrary to reason, but also offensive to God, Who has inexpressible glory and image, while His name is assimilated to things perishable and requiring constant care” (ch. 9). “We are told that God has no need for material offerings from people. He, who, as we see, Himself gives us everything. We are taught, convinced, and believe that only those who imitate Him in perfection—in chastity, in truth, and in everything that is worthy of God—are pleasing to Him. We are also taught that, in His goodness, in the beginning He arranged everything for men out of an ugly substance, and that they, if by their deeds they prove worthy of their destination, they will be worthy to live with Him and reign with Him, having become free from corruption and suffering ”(ch. 10). “Which of the well-minded does not admit that we are not godless when we honor the Creator of the whole world, and according to how we are taught, we say that He does not require blood, libations and incense, but we glorify Him, to the best of our ability, with a word of prayer and thanksgiving in all our offerings? Our teacher in this is Jesus Christ, who for this was born and crucified under Pontius Pilate, the former ruler of Judea at the time of Tiberius Caesar; and we know that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and we put Him in the second place, and the Spirit of the prophet in the third place” (ch. 13). “Which of the well-minded does not admit that we are not godless when we honor the Creator of the whole world, and according to how we are taught, we say that He does not require blood, libations and incense, but we glorify Him, to the best of our ability, with a word of prayer and thanksgiving in all our offerings? Our teacher in this is Jesus Christ, who for this was born and crucified under Pontius Pilate, the former ruler of Judea at the time of Tiberius Caesar; and we know that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and we put Him in the second place, and the Spirit of the prophet in the third place” (ch. 13). “Which of the well-minded does not admit that we are not godless when we honor the Creator of the whole world, and according to how we are taught, we say that He does not require blood, libations and incense, but we glorify Him, to the best of our ability, with a word of prayer and thanksgiving in all our offerings? Our teacher in this is Jesus Christ, who for this was born and crucified under Pontius Pilate, the former ruler of Judea at the time of Tiberius Caesar; and we know that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and we put Him in the second place, and the Spirit of the prophet in the third place” (ch. 13). Who for this was born and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, the former ruler of Judea in the time of Tiberius Caesar; and we know that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and we put Him in the second place, and the Spirit of the prophet in the third place” (ch. 13). Who for this was born and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, the former ruler of Judea in the time of Tiberius Caesar; and we know that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and we put Him in the second place, and the Spirit of the prophet in the third place” (ch. 13).
Along with the accusation of Christians of atheism, the most popular was the accusation of immorality and planting illegally adopted children. In response to these accusations, Justin points out what chaste temperance and what views on marriage and children prevail in Christian society. “There are many men and women, sixty and seventy years old, who, having become disciples of Christ from childhood, live in virginity. Is it necessary to speak of the multitude of those who turned from debauchery and learned chastity? (Ch. 15). “We either get married, only to bring up children, or, refusing marriage, we constantly live in abstinence. In order to prove to you that shameful copulation among us does not constitute any sacrament, one of ours submitted a petition to the Alexandrian prefect Felix to allow the doctor to castrate him.
For a greater justification of Christians from the accusation of immorality, Justin points to the baptismal and Sunday meetings of Christians, which, according to the pagans, were the main place for the commission of immoral acts by Christians. “Washed by the water of baptism,” he says, “we are leading to the so-called brothers in the general assembly in order to make common prayers with all diligence both for ourselves and for the enlightened one and for all others who are everywhere, so that we may be rewarded by knowing the truth. , to appear in deeds as good citizens and doers of the commandments in order to receive eternal salvation. At the end of the prayers, we greet each other with a kiss. Then bread and a cup of water and wine are brought to the primate of the brethren; he, having taken it, sends up praise and glory to the Father of all in the name of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and gives thanks in detail for that, that He honored us with it. After he has performed prayers and thanksgiving, all the people present respond: "Amen." Amen is a Hebrew word meaning "let there be". After the thanksgiving of the primate and the proclamation of the whole people, the so-called deacons among us give each of those present bread, over which thanksgiving has been made, and wine, and water, and they are attributed to those who are absent. We call this food the Eucharist (thanksgiving), and no one else is allowed to participate in it, except for the one who believes in the truth of our teaching and has been washed with ablution into the remission of sins and into regeneration, and lives as Christ commanded. For we accept this not as ordinary bread or ordinary drink, but as Christ our Savior was incarnate by the word of God and had flesh and blood for our salvation, in the same way this food is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus” (ch. 65, 66). “On the day of the sun (Sunday), we have a meeting in one place of all those living in cities and villages; and read, as time permits, the sayings of the apostles or the writings of the prophets. Then, when the reader stops, the primate, by means of a word, instructs and exhorts them to imitate those beautiful things (about which they read). When we finish the prayer, then ... the Eucharist is celebrated in the order indicated above. Those who are sufficient and willing, each according to his own will, give what they want, and what is collected is kept by the primate; but he has care for orphans and widows, for all those who are in need due to sickness or for any other reason, for those in bondage, for strangers from afar, in general, he takes care of all who are in need. On the day of the sun, we all generally hold a meeting, because this is the first day on which God, having changed darkness and matter, created the world, and Jesus Christ, our Savior, rose from the dead on the same day ”(ch. 67). Such an innocent character of Christian meetings should have finally convinced any open-minded person of the groundlessness of accusing Christians of immorality.
Just as the common people saw in the name of a Christian a synonym for immorality, so the state authorities for the same name brought accusations of a political nature against Christians, considering them enemies of the state, since they expect some kind of kingdom other than the Roman one, do not worship the statue of the emperor, etc. In an apology addressed personally to the emperor, it was inconvenient to sharply condemn the injustice of government views on Christians. Therefore, Justin touches on a few state charges (and then briefly), in general terms showing their inconsistency. He does not deny that Christians expect a kingdom, but he proves that this kingdom is not political, and the Kingdom of God is a kingdom not of this world. “When you hear,” he says, “that we are looking forward to a kingdom, you think in vain that we are talking about some kind of kingdom of men, while we speak of reigning with God: this is clear from the fact that when you interrogate us, we ourselves confess that we are Christians, although we know that anyone who confesses this is subject to the death penalty. If we expected the human kingdom, we would renounce in order to avoid destruction, or we would try to hide in order to achieve the expected. But since our hopes are not directed towards the present, we do not worry when we are put to death, knowing that we must certainly die” (ch. 11). The refusal of Christians to render divine honors to the emperor Justin also explains not by political, but by religious motives. The Christian religion teaches that divine honors should only be given to God alone. But not worshiping the emperor as a god, Christians in all other cases show him due respect and obedience. They carefully pay taxes, recognize the emperor as the ruler of the people and pray that he will be endowed with a sound mind” (ch. 17). In conclusion, Justin tries to show that Christians are not only not enemies of the state, but, on the contrary, contribute to its well-being. “As for public peace,” he says, “we assist you and contribute to this more than all people, for we adhere to the doctrine that neither a villain, nor a greedy person, nor a malefactor, nor a virtuous person can hide from God, and that each one, according to the quality of his works, will receive eternal torment or salvation. If all people knew this, then no one would choose evil for a short time of life, knowing that he is going to eternal fiery condemnation, but would restrain himself in every possible way and be adorned with virtue in order to receive benefits and avoid punishment. Crimes are committed because the criminals are quite sure of the possibility of hiding from the people appointed by the judges. But if they knew and were sure that nothing could be hidden from God, then at least out of fear of punishment they would try to behave well” (ch. 12). Thus, it would be unjust to regard Christians as harmful and dangerous when they hold such a doctrine. Recognition of the omniscience of God should stop them from everything bad and direct them only to the good. it would be unfair. Recognition of the omniscience of God should stop them from everything bad and direct them only to the good. it would be unfair. Recognition of the omniscience of God should stop them from everything bad and direct them only to the good.
Among the pagans there were those who paid attention not only to the life of Christians, but also to their teaching. Considering Christians to be immoral people, harmful to the well-being of the state, the pagans, for that very reason, drew up a conclusion far from being in favor of the Christian doctrine. They turned to the consideration of the Christian doctrine already with a preconceived idea of finding shortcomings in it and placing them as a reproach to Christians. First of all, the later, compared with paganism, the appearance of Christianity was striking to the pagans. From this they concluded that Christianity was not a divine institution and was far below the pagan religions. St. Justin opposes this reproach with his remarkable idea of the pre-Christian revelations of the Logos, on the basis of which he concludes that Christianity, having received its teaching from the incarnate Word, there is an institution that is not new, but very ancient. Even in ancient times there were people enlightened by the Logos, who therefore can be called Christians, although they did not then bear this name. “Christ,” says Justin, “is the Firstborn of God, He is the Word, in which the whole human race participates. Those who lived in accordance with the Word are Christians, even if (by the pagans) they were considered atheists: among the Greeks Socrates and Heraclitus and their like, and among the Jews - Abraham, Ananias, Azariah and Misail, Elijah and many others "( chapter 46). Thus, Christianity did not appear late at all. Christ existed and always acted. Consequently, the reproach on the part of the pagans for the late appearance of Christianity is unfounded. who, therefore, may be called Christians, although they did not then bear that name. “Christ,” says Justin, “is the Firstborn of God, He is the Word, in which the whole human race participates. Those who lived in accordance with the Word are Christians, even if (by the pagans) they were considered atheists: among the Greeks Socrates and Heraclitus and their like, and among the Jews - Abraham, Ananias, Azariah and Misail, Elijah and many others "( chapter 46). Thus, Christianity did not appear late at all. Christ existed and always acted. Consequently, the reproach on the part of the pagans for the late appearance of Christianity is unfounded. who, therefore, may be called Christians, although they did not then bear that name. “Christ,” says Justin, “is the Firstborn of God, He is the Word, in which the whole human race participates. Those who lived in accordance with the Word are Christians, even if (by the pagans) they were considered atheists: among the Greeks Socrates and Heraclitus and their like, and among the Jews - Abraham, Ananias, Azariah and Misail, Elijah and many others "( chapter 46). Thus, Christianity did not appear late at all. Christ existed and always acted. Consequently, the reproach on the part of the pagans for the late appearance of Christianity is unfounded. are Christians, even if (from the side of the pagans) they were considered atheists: among the Hellenes Socrates and Heraclitus and the like, and among the Jews - Abraham, Ananias, Azariah and Misail, Elijah and many others ”(ch. 46). Thus, Christianity did not appear late at all. Christ existed and always acted. Consequently, the reproach on the part of the pagans for the late appearance of Christianity is unfounded. are Christians, even if (from the side of the pagans) they were considered atheists: among the Hellenes Socrates and Heraclitus and the like, and among the Jews - Abraham, Ananias, Azariah and Misail, Elijah and many others ”(ch. 46). Thus, Christianity did not appear late at all. Christ existed and always acted. Consequently, the reproach on the part of the pagans for the late appearance of Christianity is unfounded.
The pagans reproached the Christians even more for the fact that they consider the crucified man to be God, i.e. subjected, according to the notions of the ancients, to the most shameful punishment. “It is foolish, they said, to give second place to a crucified man after the unchangeable and eternal God” (ch. 13), and if they were pointed to the miracles of Jesus Christ as proof of His divinity, they objected: “that this does not prevent Christ from being ordinary a man who worked miracles by means of magic and therefore appeared to be the Son of God” (ch. 30). Since the dogma of the Divinity of Jesus Christ is the main (central) point of the Christian doctrine, and since the pagan attacks on him were especially strong, then, according to the importance of the subject of Justin's proof, they are both plentiful and varied. Justin sees the first proof of the Divinity of Jesus Christ in the moral impact that His teaching has on those who have accepted Christianity. “We,” he says, “formerly found pleasure in fornication, now we love only chastity; before we used the tricks of magic, but now we give ourselves over to the good and unborn God; before, we were most concerned about gaining wealth and possessions, now we bring what we have into society and share it with everyone who needs it; before they hated and killed each other, and did not want to use the same hearth with foreigners, due to the difference in customs - now, after the appearance of Christ, we live together and pray for our enemies, and we try to convince those who unjustly hate us that they, living according to the glorious rules of Christ , they truly hoped to receive with us the same blessings from God, who rules over all” (ch. 14). Such a highly moral disposition of Christians was produced by the commandments of Christ - about chastity (Matt. 5, 28-32), about love for all people (Matt. 5, 46; Luke 6, 28), about helping those in need (Matt. 5, 42; Luke 6, 30-34), about forgiveness, helpfulness to all and non-anger (Mt. 5, 39. 40, 22. 16), about worshiping the one God (Mk. 12, 30), etc. (Ch. 15-16). Then, as a second argument, Justin draws a close parallel between the Christian dogma of the Person of Jesus Christ and the pagan doctrine of the gods, in order to prove to the pagans that, from the point of view of their own theology, the dogma of the Deity of Jesus Christ should least of all be considered unreasonable. “If we said that the Word, which is the firstborn of God, Jesus Christ, was born without confusion, and that he was crucified, died and ascended to heaven, then we see nothing different from what you say about the so-called sons of Zeus among you ... If we say that He, the Word of God, was born from God in a special way and above an ordinary birth, then let this will be in common with you, who call Hermes the Word-messenger from God. And if anyone says that Christ was crucified, then this is common with the sons of Zeus, who were subjected to suffering. (Aesculapius was struck by lightning and ascended to heaven; Dionysus was torn to pieces; Hercules threw himself into the sea to avoid labor, etc.). Of course, their sufferings, which brought them to death, were different, so that He, and according to the peculiarities of His suffering, is in no way lower than them, but even higher than them: for it turns out who is better from deeds. If we say that He was born of the Virgin, then read this in common with Perseus (born of Danae).
Drawing a parallel between the doctrine of Christ and the pagan doctrine of the gods, Justin understood that it only to some extent weakens the reproach from the pagans, but does not justify the completely Christian doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ. Therefore, he immediately stipulates: “And we must believe our words, not because we speak like your writers, but because we speak the truth” (ch. 23). After that, he gives the last, decisive argument in favor of the Christian doctrine. The truth of this doctrine alone, he says, is confirmed by the testimony of the Old Testament prophets, through whom the prophetic Spirit foretold future events before they took place. Having said that these prophecies were carefully collected and kept by the Jews, and then, under the Egyptian king Ptolemy Philadelphus, were translated into Greek, therefore, made available to the pagans, Justin says: “In these books of the prophets we find a prediction that Jesus, our Christ, will come, be born of the Virgin and grow, will Heal every sickness and every disease, and raise the dead, will be envied, and will not be known, and crucified, will die and rise again, and will ascend into heaven, and will be and be called the Son of God, also that some will be sent by Him to preach this to all the human race and more of the Gentiles will believe in Him” (ch. 31). In the next 2 chapters (32-51), Justin gives the original text of the prophecies, in places explaining that all the prophecies concerning the earthly life of Jesus Christ have already come true, which the pagans can verify if they wish to make proper inquiries.
“When we prove,” says Justin, “that everything that has already come true was foretold by the prophets before it happened, then it is necessary to believe that that which is similarly foretold, but still has to happen, will certainly come true. For in the manner in which the events previously foretold and unknown were fulfilled, in the same way the rest will also come to pass, although they do not know it and do not believe it. The prophets foretold two comings of Christ: one, which had already happened, in the form of a not glorious and suffering Man, the other, when, as it was announced, He would come from heaven with glory, surrounded by His angelic host, and when He would resurrect the bodies of all the former people, and clothe the worthy bodies in incorruption, but the bodies of the wicked, capable of feeling forever, will be sent along with evil demons into eternal fire ”(ch. 52). Evidence by means of prophecy Justin considers especially convincing and irrefutable. Finishing it, he exclaims: “How could we believe the Crucified Man that He is the Firstborn of the unbegotten God and will execute judgment on the whole human race, if we did not find evidence that was foretold about Him before He came and became a man, and if Didn’t they see that this is exactly what happened – that the land of Judea was devastated, that people from every nation believed in Him through the teaching of His apostles, and abandoned the ancient customs in which they lived by error?” (ch. 53). foretold about Him before He came and became a man, and if they had not seen that this was exactly what happened, that the land of Judea was devastated, that people from every nation believed in Him through the teaching of His apostles, and abandoned the ancient customs in which did they live in error? (ch. 53). foretold about Him before He came and became a man, and if they had not seen that this was exactly what happened, that the land of Judea was devastated, that people from every nation believed in Him through the teaching of His apostles, and abandoned the ancient customs in which did they live in error? (ch. 53).
Along with the proof of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, Justin proves the truth of two more dogmas closely related to him and also disputed by the pagans - about the resurrection of the dead and the last Judgment.
He proves the truth of the resurrection by the following comparison. “We hope to receive our bodies that have died and turned to the earth, affirming that nothing is impossible for God. Let's talk hypothetically. Let us assume that you did not exist in your present form and would not be born of such parents as yours: if someone showed you the seed of a human and the image of a human form, and began to assert that such a being came from that same being, then you would believe this without actually seeing it? No one, I think, would dare to deny (that he would not believe). In the same way, your unbelief comes from the fact that you have not yet seen the resurrected dead. But how would you not believe before that from a small drop you can be made like you, and yet you see that this is being done; judge in the same way as human bodies,
The resurrection, according to Justin, is not only possible, but also necessary, because the matter of the greatest justice is connected with it - retribution to each according to his deeds, i.e. the righteous after the resurrection will receive eternal bliss, and sinners will be given over to eternal torment. “We desire,” says Justin, “eternal and pure life, we strive to be with God, the Father and the creator of the whole world, and we hasten to confess our faith, being convinced and believing that such a reward will be achieved by those who, by their deeds, have testified before God fidelity in serving Him and love for life with Him, inaccessible to evil... Plato also says that sinners will come to judgment to Rhadamanthus and Minos and will be punished by them; and we affirm the same thing, but, in our opinion, Christ will be the judge, and their souls will be united with the same bodies and will be given over to eternal torment” (ch. 8). “If death led to a state of insensibility, then it would be beneficial for all villains” (ch. 17). “When we teach that the souls of evildoers, and having feelings after death, will be punished, and the souls of good people, free from punishment, will live in bliss, then we say the same as the philosophers” (ch. 20). “And the prophets teach that according to the merit of deeds, either punishments and torments or rewards are given” (ch. 43).
After proving the truth of the most important Christian dogmas, Justin finds out the power and meaning of the cross, which served as such a temptation for the pagans. "The cross, as the prophet foretold, is the greatest symbol of the power and authority of Christ, as can be seen from the objects that are subject to our observation." A ship with a raised sail has a cruciform shape, agricultural and craft tools and a man with outstretched arms have. Finally, “and your symbols represent the power of the cross shape. I mean the banners and trophies with which you make your solemn processions, showing in them a sign of your power and strength, although you do this without thinking about it yourself ”(ch. 50). Philosophers also found the doctrine of the cross. Plato in Timaeus says that God placed His Son in the universe like the letter X (the shape of a cross) (ch. 60).
But if Christians lead a pure charitable life, if they are never enemies of the state, and if, finally, they contain an exalted, divine teaching, in some points similar to the opinions of the best pagan writers, then why are they alone of all people subjected to persecution for their religion? ? Justin sees the explanation of this, at first glance, incomprehensible phenomenon in the action of evil demons on the pagans, the fundamental property of which is to deceive people and mislead them. Having created paganism, they in various ways forced people who were not firm in the knowledge of God to believe in it, and since then they have kept them in their power, in every possible way distracting them from the truth. Since Christians preach this truth, the demons are their natural enemies and turn the pagans against them. "The so-called demons," says Justin, - they are only trying to lead people away from God the Creator and His First-Born Christ God, and those who cannot rise from the earth, they have nailed and are nailing to earthly and man-made things, and those who strive for the contemplation of the divine, imperceptibly seduce , and if they do not have a sound mind and do not lead a pure and passionless life, they plunge into wickedness ”(ch. 58). “Even in ancient times, evil demons, openly appearing, defiled women and youths and caused amazing horrors to people, so that those who did not reason with their minds about their actions, being seized with fear, and not knowing that they were evil demons, called them gods and gave them such a name, which one of the demons chose for himself ”(ch. 5). From here came the legends about the various sons of Zeus (ch. 21) and all pagan immoral mythology in general (ch. 25), since the demons, through the mediation of the poets, previously told for reality what the latter described in the legends they invented (ch. 23). “They demand sacrifices and service from those who live contrary to reason (ch. 12), and in general try to keep you in slavery and service, either through dreams or through magical charms they captivate everyone who does not try in the least for their salvation” ( chapter 14). To deceive and corrupt the human race, demons perverted divine teachings. They, having heard the predictions of the prophets that Christ would come and the impious people would be punished by fire, did what many called themselves the sons of Zeus, thinking that they would perform such an action so that people would consider the legend of Christ as wonderful tales, similar to those that were told by poets. . So, for example, the prophecy of Moses: “The prince will not become impoverished from Judas. ..” they distorted into a legend that Dionysus will be born from Zeus, will be the inventor of grapes, etc. The prophecy of Isaiah about the birth of Christ from the Virgin and about His ascension to heaven was presented in the form of a legend about Perseus. The prophecy that He would heal the sick and raise the dead was perverted into the legend of "Aesculapius" (ch. 51). After Christ's ascension to heaven, they exposed such people who called themselves gods, such as, for example, Simon the Magus and Menander (ch. 26; cf. ch. 56). “Hearing about the Christian ablution, which was announced by the prophets, the demons made it so that those who enter their temples and wish to approach them to make libations and incense sprinkle themselves, and even do what people go and wash themselves before entering the temples dedicated to them” (ch. 62). Even the sacrament of the Eucharist is transferred by demons to the rites of Mithra, where one who enters the mystery is offered bread and a bowl of water (ch. 66). The same demons, denounced by Christians, “invented those vicious and impious deeds that are raised against Christians and for which there is no witness or proof (ch. 23). They also produce the fact that those who live unreasonably, brought up in passions and bad customs and attached to empty opinions, destroy and hate Christians” (ch. 57).
With his reasoning about demons, Justin achieved two goals: on the one hand, he pointed out the main source of hatred of pagans for Christians, and on the other hand, he proved the falsity of paganism, which, as a product of demons, is a distance from true knowledge of God.
The apologia ends with a repetition of a plea to the government for justice. “If everything I have said,” says Justin, “seems to you to agree with reason and truth, then respect it; if it seems trifling to you, then leave it in contempt, as trifles, and do not condemn innocent people to death as enemies. We tell you in advance that you will not escape the future judgment of God if you continue in your unrighteousness, and we exclaim: let it be what God pleases” (ch. 68).
Apology II
The second apology, given to the same Antoninus the Pious, serves as a continuation and addition to the first, since it either introduces new ones, or supplements those already encountered in the first arguments for the defense of Christianity and Christians. It was written on a special occasion that took place in Rome itself. Here a Roman woman, having converted to Christianity, divorced her dissolute husband. To avenge her for this, he told the authorities that she was a Christian, as a result of which she had to appear in court to testify. Knowing how Christian trials usually end, she submitted a request to the emperor that she be allowed to put her household affairs in order before answering the accusation. Her request was granted. Then the embittered husband drew the attention of the authorities to Ptolemy, who was her mentor in Christian teaching. Ptolemy, presented to the court of the prefect Urbic, firmly confessed himself a Christian and for this he was sentenced to death. Another Christian present at this condemnation, by the name of Lucius, indignant at the violation of ancient Roman justice, said to Urbicus: “Why did you condemn to execution a man who is not guilty of fornication or adultery, not a murderer, not a robber or a thief, and not convicted at all in any crime, and confessed only that he was a Christian? You, Urbicus, judge how indecent it is to judge neither a pious autocrat, nor a philosopher, the son of Caesar, nor the holy Senate. Urbic said to Lucius: “And you, it seems to me, are the same?” (Christian). "Yes," replied Lucius, and was also led to execution. The same fate befell the third Christian who approached the work (ch. 2-3). He firmly confessed himself a Christian and for this he was sentenced to death. Another Christian present at this condemnation, by the name of Lucius, indignant at the violation of ancient Roman justice, said to Urbicus: “Why did you condemn to execution a man who is not guilty of fornication or adultery, not a murderer, not a robber or a thief, and not convicted at all in any crime, and confessed only that he was a Christian? You, Urbicus, judge how indecent it is to judge neither a pious autocrat, nor a philosopher, the son of Caesar, nor the holy Senate. Urbic said to Lucius: “And you, it seems to me, are the same?” (Christian). "Yes," replied Lucius, and was also led to execution. The same fate befell the third Christian who approached the work (ch. 2-3). He firmly confessed himself a Christian and for this he was sentenced to death. Another Christian present at this condemnation, by the name of Lucius, indignant at the violation of ancient Roman justice, said to Urbicus: “Why did you condemn to execution a man who is not guilty of fornication or adultery, not a murderer, not a robber or a thief, and not convicted at all in any crime, and confessed only that he was a Christian? You, Urbicus, judge how indecent it is to judge neither a pious autocrat, nor a philosopher, the son of Caesar, nor the holy Senate. Urbic said to Lucius: “And you, it seems to me, are the same?” (Christian). "Yes," replied Lucius, and was also led to execution. The same fate befell the third Christian who approached the work (ch. 2-3). Another Christian present at this condemnation, by the name of Lucius, indignant at the violation of ancient Roman justice, said to Urbicus: “Why did you condemn to execution a man who is not guilty of fornication or adultery, not a murderer, not a robber or a thief, and not convicted at all in any crime, and confessed only that he was a Christian? You, Urbicus, judge how indecent it is to judge neither a pious autocrat, nor a philosopher, the son of Caesar, nor the holy Senate. Urbic said to Lucius: “And you, it seems to me, are the same?” (Christian). "Yes," replied Lucius, and was also led to execution. The same fate befell the third Christian who approached the work (ch. 2-3). Another Christian present at this condemnation, by the name of Lucius, indignant at the violation of ancient Roman justice, said to Urbicus: “Why did you condemn to execution a man who is not guilty of fornication or adultery, not a murderer, not a robber or a thief, and not convicted at all in any crime, and confessed only that he was a Christian? You, Urbicus, judge how indecent it is to judge neither a pious autocrat, nor a philosopher, the son of Caesar, nor the holy Senate. Urbic said to Lucius: “And you, it seems to me, are the same?” (Christian). "Yes," replied Lucius, and was also led to execution. The same fate befell the third Christian who approached the work (ch. 2-3). who is not guilty of fornication or adultery, is not a murderer, is not a robber or a thief, and is not convicted of any crime at all, but confesses only that he is a Christian? You, Urbicus, judge how indecent it is to judge neither a pious autocrat, nor a philosopher, the son of Caesar, nor the holy Senate. Urbic said to Lucius: “And you, it seems to me, are the same?” (Christian). "Yes," replied Lucius, and was also led to execution. The same fate befell the third Christian who approached the work (ch. 2-3). who is not guilty of fornication or adultery, is not a murderer, is not a robber or a thief, and is not convicted of any crime at all, but confesses only that he is a Christian? You, Urbicus, judge how indecent it is to judge neither a pious autocrat, nor a philosopher, the son of Caesar, nor the holy Senate. Urbic said to Lucius: “And you, it seems to me, are the same?” (Christian). "Yes," replied Lucius, and was also led to execution. The same fate befell the third Christian who approached the work (ch. 2-3). same?" (Christian). "Yes," replied Lucius, and was also led to execution. The same fate befell the third Christian who approached the work (ch. 2-3). same?" (Christian). "Yes," replied Lucius, and was also led to execution. The same fate befell the third Christian who approached the work (ch. 2-3).
Not satisfied with the unjust condemnation of innocent Christians, the pagans often still mocked them. Seeing the firmness of Christians in enduring torments and impassivity before death itself, they mockingly asked: “Why don’t Christians kill themselves in order to go to their God and thereby save the pagans from unnecessary troubles (ch. 4), or why the Christian God allows that Do lawless people rule over Christians and torment them?” (ch. 5). Frequent executions of Christians, in the manner described, and cruel mockery of the sufferers prompted Justin to write his second apology in order to protect the innocent suffering and protect them from rude and inappropriate ridicule.
Responding to the first taunt, he says, “I'll tell you why we don't do it. We are taught that God did not create the world in vain, but for the human race, and He delights in those who imitate Him in His own virtues, and He hates those who prefer evil in word or deed. So, if we all begin to kill ourselves, then we will be guilty of the fact that, as much as it depends on us, no one will be born, no one will learn the Divine teaching, and the human race will cease to exist, and if we do this, then we ourselves will act contrary to the will of God. (Ch. 4).
The second reproach regarding the alleged impotence of the Christian God to protect His followers Justin reflects by pointing to the omnipotence of God. God, if he wants, can destroy the whole world, and not only punish the lawless who rule over Christians. If he does not yet do this, then only for the sake of the seed of Christians, which he recognizes as the reason for the preservation of the world. “And if it were not for this, then it would no longer be possible for you to do this with us and be aroused to that by evil demons; but the judgment fire would have descended and destroyed everything indiscriminately, just as before the waters of the flood did not leave anyone except one with his family, who is called Noah among us, and Deucalion among you, and from whom such a multitude of people - evil and good" (ch. .7). In the course of time, this will certainly happen. demons, who in all ages were the main culprits of the suffering of righteous people, and all those who serve demons will be punished with eternal fire (ch. 8). “But lest anyone say that everything we say about the punishment of unrighteous people in eternal fire is only empty words and scares, and that we inspire people to live virtuously only out of fear, and not because it is good and beautiful, - on I will answer briefly that if this is not so, then there is no God, or if there is, then He does not care about people; that both virtue and vice are nothing, and that legislators unjustly punish those who transgress their good precepts. But since they are not unjust, and their Father through the Word teaches them to do the same thing that He Himself does, then those who conform to them do not act unjustly” (ch. 9). “But lest anyone say that everything we say about the punishment of unrighteous people in eternal fire is only empty words and scares, and that we inspire people to live virtuously only out of fear, and not because it is good and beautiful, - on I will answer briefly that if this is not so, then there is no God, or if there is, then He does not care about people; that both virtue and vice are nothing, and that legislators unjustly punish those who transgress their good precepts. But since they are not unjust, and their Father through the Word teaches them to do the same thing that He Himself does, then those who conform to them do not act unjustly” (ch. 9). “But lest anyone say that everything we say about the punishment of unrighteous people in eternal fire is only empty words and scares, and that we inspire people to live virtuously only out of fear, and not because it is good and beautiful, - on I will answer briefly that if this is not so, then there is no God, or if there is, then He does not care about people; that both virtue and vice are nothing, and that legislators unjustly punish those who transgress their good precepts. But since they are not unjust, and their Father through the Word teaches them to do the same thing that He Himself does, then those who conform to them do not act unjustly” (ch. 9). and not because it is good and beautiful, - I will answer this briefly, that if this is not so, then there is no God, or if there is, then He does not care about people; that both virtue and vice are nothing, and that legislators unjustly punish those who transgress their good precepts. But since they are not unjust, and their Father through the Word teaches them to do the same thing that He Himself does, then those who conform to them do not act unjustly” (ch. 9). and not because it is good and beautiful, - I will answer this briefly, that if this is not so, then there is no God, or if there is, then He does not care about people; that both virtue and vice are nothing, and that legislators unjustly punish those who transgress their good precepts. But since they are not unjust, and their Father through the Word teaches them to do the same thing that He Himself does, then those who conform to them do not act unjustly” (ch. 9).
Reflecting pagan ridicule and reproaches on the basis of Christian doctrine, Justin then proves to the pagans that this doctrine is the only true one, since it was received from the Word of God (Jesus Christ), that Word, with the assistance of which even pagan writers expressed their best thoughts. “Our teaching,” says Justin, “is more exalted than any human teaching, because Christ, who appeared for us, was the Word in everything. And everything that was ever said and discovered good by philosophers and legislators, all this was done by them according to the extent to which they found and contemplated the Word, and since they did not know all the properties of the Word, which is Christ, they often said the opposite to themselves. The superiority of the Christian teaching over any other is also evident from the fact that even the best pagan teacher, Socrates, no one believed so to die for his teaching; on the contrary, not only philosophers and scientists believed in Christ, but also artisans and completely uneducated, despising glory, and fear, and death ”(ch. 10; cf. ch. 13).
“So, I ask you,” Justin concludes his apology, “be kind enough to publish this work, so that others will know about our deeds and can be freed from a false opinion and ignorance of the good.”
Conversation with Tryphon the Jew
“A Conversation with Trypho the Jew” is an example of an apology for Christianity against its other enemy, Judaism, which, like paganism, but with greater consciousness and conviction, hated Christianity, used every opportunity to slander it, and when the opportunity presented itself, used repressive measures against it. . According to Justin, the Jewish rabbis drew up special curses against Christians (Ch. 16, 47, 96, 108, 133) and issued a command that the Jews did not enter into any communication with Christians, did not have conversations with them at all, and, moreover, about the objects of faith (ch. 38). The Jews, in addition, greatly contributed to the creation and dissemination of those slanders and accusations about Christianity and Christians that existed in modern society (ch. 17 and 108). In times of anarchy, such as
Justin, who declared himself in his oral and literary activity such a zealous defender of Christianity against paganism, could not ignore the written refutation of another enemy of Christianity, and tried to clarify the groundlessness of his enmity. He even considered himself obligated to do this, on the one hand, in the hope that the Jews would understand his words and turn to the path of truth and salvation, and on the other hand, out of fear that he would be punished by God for silence about the truth (ch. 38, 58, 64, 82).
The struggle against Judaism placed the Christian apologist in different conditions and made other demands than the struggle against paganism. Instead of justifying Christians from various accusations and proving the truth of Christianity as opposed to the falsity of paganism, here it was necessary to prove three points: 1) that the ritual law of Moses has a temporary, private and transformative character, and with the coming of the Savior lost its significance; 2) that Jesus Christ, who came to earth in an inglorious form, is the true Messiah, foretold by the prophets and foreshadowed by Old Testament symbols; 3) that the promises about the New Covenant of God with people, about the coming of a new grace-filled Kingdom refer to Christianity. The logical conclusion from this is that the Jews should not hate Christianity, but accept it as a more perfect divine religion, which replaced Judaism. In the fight against Judaism, the apologist had to rely solely on Holy Scripture. This method of proof has its advantages and disadvantages. Its convenience lies in the fact that Holy Scripture is a solid authority for the Jews, but it is a great inconvenience that the Jews interpret certain passages of Holy Scripture in their own way, in an anti-Christian sense. Consequently, the defender of Christianity must not only cite passages from Holy Scripture that condemn the Jews, but also establish such a correct interpretation of them that would exclude any other, incorrect one. Scripture is a strong authority for the Jews, but it is a great inconvenience that the Jews interpret certain passages of Holy Scripture in their own way, in an anti-Christian sense. Consequently, the defender of Christianity must not only cite passages from Holy Scripture that condemn the Jews, but also establish such a correct interpretation of them that would exclude any other, incorrect one. Scripture is a strong authority for the Jews, but it is a great inconvenience that the Jews interpret certain passages of Holy Scripture in their own way, in an anti-Christian sense. Consequently, the defender of Christianity must not only cite passages from Holy Scripture that condemn the Jews, but also establish such a correct interpretation of them that would exclude any other, incorrect one.
By the completeness and brilliant fulfillment of such a peculiar task, "Conversation with Trypho the Jew" can be considered a model for ancient anti-Jewish apologies. It is not known exactly when it was written, but undoubtedly later than the two apologies against paganism, since there is a hint of this in the Conversation itself (ch. 120).
* * *
In the first eight chapters of the Conversation with Trypho, Justin tells how he accidentally met Tryphon, a philosophizing Jew, in Ephesus, who became interested in his philosophical cloak, and how, as a result, a lengthy conversation ensued between them. When asked by Tryphon about what philosophical direction he holds, Justin told (2-8 ch.) the story of his conversion to Christianity after a long search for truth from philosophers and concluded with the words that Christianity is "a single, firm and useful philosophy." After listening to this story, Tryphon, true to his philosophical sympathies and adherence to Judaism, said with a smile: “I approve of something else from what you said, and I am surprised at your zeal for the divine, but it would be better for you to follow the philosophy of Plato or someone else and live in a feat of patience, temperance and chastity, rather than being deceived by false words and following people who are worthless. For if you remained faithful to those philosophical principles and lived irreproachably, then there would still remain the hope of a better fate; but now that you have left God and put your hope in man, what means of salvation remain for you? Therefore, if you want to obey me (for I am already looking at you as a friend), then first accept circumcision, then, as it is legal, keep the Sabbath and feasts and new moons of God and in general fulfill everything that is written in the law, and then, perhaps you will have mercy from God. As for Christ, if He was born and is somewhere, then He is unknown to others, and neither knows Himself nor has any power, until Elijah comes, anoints and declares Him to everyone. And you Christians
These words of Tryphon about the need to accept Judaism as the only means of salvation and about the futility of the Christian faith evoked a worthy response from Justin. “I will prove,” he said, “that we did not believe empty fables and not unproven words, but a doctrine that is full of the Holy Spirit and abounds in power and grace” (ch. 9). Further, in places from Holy Scripture, he proves that the Law of Moses, to which the Jews attach such importance, has now been replaced by a new, more perfect, law of Christ, which Christians follow, and that the Jews, only because of their inveterate stubbornness, do not want to recognize this. “I have read,” says Justin, “that there must once be a last law and a testament stronger than all others, which must be observed by all people who wish to receive the inheritance of God. The law given in Horeb there is already the old law, and only for you, the Jews, but the one I am talking about is for all people in general; a new law placed above the law abolishes the older one, and then the next one similarly destroys the former one. We have been given an eternal and perfect law, and a sure covenant, this is Christ, after whom there is no more law, or regulation, or commandment. The prophets Isaiah (Isaiah 51:4, 5) and Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:31-32) speak of this new law. So, if God (in the prophecy of Isaiah) foretold that He would establish a new law and, moreover, one that would be a light for the nations, and we see and are sure that in the name of the crucified Jesus people turned to God from idolatry and other lawlessness, and remain until death in their confession, then all can understand both from these very actions and from the miracles that accompany them, that He is the new law and the New Testament, and the hope of those who, of all peoples, looked for blessings from God” (ch. 11). “You despised this very law and rejected His new holy covenant, and even now you do not accept it and do not repent of your crime, for your ears are closed, your eyes are blinded, and your heart is hardened” (Is. 4, 10; Ch. 12) .
Developing his thought further, Justin proves that due to the abolition of the entire Old Testament law, its individual instructions on ablutions, fasting, circumcision, Sabbath, sacrifices, etc., in the performance of which the Jews delivered their righteousness, lost their meaning. He finds out that even in ancient times, when these decrees were binding, they were relative and temporary. The saving power did not lie in them themselves, but in the moral actions associated with them, which is why the Scripture says that God expresses His rebuke, seeing their formal fulfillment without a corresponding purity of heart and thoughts. God gave them according to the special conditions of the character and life of the Jews: according to their cruelty, in order to distract them from idolatry and make them constantly remember God. Relative, and not the unconditional nature of these prescriptions is even more clear from the fact that Scripture indicates cases when deviations from them are possible. In the same way, their temporary character is proved by the fact that God did not give them from the beginning of the world, but at a certain time, and the righteous who lived before the publication of these decrees were justified. As temporary and relative, they are completely irrelevant now that the new rules of a charitable life have appeared.
“What is the use,” says Justin, “in that washing, which cleanses only the body? Wash your soul from anger and covetousness, from envy, from hatred, and then the whole body will be clean. This is given "through the bath of repentance and the knowledge of God" (baptism), which Isaiah speaks of (Isaiah 6:10).
The meaning of unleavened bread is the same, namely, that you do not do ancient deeds of bad leaven (chap. 14).
To please God, learn to observe the true fast of God, as Isaiah says: “Break every covenant of unrighteousness, break the webs of violent covenants, set the oppressed free, and destroy every unrighteous record. Break your bread to the hungry, and bring the poor bloodless into your house; if you see a naked man, cover him and do not despise your family from your offspring” (Isaiah 58:6, 7; ch. 15).
Instead of carnal circumcision, “circumcise the coarseness of your hearts and be no more hard-hearted,” as Moses says (Deut. 10:16, 17; cf. Lev. 26:40-41; ch. 16). If fleshly circumcision were necessary, as you think, then God would not have created Adam uncircumcised, would not have regarded the gifts of Abel, who offered sacrifices in uncircumcision of the flesh, would not have pleased him Enoch, uncircumcised, taken to heaven. Lot uncircumcised escaped from Sodom because the angels and the Lord himself brought him out. Noah, being uncircumcised, went into the ark with his children. Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High, was not circumcised, to whom Abraham, the first to receive circumcision according to the flesh, gave a tithe, and Melchizedek blessed him, according to whose order God announced through David (Ps. 109, 4) to appoint an eternal priest (ch. 19). Yes, and Abraham himself, while still uncircumcised, was justified and blessed for the faith he had in God, as Scripture shows (Gen. 15:6); he received circumcision only as a sign, and not for justification, which forces us to recognize both Scripture and the very essence of the matter. And the inability of the female to carnal circumcision proves that this circumcision is given as a sign, and not as a work of righteousness. God created women in such a way that they too can do everything holy and virtuous (ch. 23).
Only condescending to the weakness of the people, God commanded to bring sacrifices so that you would not worship idols (chap. 19), and not because they were needed by Him. Hear how He speaks of this through Amos (Amos 5:18-6, 7), Jeremiah (Jer. 7:21, 22), and David (Ps. 49; ch. 22).
He commanded to observe the Sabbath so that you remember God, as Ezekiel says (Ezek. 20, 12, 20; 19-26; ch. 19), but God also allows the violation of the Sabbath. “You see that the elements are not idle and do not keep the Sabbath” (ch. 23). The high priests offer sacrifices on the Sabbath, circumcision is performed on the eighth day, even if it is a Sabbath. “If God knew that circumcision on the Sabbath was impious, then could He not command that it be performed on those born the day before or after the Sabbath? (ch. 27). And God Himself on this day (Saturday) governs the world (ch. 29).
God also commanded you to abstain from certain foods, so that you would have God before your eyes while eating and drinking, since you are fickle and tend to leave the knowledge of Him, as Moses says (Ex. 32, 6; Deut. 32, 15; chapter 20).
Even the temple called Jerusalem, God recognized as His house or palace, not because He needed it, but so that you, at least there, honoring Him, would not worship idolatry. This is confirmed by the words of Isaiah (Isaiah 66:1; ch. 22).
If we do not admit this, then we must fall into absurd thoughts: either that the same God was not in the days of Enoch and all others who knew neither the circumcision of the flesh, nor kept the Sabbaths and other institutions prescribed by Moses, or that God it was desirable that the human race did not always do the same righteous deeds; to think so clearly is ridiculous and stupid. But we must confess that God, being always the same, ordained these and similar actions because of people who are sinners. If before Abraham there was no need for circumcision, and before Moses there was no need for Sabbaths, feasts and offerings, then even now, when by the will of the Father, the Son of God Jesus Christ was born without sin from the Virgin of the race of Abraham, there is also no need for them (chap. 23). Understand, I beg you, that the blood of circumcision has been destroyed and we have believed in the saving Blood: another is now the Testament, another law went out from Zion. Now, according to the word of the prophet (Hos. V, 2; Is. 26, 2, 3; 65, 1-3; II, 5, 6; Jer. 3, 17), new nations are called into the Kingdom of God (ch. 24- 25), and therefore all “those who believe in Christ and repent of what they have sinned will receive an inheritance along with the patriarchs, prophets and righteous people born of Jacob, although they do not keep Sabbaths, are not circumcised and do not keep feasts” (ch. 26). From the words of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 9, 25, 26) it is clear that God rejects nations with circumcised flesh and uncircumcised hearts, so that “whether a Scythian or a Persian, however, if he has the knowledge of God and His Christ and keeps His eternal commandments - he is circumcised with a beautiful and useful circumcision and is a friend of God, who gladly accepts his gifts and offerings ”(ch. 28). 65, 1-3; II, 5, 6; Jer. 3:17), new nations are called into the Kingdom of God (ch. 24-25), and therefore all “those who believe in Christ and repent of what they have sinned will receive an inheritance along with the patriarchs, prophets and righteous people born of Jacob, although they do not keep the Sabbath are not circumcised, and do not keep feasts” (ch. 26). From the words of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 9, 25, 26) it is clear that God rejects nations with circumcised flesh and uncircumcised hearts, so that “whether a Scythian or a Persian, however, if he has the knowledge of God and His Christ and keeps His eternal commandments - he is circumcised with a beautiful and useful circumcision and is a friend of God, who gladly accepts his gifts and offerings ”(ch. 28). 65, 1-3; II, 5, 6; Jer. 3:17), new nations are called into the Kingdom of God (ch. 24-25), and therefore all “those who believe in Christ and repent of what they have sinned will receive an inheritance along with the patriarchs, prophets and righteous people born of Jacob, although they do not keep the Sabbath are not circumcised, and do not keep feasts” (ch. 26). From the words of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 9, 25, 26) it is clear that God rejects nations with circumcised flesh and uncircumcised hearts, so that “whether a Scythian or a Persian, however, if he has the knowledge of God and His Christ and keeps His eternal commandments - he is circumcised with a beautiful and useful circumcision and is a friend of God, who gladly accepts his gifts and offerings ”(ch. 28). they will receive an inheritance along with the patriarchs, prophets and righteous people born of Jacob, although they do not keep the Sabbath, are not circumcised and do not observe holidays” (ch. 26). From the words of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 9, 25, 26) it is clear that God rejects nations with circumcised flesh and uncircumcised hearts, so that “whether a Scythian or a Persian, however, if he has the knowledge of God and His Christ and keeps His eternal commandments - he is circumcised with a beautiful and useful circumcision and is a friend of God, who gladly accepts his gifts and offerings ”(ch. 28). they will receive an inheritance along with the patriarchs, prophets and righteous people born of Jacob, although they do not keep the Sabbath, are not circumcised and do not observe holidays” (ch. 26). From the words of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 9, 25, 26) it is clear that God rejects nations with circumcised flesh and uncircumcised hearts, so that “whether a Scythian or a Persian, however, if he has the knowledge of God and His Christ and keeps His eternal commandments - he is circumcised with a beautiful and useful circumcision and is a friend of God, who gladly accepts his gifts and offerings ”(ch. 28).
In the same way, those institutions of the Mosaic law, which were the prototypes of Christianity, had a temporary significance, which should have ceased with the coming of Christ. “The sacrament of the lamb, which God commanded to be slaughtered as the Passover, was a type of Christ, with whose blood the believers, according to their faith in Him, anoint their houses, — themselves. And that this commandment about the lamb was given for a time, I will prove this. God does not allow the Passover lamb to be slaughtered anywhere except in the place where “His name dwelt” (Deut. 16:5, 6), because he knew that after the suffering of Christ, the days would come when the place of Jerusalem would be betrayed to your enemies and all offerings will cease altogether. The lamb, which was commanded to roast everything, was a symbol of the suffering of the cross, which Christ had to suffer. For when the lamb is roasted, then it is placed like a cross figure: one skewer passes through it directly from the lower extremities to the head, and the other across the shoulder blades, on which the front legs of the lamb are held. Similarly, those two goats during fasting, of which one was released and the other was sacrificed, announced the twofold coming of Christ: the first, when the elders of your people and the priests brought Him out as a released goat, laid hands on Him and killed Him, and another coming Him, because in the same place in Jerusalem you will recognize the One whom you dishonored and who was an offering for all sinners who desire to repent and observe the fast prescribed by Isaiah. You also know that this offering of two goats, which was commanded to be offered during fasting, is not allowed anywhere except Jerusalem (chap. 40). And an offering of wheat flour, which was ordered to be offered for those who were cleansed of leprosy, was a prototype of the Eucharist bread, which our Lord Jesus Christ commanded to bring in remembrance of the suffering He raised for people who cleanse their souls from all sin, and at the same time so that we would thank God as for that he delivered us from the sin in which we were, and completely destroyed principalities and powers through him who became afflicted according to his will. Therefore, according to Malachi (Mal. 1, 10-12), God rejects the sacrifices of the Old Testament, but about the sacrifices that we pagans bring in every place - about the bread of the Eucharist and also about the chalice of the Eucharist, even then he predicts that We glorify His name, but you desecrate it. And the commandment that infants must be circumcised on the eighth day was a type of true circumcision, by whom we were circumcised from error and sin through our Lord Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead on the first day of the week, who, in the number of all days according to their cycle, is called the eighth, although he remains the first (ch. 41). twelve bells [1] hanging on the long robe of the high priest, were the symbol of the twelve apostles, who were strengthened by the power of the eternal Priest of Christ, and whose voice, according to the prophecies (Ps. 18, 4; Is. 53, 1, 2), filled the whole earth with glory and the grace of God and His Christ. Thus listing all the other ordinances of Moses, I could prove that they were types, symbols and proclamations of what happened to Christ - those people whose faith in Him was foreknown, as well as actions that were to be performed by Christ Himself. (ch. 42).
Having proved that the ceremonial law of Moses had a temporary and preparatory meaning in relation to Christianity, Justin draws an instructive conclusion for the Jews: and there is no other way than that, having come to know our Christ and having been washed by that baptism for the remission of sins, which Isaiah proclaimed, you should then live without sin” (ch. 44). This conclusion finally destroyed the proud, expressed by Tryphon at the beginning of the conversation, the hope of the Jews to receive eternal salvation through the observance of the law of Moses.
But the Jews hated Christians not only for rejecting the law of Moses, as having lost its meaning, but also for the deification of Jesus Christ, whose death was caused by the Jews themselves and whom they considered a simple man who blasphemously pretended to be God. The Jews, as strict monotheists, resented the fact that Christians, deifying Jesus Christ, thereby create another God besides God the Creator of everything, while according to Scripture, there is only one true God. Expressing this common Jewish view, Tryphon asks Justin to prove whether there is another God besides the Creator of everything (ch. 50). In response to this, Justin, firstly, points to many cases of appearances on earth of a God different from God the Father. So, this second Divine person appeared to Abraham at the oak of Mamre (Gen. 18, 27, 28), Abraham and Lot before the death of Sodom (Gen. 18, 13-14, 16-17, 20-23, 33; 19:1, 10, 16, 23-25), repeatedly appeared to Jacob (Gen. 31:10-13; 32:22-30; 28:10-19) and appeared to Moses in a fireproof bush (Ex. 2:23; 3, 16; ch. 56. 58-59). “He,” says Justin, “who in Scripture appears to have appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Moses and is called God, is other than the Creator of all, other, of course, in number, and not in will, for I affirm that He did only that that God who created all things, above whom there is no other God, was pleased that He did and spoke” (ch. 56). “No one, even the least intelligent, will dare to assert that the Creator of everything and the Father left everything that exists above heaven, and appeared on a small particle of the earth” (ch. 60). 23; 3, 16; ch. 56.58-59). “He,” says Justin, “who in Scripture appears to have appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Moses and is called God, is other than the Creator of all, other, of course, in number, and not in will, for I affirm that He did only that that God who created all things, above whom there is no other God, was pleased that He did and spoke” (ch. 56). “No one, even the least intelligent, will dare to assert that the Creator of everything and the Father left everything that exists above heaven, and appeared on a small particle of the earth” (ch. 60). 23; 3, 16; ch. 56.58-59). “He,” says Justin, “who in Scripture appears to have appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Moses and is called God, is other than the Creator of all, other, of course, in number, and not in will, for I affirm that He did only that that God who created all things, above whom there is no other God, was pleased that He did and spoke” (ch. 56). “No one, even the least intelligent, will dare to assert that the Creator of everything and the Father left everything that exists above heaven, and appeared on a small particle of the earth” (ch. 60). it pleased him to do and speak” (ch. 56). “No one, even the least intelligent, will dare to assert that the Creator of everything and the Father left everything that exists above heaven, and appeared on a small particle of the earth” (ch. 60). it pleased him to do and speak” (ch. 56). “No one, even the least intelligent, will dare to assert that the Creator of everything and the Father left everything that exists above heaven, and appeared on a small particle of the earth” (ch. 60).
“I will present to you,” continues Justin, “and another testimony from the Scriptures to prove that, as a beginning, before all creatures, God begot from Himself a certain rational power, which from the Holy Spirit is also called the glory of the Lord, sometimes the Son, sometimes Wisdom, sometimes an Angel, sometimes God, sometimes the Lord and the Word; He Himself also calls Himself "the leader of the host" when He appeared in human form to Joshua (Josh. 5:13, 14). For He has all these names both from serving His will of the Father and from birth according to the will of the Father. Don't we see something like this in ourselves? Pronouncing a word, we give birth to it, but not through separation, so that the word in us decreases when we pronounce it. In the same way, as we see, another fire comes from fire, but in such a way that the one from which it was kindled does not decrease, but remains the same, whereas he who is kindled by him actually exists and shines, without diminishing the one from which he is kindled. My witness will be the Word of Wisdom, that very One Who is God, born of the Father of all, the Word and Wisdom, the Power and Glory of Him Who gave birth; It speaks through Solomon (Prov. 8, 21-36) of the eternal birth of Wisdom from God, Who together with Him took part in the creation and organization of the universe (ch. 61, cf. ch. 128). The Word of God declares the same thing through Moses (Gen. 1:26-28; 3:22), showing us that God, at the time of the creation of man, spoke to a Being different from Him in number and rational Being. Speaking “as one of us” (Genesis 3:22), He pointed to the number of Persons belonging to each other, and at least two” (ch. 62). My witness will be the Word of Wisdom, that very One Who is God, born of the Father of all, the Word and Wisdom, the Power and Glory of Him Who gave birth; It speaks through Solomon (Prov. 8, 21-36) of the eternal birth of Wisdom from God, Who together with Him took part in the creation and organization of the universe (ch. 61, cf. ch. 128). The Word of God declares the same thing through Moses (Gen. 1:26-28; 3:22), showing us that God, at the time of the creation of man, spoke to a Being different from Him in number and rational Being. Speaking “as one of us” (Genesis 3:22), He pointed to the number of Persons belonging to each other, and at least two” (ch. 62). My witness will be the Word of Wisdom, that very One Who is God, born of the Father of all, the Word and Wisdom, the Power and Glory of Him Who gave birth; It speaks through Solomon (Prov. 8, 21-36) of the eternal birth of Wisdom from God, Who together with Him took part in the creation and organization of the universe (ch. 61, cf. ch. 128). The Word of God declares the same thing through Moses (Gen. 1:26-28; 3:22), showing us that God, at the time of the creation of man, spoke to a Being different from Him in number and rational Being. Speaking “as one of us” (Genesis 3:22), He pointed to the number of Persons belonging to each other, and at least two” (ch. 62). 21-36) speaks of the eternal birth of Wisdom from God, Who together with Him took part in the creation and organization of the universe (ch. 61, cf. ch. 128). The Word of God declares the same thing through Moses (Gen. 1:26-28; 3:22), showing us that God, at the time of the creation of man, spoke to a Being different from Him in number and rational Being. Speaking “as one of us” (Genesis 3:22), He pointed to the number of Persons belonging to each other, and at least two” (ch. 62). 21-36) speaks of the eternal birth of Wisdom from God, Who together with Him took part in the creation and organization of the universe (ch. 61, cf. ch. 128). The Word of God declares the same thing through Moses (Gen. 1:26-28; 3:22), showing us that God, at the time of the creation of man, spoke to a Being different from Him in number and rational Being. Speaking “as one of us” (Genesis 3:22), He pointed to the number of Persons belonging to each other, and at least two” (ch. 62).
Thus, with these passages of Holy Scripture, Justin proved the existence of a second Divine Person and His consubstantial with God the Father, and thereby firmly substantiated the correctness of the Christian faith in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, which does not violate faith in monotheism.
Having nothing more to object to the overwhelming arguments of Justin on this issue, Tryphon, further, asks him to prove from Scripture and other features of the Christian dogma that tempt the Jews, namely, that this second Divine Person “by the will of the Father descended humanly to be born from the Virgin, to be crucified and die, after which he rose again and ascended into heaven” (ch. 63). In response to this, Justin cites numerous passages of Holy Scripture, from which it is revealed that all the features of the earthly life of Jesus Christ were either foretold by the prophets, or were foreshadowed by Old Testament symbols and institutions, and the events took place exactly as it was foretold and foreshadowed. Thus, the fact of the incarnation is confirmed by the prophecies of Isaiah (Is. 53:8), Moses (Gen. 49:8-12) and David (Ps. 109:3,4; 44:6-12), which speak of the twofold — divine and human — origin of Jesus Christ, since, on the one hand, His blood will not be from human seed and He will be God in general, and on the other hand, He will be born from a human womb (ch. 63). Isaiah prophesies very clearly about His birth from a Virgin (Isaiah 8:10-17; ch. 66).
Hearing that the last prophecy applied to Jesus Christ, Tryphon began to dispute its messianic meaning, saying that instead of the word: “virgin” it should read: “young woman”, and that the whole prophecy refers to King Hezekiah (ch. 67). This objection, which undermines one of the main points of Christian doctrine, prompted Justin to turn to a detailed analysis of this prophecy, on the basis of which he proved that this prophecy cannot apply to Hezekiah, since he was not only in early childhood, but never in his entire life. his life did not possess that power, which is prophetically promised to a child who is to be born. Meanwhile, it is quite applicable to Christ and was literally fulfilled on Him when, soon after His birth, the eastern heads came to worship Him and brought gifts to Him as a mighty king (ch. 77). The incorrectness of the Jewish reading of this place with the replacement of the word "virgin" by the word "young woman" is exposed by the fact that God promises Ahaz an extraordinary sign - the birth of the Son by the Virgin. “If,” says Justin, “Christ were to be born of copulation, like all the other firstborn, then why did God Himself say that He would give a sign that is not common to all the firstborn?
But what is truly a sign and should be the object of faith of the entire human race, namely, that the First-Born of all creatures will take His flesh from the Virgin's womb, will truly become a Servant, Isaiah foretold this through the prophetic Spirit so that when it is fulfilled, they would know, that this happened by the power and will of the Creator of all” (ch. 84).
In the fact of renaming Joshua of Avsia (Ex. 20, 22; 23, 20, 21; Jos. 5), it is indicated that the name of the born Messiah will be Jesus. Prophet Micah (Micah 5:2) predicted His birth in Bethlehem, which was fulfilled during the first national census under Octavian Augustus; the prophet Isaiah pointed out that the forerunner of His first coming would be John the Baptist, who would prepare the way for Him (Exodus 40:1-17). This John, sitting by the Jordan River, exclaimed: “I baptize you with water for repentance, but a Stronger than me will come, in whose presence I am not worthy to wear boots: He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matt. 3, 2; ch. 51) . And when Jesus came to the Jordan River, where John was baptizing, and descended into the water, a fire was kindled in the Jordan [2], and when He came out of the water, the Holy Spirit, like a dove, flew down on Him and a voice came from heaven, prophesied also through David (Ps. 2, 7), who, as if from his own person, spoke what had to be said to Him from the Father: “You are my Son, today I have begotten you” (ch. 88) [3] .
As for the ingloriousness of the first coming of Christ, especially His sufferings up to and including crucifixion and death, there are especially many clear indications of this in Holy Scripture, the Prophet Isaiah says that He will have neither appearance, nor glory, nor beauty, but appearance His is more dishonorable and contemptible than the appearance of the sons of men. “Like a sheep, He will be led to the slaughter, and like a lamb silent before its shearers, so He will not open His mouth” (Is. 53, 3, 5; ch. 13). David, as if present at His pre-Cross spiritual torments and sufferings on the Cross, on behalf of Him says: “God, My God, look at Me, why did You leave Me? All who saw Me laughed at Me and spoke with their lips, nodding their heads: He hoped in the Lord, let Him free and save Him. Do not depart from Me, because sorrow is near, because there is no helper for Me. All my bones are like water stepped up and split up. My heart has become like melting wax in the midst of My inward being; My strength is dried up like a shard, and My tongue clings to My throat, and You bring Me down to the dust of death; for a multitude of dogs surrounded me, and a concourse of the wicked surrounded me. They have pierced my hands and feet; they have counted all my bones; but they themselves reasoned and looked at me. They divided my garments for themselves, and they cast lots for my garments” (Ps. 21:1-23; ch. 98). All this was fulfilled with literal accuracy in Jesus Christ (ch. 99-106). but they themselves reasoned and looked at me. They divided my garments for themselves, and they cast lots for my garments” (Ps. 21:1-23; ch. 98). All this was fulfilled with literal accuracy in Jesus Christ (ch. 99-106). but they themselves reasoned and looked at me. They divided my garments for themselves, and they cast lots for my garments” (Ps. 21:1-23; ch. 98). All this was fulfilled with literal accuracy in Jesus Christ (ch. 99-106).
Tryphon again objected that he found it difficult to recognize the possibility and necessity for Christ of suffering on the Cross, when the Scripture says that "cursed is everyone who is crucified" (Deut. 21, 23). Then Justin explained to him the saving meaning of Christ's suffering and the meaning of the above curse. The prophecy of Isaiah (Isaiah 53, 4-6, 10) clearly says: “He bears our sins and is tormented because of us, and we imputed to Him that He is in sickness, in a plague and in torment. But He was wounded for our sins and tormented for our iniquities; the punishment of our peace is on Him, through His wound we are healed. And the Lord betrayed Him for our sins. From the iniquity of his people He goes to death. If you give Him as a sin offering, your soul will see a seed that will last.” Therefore, “He did not condescend to be crucified because He needed it, but He did it for the human race, who from Adam fell under death and the seduction of the serpent, because each, through his own fault, did evil” (ch. 88). The saving meaning of the cross on which Jesus Christ was crucified is also affirmed by the Old Testament prototypes. “When the people of Israel were at war with Amalek, Moses prayed to God, stretching out his hands on both sides; Hor and Aaron supported them all day, so that they would not sink from fatigue. For if he omitted anything from this sign, which represented the cross, then the people were overcome; if he remained in this position, then Amalek was defeated in the same degree, and the strong had strength from the cross. The people were victorious not because Moses prayed so, but because he made the sign of the cross (chap. 90). Also an image and a sign used against Israel's remorse from snakes because each, through his own fault, did evil” (ch. 88). The saving meaning of the cross on which Jesus Christ was crucified is also affirmed by the Old Testament prototypes. “When the people of Israel were at war with Amalek, Moses prayed to God, stretching out his hands on both sides; Hor and Aaron supported them all day, so that they would not sink from fatigue. For if he omitted anything from this sign, which represented the cross, then the people were overcome; if he remained in this position, then Amalek was defeated in the same degree, and the strong had strength from the cross. The people were victorious not because Moses prayed so, but because he made the sign of the cross (chap. 90). Also an image and a sign used against Israel's remorse from snakes because each, through his own fault, did evil” (ch. 88). The saving meaning of the cross on which Jesus Christ was crucified is also affirmed by the Old Testament prototypes. “When the people of Israel were at war with Amalek, Moses prayed to God, stretching out his hands on both sides; Hor and Aaron supported them all day, so that they would not sink from fatigue. For if he omitted anything from this sign, which represented the cross, then the people were overcome; if he remained in this position, then Amalek was defeated in the same degree, and the strong had strength from the cross. The people were victorious not because Moses prayed so, but because he made the sign of the cross (chap. 90). Also an image and a sign used against Israel's remorse from snakes The saving meaning of the cross on which Jesus Christ was crucified is also affirmed by the Old Testament prototypes. “When the people of Israel were at war with Amalek, Moses prayed to God, stretching out his hands on both sides; Hor and Aaron supported them all day, so that they would not sink from fatigue. For if he omitted anything from this sign, which represented the cross, then the people were overcome; if he remained in this position, then Amalek was defeated in the same degree, and the strong had strength from the cross. The people were victorious not because Moses prayed so, but because he made the sign of the cross (chap. 90). Also an image and a sign used against Israel's remorse from snakes The saving meaning of the cross on which Jesus Christ was crucified is also affirmed by the Old Testament prototypes. “When the people of Israel were at war with Amalek, Moses prayed to God, stretching out his hands on both sides; Hor and Aaron supported them all day, so that they would not sink from fatigue. For if he omitted anything from this sign, which represented the cross, then the people were overcome; if he remained in this position, then Amalek was defeated in the same degree, and the strong had strength from the cross. The people were victorious not because Moses prayed so, but because he made the sign of the cross (chap. 90). Also an image and a sign used against Israel's remorse from snakes stretch out your hands on both sides; Hor and Aaron supported them all day, so that they would not sink from fatigue. For if he omitted anything from this sign, which represented the cross, then the people were overcome; if he remained in this position, then Amalek was defeated in the same degree, and the strong had strength from the cross. The people were victorious not because Moses prayed so, but because he made the sign of the cross (chap. 90). Also an image and a sign used against Israel's remorse from snakes stretch out your hands on both sides; Hor and Aaron supported them all day, so that they would not sink from fatigue. For if he omitted anything from this sign, which represented the cross, then the people were overcome; if he remained in this position, then Amalek was defeated in the same degree, and the strong had strength from the cross. The people were victorious not because Moses prayed so, but because he made the sign of the cross (chap. 90). Also an image and a sign used against Israel's remorse from snakes The people were victorious not because Moses prayed so, but because he made the sign of the cross (chap. 90). Also an image and a sign used against Israel's remorse from snakes The people were victorious not because Moses prayed so, but because he made the sign of the cross (chap. 90). Also an image and a sign used against Israel's remorse from snakes [4] was evidently erected for the safety of the believers; because even then death was foretold to the serpent through him who was to be crucified, and salvation to those who, being bitten by it, run to him who sent his Son into the world, who was crucified. “For the prophetic Spirit taught us not to believe in the serpent through Moses, when he declares that the serpent was in the beginning cursed by God, and through Isaiah (Is. 27, 1) shows that he will be killed like an enemy by the great sword that is Christ” (ch. 91).
As for the curse placed in the law on the crucified people, it is not unconditional and not “placed on the Christ of God, through whom God will save all who have done worthy of the curse (ch. 94). If the Father of everything was pleased that His Christ would take upon Himself the curse of all, for the entire human race, knowing that He would raise Him crucified and dead, then why do you speak of the one who, by the will of the Father, wanted to endure this, as about the accursed? ? On the other hand, what is said in the Law, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree,” strengthens our hope, which depends on the crucified Christ, not because God curses this Crucified One, but because God foretold what you and those like you were going to do, not knowing what He is Jehovah first of all, the eternal priest of God, King and Christ. This, as you can see, is being fulfilled.
The crucified Christ remained on the cross until the evening, a type of which was Moses, who kept his hands outstretched until the evening. “By evening they buried Him, and then He rose again on the third day. David announced this thus: “I cried with my voice to the Lord, and he heard me from his holy mountain. I fell asleep and slept; and stood up again, because the Lord supported me” (Ps. 3, 5-6). About His resurrection, Isaiah said this: "His tomb was taken out of the midst"; and: “I will give the rich for his death” (Is. 57:2; 57:2; 53:9; ch. 97). Regarding His resurrection on the third day after the crucifixion, it is written in the memorial records [5]that the people of your race, contending with him, said to him, "Show us a sign"; and He answered them: “An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign, and no sign will be given to it, except for the sign of Jonah the prophet” (Matt. 12:38-41; sn. 16:1-4). These words of His were then concealed, so that the hearers could not understand from them that He would rise again on the third day after the crucifixion” (ch. 107).
The one who has risen from the dead, after ascending to heaven, will be immensely exalted by God, will sit on the right side of the Father and will be appointed king and judge of all peoples, as Daniel (Dan. 8, 9-28) and David (Ps. 109, 71, 1-19; 23; 46; 98; 44; ch. 31-38).
Having proved the Divinity of Jesus Christ by the fulfillment of numerous prophecies and types on Him, Justin further shows the Jews that from the time of Christ's coming to earth, salvation is granted not through the foundation of the law of Moses, as was the case in the Old Testament, but through faith in the crucified Jesus, as a result of which in The kingdom of God will be called more to the Gentiles who believe in Him than to the Jews who reject Him. This is also prophesied and represented through Isaiah (Isaiah 2:5:6; 60:1-3). The Lord says: “Come with me, all you who fear God, who desire to see the blessings of Jerusalem. Come, let us walk in the light of the Lord; He let go of his people, the house of Jacob. Come, all nations, let us gather to Jerusalem, already not besieged by war for the sins of the people. "I have revealed myself to those who do not seek Me, found by those who do not ask Me." “I said, Here I am, to the nations, who did not call on my name. I stretched out my hands all day long to an unfaithful and disobedient people, to people who walk in a way that is not good, but follows their sins. This is the people that offend Me before My face” (ch. 24). The prophecy of Micah says: “And many nations will come and say: Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord and to the house of the God of Jacob: and they will show us His ways and we will walk in His paths ... And it will be in that day: I will gather the contrite, and I will receive the exiled one, and the one whom I struck down, and I will put the crushed one into the remnant and the oppressed into a strong people: the Lord will reign over us on Mount Zion from now on and forever” (Micah 4, 1-7; ch. 109). And Zechariah inflow shows the sacrament of Christ and proclaims it in secret. Here are his words: “Rejoice and be glad, daughter of Zion! For behold, I come and dwell among you, says the Lord. And many nations will join God in that day, and they will be my people” (Zech. 2, 10, 3, 2). This revelation refers to us who believe in Christ, to us who, having been given over to fornication and to every vile deed in general, have stripped ourselves of the grace given by our Jesus according to the will of His Father, all that is unclean and evil in which we have been clothed. The devil rises up against us, always acting against us and wanting to draw everyone to him; but the Angel of God, i.e. the power of God, sent down to us through Jesus Christ, forbids him and he moves away from us. And we seem to have been snatched out of the fire, because we have been delivered from our former sins, and from the torment and flame that the devil and all His servants are preparing for us, and from which Jesus the Son of God again delivers us (ch. 115-116). Isaiah says that “those who have not been told about Him will see, and who have not heard, understand” (Isaiah 52:15; ch. 110). This is the people about whom God once made a promise to Abraham and promised to make him the father of many nations, meaning not the Arabians, Egyptians or Edomites, for both Ishmael became the father of a great nation, and Esau; Ammonites and now a great multitude. Noah was the father of Abraham himself and of the entire human race in general, while others were the ancestors of certain peoples. What more does Christ give to Abraham here? That He called him with a similar name with His voice and commanded him to come out of the land in which he lived. And He called us all with the same voice - and now we have left the way of life that we led, living badly, like other inhabitants of the earth. And together with Abraham we will inherit the holy land and receive an inheritance for endless eternity, since we are the children of Abraham in the same faith with him. For just as he believed the voice of God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness, so we are the children of Abraham in the same faith as him. For just as he believed the voice of God, and this was reckoned to him as righteousness, so we too, having believed the voice of God, prophesied again by the apostles and foretold to us by the prophets, renounced, even unto death, everything in the world.
Look how He promised the same thing to Isaac and Jacob. So He says to Isaac: “Through your seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed” (Gen. 26:4) and to Jacob: “Through you and through your seed all the families of the earth will be blessed” (Gen. 28:14). Of Judas, He said: “The prince from Judah, and the ruler from His loins, will not fail, until that which is set aside for Him comes; and He will be the hope of the nations” (Genesis 49:10). It is clear that this is not about Judas, but about Christ, for we all of all peoples are looking forward not to Judas, but to Jesus, who brought your fathers out of Egypt (ch. 119-120). God, speaking of this Christ through David, did not say: “Through his seed the nations will be blessed,” but through Himself: “His name will forever rise above the sun, and all nations will be blessed through him” (Ps. 71, 17). But if all nations are blessed through Christ, and we who are made up of all nations, we believe in this (Jesus): then He is the Christ, and we are the people, blessed through Him. If, however, at His first coming, inglorious, formless and humiliated, He shone so brightly and gained such power that there is not a single nation in which He would be unknown, and everywhere people from every nation repented turned from their former vicious way of life, so the demons obey His name, and all principalities and kingdoms tremble at His name more than all the dead: then, at the time of His glorious coming, will He not strike down all those who hate Him and unjustly depart from Him, and will He not calm His followers and give them all the expected blessings? So, it is given to us both to hear and to understand, and to be saved through this Christ and to know everything that belongs to the Father (ch. 121). In Isaiah (Is. 42, 1-4) God, speaking of Christ, inflow calls Him Jacob and Israel, in whose name the nations will hope. Therefore, just as from this one Jacob, who was also called Israel, your whole generation is called Jacob and Israel: so we, who keep the commandments of Christ from Christ Who bore us for God, are called not only Jacob, Israel, Judah, Joseph and David, but also true sons of God, and in fact they are (chap. 123).
The types also testify to the calling of new peoples into the Kingdom of God. The marriages of Jacob were examples of what was to be accomplished through Christ. It was impossible for Jacob to marry two sisters at the same time; wherefore he served Laban for his daughters, and being deceived in the youngest, served him another seven years. Leah is your people and synagogue, and Rachel is our Church. Christ to this day ministers for them and for their servants both. If Noah gave the seed of the third son into slavery to his two sons, then now Christ has come to restore both free children and their slaves, deeming worthy of the same rights all those who keep His commandments, just like those born to Jacob from free wives and born from slave women all were sons of equal honor: Jacob served Laban for a motley and multiform cattle, and Christ endured slavery even before the cross for a variety of people from every nation, having acquired them with His own blood and the sacrament of the cross. Leah's eyes were weak, and your spiritual eyes are very weak. Rachel stole the gods of Laban and hid them even to this day: and our paternal and material gods perished for us (ch. 134).
In the flood there was also the mystery of the people being saved. For the righteous Noah at the flood with other people (with his wife, his three sons and their wives), making up the number of 8 people, were a symbol of that day on which our Jesus Christ appeared, having risen from the dead, and which is the eighth in number, but always the first in strength. Christ, the firstborn of all creation, also became the beginning of a new generation, reborn by Him through water, faith and a tree containing the sacrament of the cross, just as Noah was saved on a tree, swimming with his family (chap. 138).
And another mystery that you do not know was foreshadowed by an event in the time of Noah. In the blessings with which Noah blessed his two sons (Sim and Japheth), he also cursed his grandson (Canaan, son of Ham) (Genesis 9:24-27). Thus, as two peoples, the sons of Shem and Japheth, were blessed, and first the sons of Shem were appointed to possess the dwellings of Canaan, and from them the same possessions, according to the prediction, were to receive, in turn, the sons of Japheth. And how one people, the people of Canaan, was given into slavery to those two peoples. But Christ came according to the authority given to Him by the Almighty Father, and calling people to friendship, blessing, repentance and common life, promised them, as was shown, the possession that would be in the same land of all the saints. Therefore, people of all countries, whether slaves or free, if they believe in Christ and recognize the truth in His words and in the words of His prophets, they know that they will be with Him in that land and receive an eternal incorruptible inheritance. Therefore, Jacob, who himself was the image of Christ, entered into cohabitation with two slaves of his two half-wives, and had sons from them, in order to foretell that Christ would also accept all the descendants of Canaan, who are among the tribe of Japheth, on an equal basis with free sons, and will have them all as children and co-heirs. That's just us, but you can't understand it, because you can't drink from the living water of God, but from "broken wells that can't keep water," as Scripture says (Jer. 2:13). Such broken wells have been dug for you by your teachers, who, as the Scripture clearly says, "teach doctrines, the commandments of men" (Isaiah 29:13). And besides, they deceive themselves and you, thinking that those who are descended according to the flesh from the seed of Abraham, even if they were sinners and unbelievers and disobedient to God, will undoubtedly be given His eternal kingdom, the injustice of which is proved by the Scriptures themselves. Otherwise, Isaiah would not have said this: "And if the Lord of Hosts had not left us a seed, we would have been like Sodom and Gomorrah" (Is. 1, 9). And Ezekiel: “If Noah and Jacob and Daniel ask for their sons and daughters, it will not be given to them. But neither the father will die for the son, nor the son for the father; but everyone will perish for his own sin, and everyone is saved by his own right actions ”(Ezek. 14, 20 following; 18, 4-20). And Isaiah again: “They will look at the members of those who have sinned against Me; their worm will not rest, and their fire will not be quenched, and they will be a spectacle for all flesh” (Isaiah 66:24; ch. 139-140).
At the end of the conversation, the interlocutors parted, expressing the wish of every good to each other (ch. 142).
1. There are no indications of 12 bells in the Bible; therefore, one must think that Justin mixed them with the 12 stones on the priestly garment of Aaron (Ex. 28, 9 et seq.).
2. Justin borrowed the idea of the burning of the Jordan, in all likelihood, from some apocryphal writings of his time, since nothing is said about this in the canonical gospels.
3. According to Epiphanius, a similar text of words spoken from heaven is found in the gospel of the Ebionites.
4. Copper serpent on a pole, depicting the figure of a cross.
5. In the gospels.
Tatian
A younger contemporary and student of Justin, Tatian, originally from Assyria (Speech Against the Greeks, ch. 42), belonged to the classically educated people of his time. Greco-Roman poetry, mythology, history, philosophy and oratory were well known to him, so that he himself says that he was "very famous in pagan wisdom" (ibid., ch. 1). In addition, taking trips to various countries famous for their schools and teachers to replenish his knowledge, he was enriched with information about the life, customs and religious beliefs of many peoples of Asia and Europe with whom he had to meet.
But even such a rich stock of heterogeneous information did not satisfy Tatian, as he did not respond to the needs of the mind and heart of a person who wants to comprehend the truth and form a worldview not on such shaky foundations as pagan religion, morality and philosophy, full of all sorts of shortcomings. In an effort to find the truth, he initiated himself into some Greek mysteries (ibid., ch. 29), probably Eleusinian, but even this did not improve matters, since the mysteries were an expression of the same paganism and, therefore, could not satisfy a person. who wants to rise above him. Arrival in Rome, where, as in the center of the material and spiritual life of the then world, the complete failure of paganism in all respects was most clearly revealed, even more strengthened Tatian's conviction that paganism does not possess the truth.
The truth was finally revealed to him. He fell into the hands of the books of Holy Scripture, which made a deep impression on him “by the simplicity of their speech, the artlessness of the writers, the comprehensibility of the explanation of the whole creation, the foreknowledge of the future, the superiority of the rules, and, finally, the doctrine of this one Ruler over everything” (ibid. ). These books disposed him and the fact that they are much older than all the monuments of Hellenic education. Then Tatian saw the highly moral life of Christians, alien to all vain (ch. 11) and based on like-mindedness and agreement with faith (ch. 26 and 32), appreciating the chastity and exalted character of Christian women (ch. 33 and 34) and was especially amazed at the readiness of Christians to die fearlessly for their religious convictions (ch. 4). All this taken together convinced him of the superiority of Christianity over paganism, and he turned to the "barbarian wisdom" of Christianity, in all likelihood, in the same Rome, where the need for a new, better religion was especially urgent in him. In Rome, Tatian met St. Justin, became his disciple (St. Irenaeus of Lyons. “Against Heresies”, I, 28), entered into especially close relations with him and together with him suffered the same persecution from their common enemy, the philosopher Crescent (“Speech against the Hellenes”, ch. . 19). Following the example of his teacher, he also became a preacher and defender of Christianity. There is reason to think that he succeeded Justin as a teacher in the theological school founded by the latter in Rome; at least it is known that Rodon, one of the Christian writers, studied in Rome with Tatian (Eusebius.
After the martyrdom of Justin, Tatian retired to the East, to Syria, and here he became interested in Gnosticism. There is no news about his further fate. The time of his death is presumably determined by the year 175.
Of the many works attributed to Tatian by Eusebius, Jerome and Clement of Alexandria, only one, undoubtedly belonging to him, written in the Orthodox period of his life, has come down to our time, an apology under the title “Speech against the Hellenes”. In it, the apologist proves the superiority of Christianity over paganism in terms of faith and morality and in terms of the degree of antiquity of origin, and he speaks briefly about Christianity, while he treats the abnormalities of paganism in great detail, so that in it the polemical element significantly prevails over the apologetic. The features of this work of Tatian include the extreme unsystematic presentation and too merciless criticism of paganism, including pagan philosophy, to which his predecessor and teacher treated with great respect, finding in it glimpses of Divine truth.
Speech against the Hellenes
Hellenes, do not be hostile to the barbarians [1] and do not hate their doctrine. For which of your institutions did not originate with barbarians? Astronomy was invented by the Babylonians, magic by the Persians, geometry by the Egyptians, writing by the Phoenicians. The Tuscans invented plastic; the annals of the Egyptians taught you how to make stories. The Tyrrhenians invented the game of the trumpet; writing letters was invented, according to Hellanicus, by a woman who was once the queen of the Persians, whose name was Atossa (ch. 1).
What good have you gained from philosophizing? Aristippus, who walked in purple clothes, according to his conviction, led a dissolute life. Aristotle, who foolishly put a limit to Providence and limited happiness to those subjects that he liked despite the duty of a mentor, flattered Alexander too much, forgetting that he was still a youth. According to the teachings of Aristotle, those who have neither beauty, nor wealth, nor bodily health, nor nobility can be happy (ch. 2). It is also useless to listen to Zeno, who teaches that God is the author of evil and dwells in unclean places, in worms and in those who do indecent things. Therefore, solemn meetings of philosophers, who are not philosophers at all, who contradict themselves and talk about what everyone comes to mind (ch. 3), should not attract you.
Why do you Hellenes want to stir up public authorities against us? Why am I subjected to hatred, as the most criminal person, if I do not want to use the institutions of some? Does the king order to pay taxes? I'm ready. Does the master command to serve and obey? I recognize myself as a slave. For a man must be revered in a human way, but only God must be feared, Who cannot be seen with human eyes and expressed by no art. If I am told to reject Him, in this I will only disobey and rather die than show myself as a liar and ungrateful. Our God did not receive a beginning in time, because He alone is without beginning and Himself is the beginning of everything. “God is Spirit” (John 4:24) not living in matter [2]but the Creator of material spirits and material forms. He is invisible and intangible, for He Himself is the originator of things sensible and things invisible. We know Him through His creation, and we comprehend His invisible power through His works. I do not want to worship the creation He created for us. How do I recognize trees and stones as gods? In addition, we should not appease the inexplicable God by means of any gifts, for He does not need anything and therefore should not be bowed down by us as needy (ch. 4).
God was in the beginning: and the beginning is, as we have accepted, a rational force [3]. Since He is the power and foundation of the visible and the invisible, everything was with Him; with Him existed, as an intelligent power, the Word Itself, which was in Him. It, as we know, is the beginning of the world. It was born through communication, and not through cutting off. For what is cut off is separated from the original. And what came through the message and accepted free service, does not diminish the one from whom it came. Just as many fires are kindled from one torch, and moreover, the light of the first torch is not diminished by the kindling of many torches: so the Word, which came from the power of the Father, did not deprive the Parent of the Word. So I speak, and you listen, but from the transmission of the word, I, the speaker, do not lose the word, but, pronouncing sounds, I want to put in order that matter that was previously without order. The Word, born in the beginning, in turn produced our world, creating matter for itself. Matter is not without beginning, like God, and has no power equal to God, as without beginning; but it received a beginning and did not originate from anyone else, but was produced by the one Creator of all (chap. 5).
Therefore, we believe that at the end of everything there will be a resurrection of bodies - not as the Stoics teach, according to which, after certain periods of time, the same beings always appear and perish without any benefit - but one day, after the fulfillment of our ages, and only for the sake of restoring some people for judgment. Judgment is carried out on us not by Minos, not by Rhadamanthus, but by God the Creator Himself will be the judge. We believe because of these reasons. Just as I, who had no existence before, was born, in the same way I, having been born, ceasing to exist and be visible through death, will again exist, in the likeness of how I once was not, and then was born. Let fire destroy my body, let me perish in rivers or seas, let me be torn to pieces by beasts, but I will hide in the treasury of the rich Lord. God whenever he wants
The Heavenly Word, following the example of the Father who gave birth to Him, created man - in the image of immortality, so that both God is immortal, and a person who received the communion of a deity would also have immortality. However, the Word, before the creation of men, created angels. Both types of creation were created free and not good by nature, for this belongs to God alone, and people can become good according to the free determination of their will; so that the wicked will be justly punished, because he has become evil through himself, and the righteous will be duly praised for good deeds, because he, in his freedom, did not transgress the will of God. Therefore, when people followed one (an angel), who was wiser than the others in his birthright, and took him for God, although he rebelled against the law of God, that power of the Word separated from communion with Himself both the author of madness and his followers. As a result of this, created in the image of God, he is left superior to spirits. [4] and becomes mortal, and that firstborn became a demon for his crime and folly; along with him, those who imitated him and were carried away by his dreams, made up a regiment of demons and, due to free will, are given over to their madness (ch. 7).
These last have made people the victims of their apostasy. They, having shown people the order of the stars, introduced a fate that is alien to justice, for whether a judge or a defendant, they became such by the determination of fate; the murderers and the slain, the rich and the poor, are creatures of the same fate (ch. 8). Whether someone is angry or patient, temperate or intemperate, rich or poor, this happens from the appointment of those who have birth; for the distribution of the Zodiac is the work of the gods. But we are above fate, and instead of wandering demons we know one unchanging Lord; and not submitting to fate, we reject its legislators. Tell me, for God's sake, how is Kronos, bound and expelled from his kingdom, the master of fate? How does he bestow kingdoms when he himself no longer reigns? (ch.9).
Why should I honor gods who love gifts and get angry if they don't receive them? Let them control fate, I don't want to bow down to wandering stars. How is Antinous, a handsome youth, placed on the moon when he dies? Who brought him there? Why are you sacrilegious towards God? Why disfigure His creation? You slaughter a ram and you worship it; there is a calf in heaven, and you kill the like of it (on earth). The so-called Eugonasius (Hercules) suppresses the harmful animal, and the eagle devouring Prometheus, the creator of man, is honored. Good is Cycnus, good are the sons of Zeus (Castor and Pollux), the kidnappers of the daughters of Leucippus (ch. 10).
So, how can I allow the birth according to fate, when I see such its stewards? I don’t want to reign, I don’t want to be rich, I refuse military leadership, I hate fornication; I do not plan to sail on a ship for the sake of insatiable greed, I do not enter into a struggle for crowns; I am free from insane ambition, I despise death, I am above every kind of illness, sadness does not consume my soul. If I am a slave, I bear slavery; if I am free, I do not boast of my nobility. I see that the same sun is for all, that one death befalls all, whether one lives in pleasure or in poverty. The rich sow and the poor enjoy the same crops. The rich die, and so do the poor. The rich need very much, though they have power of attorney and honor; but the poor and moderate more easily achieve what he desires for himself. What is the fate that you die every time you indulge in lusts? Die to the world, rejecting its madness; live for God, and having known Him, reject the ancient birth. We are not made to die, but we die through our own fault, free will has ruined us; being free, we became slaves, sold ourselves through sin. Nothing bad has been created by God - we ourselves have produced evil; and whoever produced it may reject it again (chap. 11).
We know two types of spirits, of which one is called the soul, and the other is higher than the soul and is the image and likeness of God. Both spirits are in the first men, so that on the one hand they consisted of matter, and on the other they were higher than it. Similarly, the world, containing more or less beautiful products of the power of the Creator, by His will received a material spirit [5]. So the demons, who were made of matter and received spirit from it, became intemperate and immoral. It is to them that you Hellenes worship, beings who have come from matter and have deviated from the proper order. They, in their madness, were carried away by pride and, indignant, attempted to delight themselves with a deity. The Lord, however, allowed them to be seduced until the world ends in destruction, the Judge comes, and all people who, despite obstacles from demons, strived to know the perfect God, on the day of judgment receive full praise for their exploits. Strive to us who wish to learn, for we do not count on eloquence, nor on probable proofs, nor on sophistical twists, but we use words of divine origin (ch. 12).
The soul itself is not immortal, Hellenes, but mortal. However, she may not die. The soul that does not know the truth dies and is destroyed along with the body, and then, at the end of the world, resurrects along with the body, and receives death through endless punishments. But if it is enlightened by the knowledge of God, then it does not die, although it will be destroyed for a while. In the beginning, the spirit lived with the soul, but then left it, because it did not want to follow it. Although she retained in herself some sparks of his power, but separated from him, she could not contemplate higher things; seeking God, she, through delusion, invented many gods, following the tricks of the demons (ch. 13).
So are you, Hellenes; you acknowledged the dominion of many, not of One, and dared to follow the demons as if they were mighty. It is not easy for them to die, because they have no flesh; but they, while living, do the works of death, and they themselves die every time they teach sin to their followers. And what at the present time is their advantage, namely, that they do not die like people, will remain with them even when they are subjected to torment: they will not be partakers of eternal life, and instead of death they will not receive blessed immortality (ch. 14) .
So, we must now seek again what we have lost, unite our soul with the Holy Spirit and enter into union with God. Man is the image and likeness of God. It should be said about what the image and likeness of God consists of. What cannot be compared is nothing else than being itself, and what is compared, i.e. just a semblance. The perfect God is incorporeal, but man is flesh. The soul is the bond of the flesh, and the flesh is the receptacle of the soul. If a being so constituted keeps itself like a temple, then God wills to dwell in it through the spirit He sends. If a person’s temple is not like this, then he will surpass the animals only in articulate sounds, and in everything else his way of life will be the same as theirs, and he is no longer the likeness of God. The substance wanted to dominate the soul, and the demons, by their freedom, handed over to men the laws of death; people, after the loss of immortality, by death through faith [6] have conquered death, and through repentance they are given the name that the word ascribes: "they are a little lowered before the angels" (Ps. 8, 5). Whoever is defeated can win again if the cause of death is eliminated (ch. 15).
We are not mad, Greeks, and we are not talking nonsense when we preach that God was born in the form of a man. You blame us, but compare your fables with our stories. Fig-haired Apollo, to please Admetus, grazed bow-legged bulls. Prometheus, nailed to the Caucasus, was punished for his beneficence rendered to people. Zeus, in your opinion, is envious. Therefore, in view of your own tales, accept us at least as tales like yours are transmitted. But we have nothing absurd, and your stories are pure nonsense. If you speak of the birth of the gods, then by this you recognize them as mortal. Listen to me, Hellenes, and do not allegorically explain either fables or your gods. If you allow this, you will destroy your gods. Your gods are either impious, if they are what you imagine them to be, or if you turn them into natural phenomena, they are no longer what you say.
And what are your institutions? More than once I saw one man, and at the sight of him I was surprised, and then I felt contempt, because in appearance he falsely represented what he did not have inside. He alone was the accuser of all the gods, the representative of superstition, the condemner of heroic deeds, the portrayer of murders, the mentor of fornication and greed, the teacher of debauchery, and for all that he is praised. But I rejected all his lies, his wickedness, his occupations, and, finally, this man himself. And you are carried away by such people, and you blame those who do not share your feelings. You have good audiences where shameful nightly deeds are told, where the listeners are delighted with the pronunciation of vile speeches (ch. 22).
I have seen people who are preoccupied with the exercise of the body: they are offered awards and crowns, they are called by the founders of the games - not to a wonderful feat, but to start an argument and a quarrel, and whoever fights harder gets the crown. And this is still the lesser of evils, and who can speak of greater ones without indignation? Some, indulging in idleness, sell themselves to death out of greed: the poor sell themselves, the rich buy murderers. You kill animals to eat meat, and buy people to bring food to the soul from the human body and nourish it with the most godless shedding of blood (ch. 23).
What wonderful and great things do your philosophers do? They grow long hair, grow beards, wear bestial claws; they say they don't need anything; but, like Proteus, they need a tanner for a bag, a tailor for clothes, a woodcutter for a stick, rich people and a cook for their gluttony. Some say that God is a body, but I say that He is incorporeal; they say that the world is indestructible, and I affirm that it will be destroyed; they say that the burning of the world happens at different times, but I say that it will be one time; immortality is attributed to one soul, and I to the body along with the soul. How do we harm you, Hellenes? Why do you hate, as the most notorious villains, those who follow the word of God? We do not eat human flesh: you bear false witness when you say so; and with you Pelons is made a supper for the gods, although he was the favorite of Poseidon;
Why do you appropriate wisdom only to yourself, when you have neither another sun, nor another rising of the stars, nor a better origin, nor even a death different from other people? You don't know God. Therefore you are nothing; your actions are inconsistent with reason. Therefore, when we learned that you are such, we left you, and we no longer touch yours, but follow the word of God (ch. 26).
Isn't it absurd that we are hated without any investigation and out of unjust prejudice, while a robber is not punished on a single charge, before his justice is carefully examined (ch. 27).
We have separated from the generally accepted and earthly teachings, we obey the commandments of God, we follow the law of the Father of incorruption, and we have rejected the opinions of men; not only the rich among us philosophize, but even the poor use the doctrine for nothing; for everything that comes from God is so high that it is impossible to pay for them with the gifts of the world. We admit everyone who wants to listen, whether he be an old man or a youth; and every age in general is given honor among us; however, debauchery is far from us. You laugh, but you will never cry. Isn't it stupid that you are surprised at Nestor, who is striving to catch up with the youths in battles, while he with difficulty cuts off the team of horses due to senile weakness; do you laugh at those who among us struggle with old age and meditate on the things of God? Who won't laugh at you when you talk about the Amazons, Semiramide and other warlike women, but do you blame our girls? (ch. 32).
Listen to what emptiness the Hellenes come to - you who say that we are busy with trifles among women and young men, among maidens and old women, and mock us for not being with you. Works of art contain much nonsense, although they are respected more than your gods; towards women you behave obscenely. What beautiful teaching did Glaucippe give you when she gave birth to a monster, as shown by the copper statue of her, made by Niceratus the Athenian, the son of Auctaemon? Praxiteles and Herodotus made you a statue of the dissolute Phryne, and Euthycrates made you a statue of Panteuchis, who became pregnant from an adulterer. Herodotus of Olynthus portrayed Glikera, a harlot and an Argive musician. Vryaxis erected a statue of Pasithea; remembering her debauchery, you almost wish there were such women today. Sappho was a harlot, a shameless woman, and she herself sang of her debauchery; but among us all women are chaste, and the girls sitting at the spinning wheels sing divine songs much better than this girl of yours. Therefore, you should be ashamed that you are students of despicable women, but laugh at women devoted to our teaching and at the social meetings they attend (chap. 33).
I think that now it is the right time to prove that our philosophy is older than the Hellenic teachings. Our limits will be Moses and Homer, because they both lived in ancient times; the latter is older than all poets and historians, and the former is the ancestor of all wisdom among the barbarians. So, let us take them for comparison, and we will find that our teaching is older not only than the education of the Hellenes, but also the very invention of writing. The earliest time of Homer's life, according to Crates, is determined 80 years after the capture of Troy, and the latest - in five hundred years after the capture of Troy (ch. 31).
Even if Homer was no later than the Trojan War, but a contemporary of it; let them think that he lived before the invention of letters. It turns out that the aforementioned Moses is many years older than the capture of Troy and the times of Troy and Dardanus (ch. 36). The Egyptian historian Ptolemy says that the Jews, under the Egyptian king Amasis, left Egypt under the leadership of Moses for the countries they occupied. According to him, Amasis was a contemporary of King Inach; and the time that elapsed from Inach to the destruction of Troy comprises twenty generations (400 years) (ch. 38).
So, from what has been said, it is clear that Moses lived before the ancient heroes and wars. Since he is older in time, he should be believed more than the Hellenes, who, not recognizing this, borrowed his teachings (ch. 40).
1. To all nations, excluding the Greek.
2. This does not deny the omnipresence of God, but it refutes the pantheistic teaching of the Stoics that Divinity is poured into all natural phenomena.
3. The two words "beginning" used in a row have a different meaning: the first means that God existed before the creation of the world, and the second indicates that God is the beginning of being.
4. I.e. spirit, as the highest principle of the soul, which is the image and likeness of God.
5. The vital spirit, which is found in varying degrees in all creatures.
6. In the true God, for whose sake the believer dies to the world and sin.
Athenagoras
About Athenagoras, one of the best apologists of the 2nd century, who left us two exemplary literary works in content and style, the most meager biographical information has been preserved. Neither Eusebius Pamphilus, nor Blessed. Jerome, nor Patr. Photius, who diligently collected information about all the church writers of antiquity, in their famous works [1] never mention the name of Athenagoras. The only sources that acquaint us with Athenagoras are - a quote from St. Methodius, ep. Patarsky († 311-312), an excerpt from the church history of Philip Sidet (5th century), inscriptions to the writings of Athenagoras and the address of his apology, but these sources give too little information about Athenagoras, and the testimony of Philip Sidet, moreover, is not all different credibility.
St. Methodius in his essay "On the Resurrection" [2]literally, with only slight changes in individual expressions, he quotes a treatise on the devil from chapter 24 of the Apology of Athenagoras, without hiding the source of the borrowing, as can be seen from his phrase: "just as Athenagoras says." The literal similarity between the treatises of St. Methodius and Athenagoras shows that St. Methodius had an apology of Athenagoras at hand and used it, and this, in turn, indicates that the writings of Athenagoras at the end of the third century were known, if not to the entire Christian church, then at least to the churches of Asia Minor, where St. Methodius and where he passed his episcopal service in the city of Patara and Olympus (in Lycia). In addition to the general fact of Athenagoras' fame in Asia Minor, the quote of St. Methodius gives nothing more.
The testimony of Philip Sidet is much more complete and looks like a brief biography of Athenagoras: it speaks of the pagan philosophical convictions of Athenagoras, the path by which he came to Christianity, his educational and apologetic activities. In one of the surviving fragments of Philip Sidet's Christian History, we read: “Athenagoras was the first to rule the Alexandrian school, who was famous during the time of Hadrian and Antoninus, to whom he submitted a petition for Christians, a husband who professed Christianity in the toga of a philosopher and was the head of the academic [ 3 ]schools. In the intention to write against Christians even before Celsus, he turned to the Holy Scriptures in order to fight more faithfully, but he was so captivated by the grace of the Holy Spirit that, like the great Paul, instead of a persecutor, he became a teacher of the faith that he was persecuting. His pupil was Clement, the author of the Stromat, and this Clement's pupil was Panten (word 44).
If the entire work of Philip Sidet had not been valued so low in antiquity, as can be seen from the unfavorable reviews of him by the church historian Socrates (Church History VII, 27) and Patr. Photius (“Library”, XXXV), if this passage did not contain many historical errors in a few words, for example, Athenagoras is considered the first catechet (mentor) of the Alexandrian school, it is said that his apology was submitted to Adrian and Antoninus, and not Mark Aurelius and Commodus, and finally, Panten is considered a student of Clement, and not vice versa, then the testimony of Philip would be of great importance, as the only detailed message about Athenagoras. But even under present conditions, it has a certain price, because it contains both undeniably reliable information about Athenagoras, and those that are very plausible, and Philip's erroneous opinions can be explained by the nature of the source with which he dealt, and the weakness of his own critical methods. Thus, the title of Athenagoras the Philosopher, and his apologia "a petition for Christians", is among the undoubtedly reliable, as it is in full agreement with the inscription of the writings of Athenagoras. The messages of Philip Sidet about the method of converting Athenagoras to Christianity and about his teaching in Alexandria bear the character of plausibility. There is nothing surprising if Athenagoras converted to Christianity after becoming acquainted with the books of the Holy Scriptures, as is known about other apologists. Similarly, it can be assumed that he had a theological school in Alexandria. Philosophers, even after converting to Christianity, used to gather around themselves students and form something in the nature of a school. Aristides had such a school in Athens, and St. Justin in Rome. The mistake of Philip Sidet lies in the fact that he mixed the private school of Athenagoras with the "school of holy words" and attributed to Athenagoras mentorship in this latter. He also confused the order of the imaginary founder of the main Alexandrian theological school, at the head of it, and Clement before Panten. The possibility of such errors in Philip Sidet is explained, on the one hand, by an uncritical attitude to the collected information, for which Socrates reproaches him, and most importantly, by the fact that he drew them from a source that has the property, having preserved a general fact, not to preserve or modify particulars. Philip Sidet borrowed information about Athenagoras, obviously, not from written documents, since otherwise Eusebius, a collector and connoisseur of church literature, or other writers, would have known about them. who continued and completed his work, but from oral tradition. Most likely, this was the tradition of the churches of Asia Minor or the Gallic church closely related to them. Since in these churches the persecution of Christians broke out most strongly in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, then, naturally, they, above all others, preserved the memory of Athenagoras, who appeared as their protector before this emperor. With this assumption, it is also consistent with the fact that the earlier evidence of Athenagoras, located at St. Methodius of Patara, also comes from Asia Minor. Finally, Philip Sides, as a native of the Asia Minor city of Sida (in Pamphylia), could be well aware of the tradition of his native country and reported in his History the information about Athenagoras that it had collected and preserved over the centuries, as a grateful memory of the dear man.
The last source of our information about Athenagoras is the writing of his writings and the address of the apology. From them we learn that Athenagoras was an Athenian, a Christian philosopher, and gave his apology to the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Commodus.
Two works remained from Athenagoras - an apology called "The Petition for Christians" and a treatise "On the Resurrection of the Dead."
1. "Ecclesiastical History" by Eusebius; "Catalogue" Jerome; "Library" Photius.
2. Preserved in fragments from St. Epiphanius ("Against Heresies", book II) and Photius.
3. I.e. platonic.
Athenagoras the Athenian philosopher Christian petition for Christians
"Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus.
Great sovereigns! In your empire, peoples adhere to different customs and laws, and none of them is forbidden by law and fear of punishment to follow domestic regulations, no matter how ridiculous they may be. Only we, who call themselves Christians, you do not pay your attention, and even allow us to persecute, oppress and torture us, and all this for one name that arms the crowd against us (ch. 1).
Of course, if someone accuses us of a great or small crime, we do not ask to be delivered from punishment, but we recognize it as just to bear the punishment, no matter how strong and cruel it may be. But if the accusation is based on one name, then it is your duty, the greatest, philanthropic and wisest sovereigns, to protect us by law from insults. The name itself is considered neither good nor bad, but it turns out to be bad or good according to the bad or good deeds that are implied by it (ch. 2).
We are accused [1] of three crimes: in godlessness, in eating human flesh, like Tiestus, in vile Oedipal incest (ch. 3).
I will respond to each of the accusations. As for the accusation of godlessness, raised against us in vain, our teaching recognizes the one God, the creator of this universe, Who Himself was not created, for the being does not receive being, but only the non-existent, but created everything ”(ch. 4).
The injustice of accusing Christians of atheism, while they contain such a teaching, Athenagoras proves with numerous arguments.
First, he points out that many poets and philosophers, like Efripede, Sophocles, Philolaus, Lysias, Opsimus, Plato, and Aristotle, also taught about the one God and did not appear to be atheists (chs. 5-6).
“So,” says Athenagoras, “if all those who delved into the beginning of the universe, although for the most part, involuntarily agree that the deity is one; if we recognize as God the one who arranged this world, then why are those allowed to speak and write about the deity whatever they want with impunity, while we are forbidden by law, although we can confirm with true testimonies and evidence what we think and what is right We believe that there is only one God. Poets and philosophers conjecturally touched on this subject, because they thought to acquire knowledge of God not from God, but each one on his own: therefore, each of them taught differently about God, and about matter, and about forms, and about the world. And what we know and what we believe, we have as witnesses the prophets, who, by inspiration from the divine Spirit, proclaimed both about God and about divine things” (ch. 7).
Secondly, Athenagoras points out that reason also requires the recognition of monotheism. “That from the beginning God alone is the Creator of everything, you will see this from the following considerations, which constitute a reasonable justification for our faith. If from the beginning there were two gods or many, then they were either in the same place, or each in his own. But they couldn't be in the same place. God the Creator of the world is above the created and around everything that He created and arranged, then where will the other god be, where are the others? Above the world and God? In another world or around another? But if in another world or near it, then he is no longer near us, for he does not rule over the world, and he himself is not great in power, for he dwells in a limited place. If this place does not exist in the other world either, for God the Creator fills everything, or around another, for everything is embraced by Him: then he himself does not exist, just as there is no place in which he would dwell. And what does He do when there is another God to Whom this world belongs? Does he trade? If he does not work, then he has not created anything. If he did not create anything and does not trade; if there is no other place where he would be, then there is only this original and only God, the Creator of the world” (ch. 18).
Enlightened emperors, who could be familiar with the then widespread books of Holy Scripture, Athenagoras considered it possible to establish the truth of common faith on prophetic authority. To do this, he points to the testimony of Moses (Ex. 20, 2-3) and Isaiah (Is. 44, 6; 43, 10-11; 71, 1), which excludes any possibility of recognizing gods other than the true God (ch. 9).
Having proved by references to the authority of poets, philosophers and to the requirement of reason that Christians are not atheists when they contain the doctrine of the one God, Athenagoras, further, through the disclosure of the Christian doctrine of God the Trinity in Persons, the Creator and Provider of the world, proves that this incomprehensible for the pagans the one God is not an abstract idea, an abstraction, but a living Being, who is in close relationship to the world. “We,” he says, “also recognize the Son of God: and let no one find it ridiculous that God has a Son. The Son of God is the Word of the Father, as His idea and as an active force, for according to Him and through Him all things were created, because the Father and the Son are one. And since the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son, according to the unity and power of the spirit, then the Son of God is the mind and word of the Father. He is the first birth of the Father, not in such a way that it comes into existence in time—for God, as an eternal mind and an eternally verbal (logicoz) being, from the beginning had the word (logicoz) in Himself, but He proceeded from Him in order to be an idea and an active force for all material things that were in the form of qualityless nature and inactive earth, - the lightest particles were mixed with the heaviest. Our words are also confirmed by the prophetic Spirit: “The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways in His works” (Prov. 8:22). We affirm that this same Holy Spirit, acting in the prophets, proceeds from God, like a ray of sunshine, flowing from Him and returning to Him. Who then, then, will not be surprised to hear that those are called atheists who confess God the Father, and God the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and recognize their unity in power, and difference in order? However, our theological teaching is not limited to this:
Proof that Christians are not atheists, Athenagoras sees not only in their lofty teaching about the true God, but also in their moralizing. “And the very rules by which we are guided, the rules that do not come from man, but are spoken and taught by God, we can persuade not to consider us as atheists. What are the rules in which we are brought up? “I say to you: love your enemies, bless those who curse you, pray for those who persecute you; that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven, who commands his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous” (Luke 6:27-28; Matt. 5:44-45). With us you will find uneducated people, artisans and old women who do not strike when they are beaten; they do not complain in court when their property is taken away from them; give to the needy, and love your neighbor, as themselves. Would we keep ourselves so pure if we did not acknowledge that God is watching over the human race? Of course not. But since we believe that we will give an account of all present life to God, who created both us and the world, we choose a temperate, philanthropic and humiliated life, knowing that we cannot tolerate here, even if we are deprived of life, no evil, which would be equal to the blessings prepared for us there from the Great Judge for a meek, philanthropic and modest life ”(ch. 11-12).
Since the accusation of Christians of atheism was based mainly on the fact that they do not recognize pagan gods and do not offer sacrifices to them, Athenagoras proves that from this point of view, Christians are not atheists, since they, while honoring the true God, refuse to honor only false and non-existent gods. “Since many of those who accuse us of godlessness measure piety by the number of victims, and accuse us of not recognizing the same gods that your cities honor: I ask you, autocrats, pay attention to two things, and, firstly why we don't make sacrifices. The Creator of the universe and the Father has no need of blood, or smoke, or the fragrance of flowers and incense, being Himself the most perfect fragrance and lacking nothing inside or outside. If we, recognizing God as the Creator, Who contains and observes everything with knowledge and all-ruling wisdom, we lift up pure hands to heaven: then what other sacrifices does He need? Of what use to me are burnt offerings that God does not need? He needs to offer a bloodless sacrifice and reasonable service (ch. 13).
And that we do not recognize and do not honor those gods that your cities honor, is a completely unreasonable reproach. Those themselves who accuse us of godlessness because we do not honor those gods whom they recognize, do not agree among themselves regarding the gods. But if they themselves disagree among themselves about their gods, then why are they accusing us that we do not agree with them? (ch. 14).
But let them worship the same gods. What? If many, not being able to distinguish between what is matter and what is God, and what is the difference between them, worship idols made of matter, then is it really for them also we, who separate and distinguish between the beginningless and the past, the existing and the non-existing, comprehended by the mind and perceived by the senses, and we give each of these objects a decent name, shall we also begin to worship idols? If we took these or other types of matter for gods, then we would turn out to have no idea about the true God, for in this case we would equate the destructible and perishable with the eternal (ch. 15).
In defense of my case, I must present exact evidence both regarding the names of the gods, that they are new, and regarding their images, that they were made, so to speak, yesterday or the third day. Orpheus, Homer and Hesiod gave both names and genealogy to those whom they call gods. Herodotus also testifies to this: “I think that Hesiod and Homer lived four hundred years before me, no more: they made up theogony for the Hellenes, gave nicknames to the gods, divided honors and arts between them, and designated their appearance” (“ History”, II, 53). And their images were not in use until there was plastic, painting and sculpture. In general, the time of the appearance of images and statues is so recent that one could name the artist of each god. So, if they are gods, why didn't they exist from the beginning? Why are they younger than those who made them? Why did they need people and their art to exist? They are earth, stones, matter, and craftsmanship (ch. 17).
But some say that this is only an image, and the gods are those in whose honor these images are made, that the prayers that turn to these latter, and the sacrifices belong to the gods and are performed for them; that there is no other means than this to approach the gods, for it is difficult to see the gods openly, and in confirmation of the justice of this, the actions of certain idols are presented: therefore, let us examine what power lies in the names of the gods. Pay attention first of all to the following. Not from the beginning, as they say (Homer and Orpheus), the gods existed, but each of them was born in the same way as we are born. And if there was a time when they did not exist, as those who tell about the gods say about them, then they are not gods. For the beginningless is together and eternal; but that which has come into being is also subject to corruption. And I say the same thing as the philosophers (Plato, Stoics; ch. 18-19).
The myths, moreover, say that the gods have flesh, blood, seed, the passions of anger and lust, are subject to sorrow and wounds; they even turn out to be mortals, fall in love with each other, fall in love with people, etc. All these speeches must be considered nonsense and worthy of laughter. For in God there is no wrath, no lust and desire, no begetting seed; God does not rage” (like Ares; ch. 20-21).
Among educated pagans, especially among philosophers, there has long been (from the 4th century BC) a belief in the failure of mythology, if we take its legends about the gods in the literal sense. Therefore, in order to cleanse it of everything that is sensual, and often shameful, an allegorical interpretation of myths was invented, due to which the gods became the personification of the forces and phenomena of nature. With this in mind, Athenagoras argues that the allegorical interpretation of myths not only does not serve the gods, but most obviously shows that these gods do not exist.
“But all this, perhaps,” he says, “is poetic fiction, which has only one meaning: “Zeus means fire, as Empedocles says, Juno and Pluto are the life principle, and the tears of Nystida are the waters of the springs.” So, if Jupiter is fire, Juno is earth, Pluto is air, and Nystida is water, and fire, water, air are the elements, then none of them is God, because their composition and origin are from matter. Matter, however, which is perishable, fluid, and changeable, cannot be considered equal to the unborn and eternal, and always the same in itself—God. As for those who say that Kronos is time, Rhea is the earth that conceives and gives birth from Kronos, then we say to them: if Kronos is time, then it changes; if it is an annual change, then it is replaced; and the deity is immortal, immovable and unchanging. Therefore, Kronos is not God” (ch. 22). Since one of the important foundations of paganism, for all its internal weakness, were the miracles attributed to the gods, the apologist, who took the trouble to prove the falsity of the pagan concept of the gods, had to reckon with them. Athenagoras does not deny the fact of the possibility and reality of these miracles, but explains them by the action of demons. “You,” he says, “maybe ask, how do some of the idols act, if not the gods to whom we erect statues? For it is impossible for soulless and motionless images to act on their own, without a mover. That in some places and cities, among certain peoples, there are some actions under the name of idols, this we do not deny either; but if some benefited from them, while others harmed, we therefore do not honor as gods those who produced both. However,
There is a spirit that circulates around matter, which was created from God, like other angels were created by Him, and is placed to control matter and its types. God created the angels to provide for the things He created, so that God has a comprehensive and general providence for everything, and the providence for the parts belongs to the angels assigned to them. Just as humans have the freedom to choose good and evil, so do angels. Some of them, free, as they were created from God, remained in that to which God created them and determined them; while others abused their nature and the power given to them. Such are the prince of matter and its kinds, and others of those who were around him, as chief, assistants. The latter lusted after virgins and were overcome by the flesh; but he became negligent and crafty in the management entrusted to him. From those who copulated with the virgins, the so-called giants were born. These are the angels who have fallen from heaven and dwell in the air and on earth and are no longer able to ascend to heaven, likewise the souls of giants, which are actually demons wandering around the world, perform actions, alone, namely demons, - corresponding to nature, which they received, and others, namely the angels, to those lusts that they had. The prince of matter, as can be seen from the very events, invents and arranges things contrary to the goodness of God (ch. 24-25). which they got. The prince of matter, as can be seen from the very events, invents and arranges things contrary to the goodness of God (ch. 24-25). which they got. The prince of matter, as can be seen from the very events, invents and arranges things contrary to the goodness of God (ch. 24-25).
Demons attract pagans to idols, for they are attached to the blood of victims and delight in it. Unreasonable and dreamy movements of the soul produce visions, combined with a passionate attraction to material images. When a tender and well-inclined soul, ignorant and inexperienced in solid teaching, alien to the truth and not comprehending the Father and Creator of the universe, is filled with false ideas about itself, then the demons circling around the substance, thirsting for sacrificial smoke and blood, deceivers of people, calling for their help these deceptive movements of the soul that carry away the crowd, and acting on the minds of people, instill these visions in them, as if they came from idols and statues; and when the soul itself, as immortal, intelligently moves, foreseeing the future or experiencing the present, then the demons will appropriate this glory to themselves ”(ch. 26-27).
Athenagoras did not draw a conclusion from the last reasoning, but it is clear: if demons act in the visions and miracles attributed to the gods, then the existence of pagan gods is not proved even by the strongest argument in their favor. So they don't exist at all. To finally convince the pagans of this, Athenagoras cites an argument in the spirit of the Euhemerian theory, which honors the gods by ordinary people most often - kings, deified by ignorant posterity for any of their outstanding qualities or merits. “Herodotus and Alexander, the son of Philip, claim that they heard from the Egyptian priests that the gods were people (Herodotus. History, 2, 144, 156). They were revered as the first kings who came from heaven, and partly out of ignorance of true worship of God, partly out of gratitude for their superiors, they were elevated to gods and together with their wives. It is incredible that the priests those who worshiped idols lied when they said they were human. The most important poets and historians from the Hellenes also speak, for example, about Hercules (Homer), about Aesculapius (Hesiod, Pindar and Euripides). Shall I say much about Castor, or Polydeuces, or Amphiareus, who, so to speak, were born of men yesterday or the third day, and are now revered as gods? (Ch. 28-29).
“So, we are not atheists,” Athenagoras concludes, “because we recognize God, the Creator of the universe, and His Word” (ch. 30).
Having finished with the accusation of godlessness, Athenagoras moves on to the other two most common accusations of Christians - debauchery combined with incest and cannibalism. He proves their injustice by pointing to the highly moral and humane Christian teaching, with the content of which Christians not only do not commit the grave crimes that are erected against them, but cannot commit them. He explains the possibility of these accusations, among other motives, by the desire of the pagans to ascribe to Christians those immoral actions that they themselves commit, taught by the example of their gods. “We are accused,” he says, “also of some kind of feasts and impious mixtures, so that it would seem that they hate us not without reason. But you must admit that those who have God as the model of all life - so, so that each of us be pure and blameless before Him, they never admit even the slightest sin in their thoughts. For if we were convinced that there is only one real life on earth, then we might still suspect that we serve flesh and blood, but since we know that God is present in our thoughts and words night and day, and sees that is in our hearts, then we are also convinced that if we were carried away by sin together with others, a worse life will overtake us, in fiery torments. Therefore, it is unbelievable that we voluntarily sin and subject ourselves to the punishment of the great Judge (ch. 31). that God is present night and day in our thoughts and words, and sees what is in our heart, then we are also convinced that if we were carried away by sin along with others, a worse life will overtake us, in fiery torments. Therefore, it is unbelievable that we voluntarily sin and subject ourselves to the punishment of the great Judge (ch. 31). that God is present night and day in our thoughts and words, and sees what is in our heart, then we are also convinced that if we were carried away by sin along with others, a worse life will overtake us, in fiery torments. Therefore, it is unbelievable that we voluntarily sin and subject ourselves to the punishment of the great Judge (ch. 31).
It is not at all surprising if they attribute to us what they say about their gods, triumphing over their passions under the name of mysteries. Only if they began to accuse us of debauchery and indifferent copulation, then they should have hated Zeus in advance, who had children from his mother Rhea and daughter Cora and married his own sister; or Orpheus who invented it, who presented Zeus as more criminal and impious than Fiesta himself; for the latter committed incest with his daughter according to the oracular saying, wishing to remain king and avenge himself. We are so far from such crimes that we are not even allowed to look with lust (Matt. 5, 28). So, about those who consider a voluptuous look for adultery and who expect judgment even for thoughts; about those can be thought that they lead a depraved life? We have a law which commands to keep the greatest integrity between ourselves and our neighbors. Therefore, depending on age, we consider others as sons and daughters, others as brothers and sisters, and honor the elderly as fathers and mothers. Those whom we call brothers and sisters and other kindred names, we take great care of them so that their bodies remain intact and uncorrupted (chap. 32).
And each of us has a wife, whom he took according to the laws established by us, only for childbearing. Among us you will even find many, both men and women, who grow old celibate, hoping to unite more closely with God. One must either remain as one was born, or enter into one marriage, for the second marriage is plausible adultery (Matt. 19:9). These are our rules, our customs. Those who set up a marketplace for fornication and offer young men vile havens of every shameful pleasure, and even men are not spared, and insulting the most beautiful and noble bodies in every way, and dishonoring the beauty created by God - they themselves accuse us because they recognize behind themselves and what they attribute to their own. gods, as something laudable and worthy of their gods (ch. 33-34).
So who in their right mind can say, when our way of life is like that, that we are murderers? For it is impossible to eat human flesh without first killing someone. The first is a lie, and as for the second, if anyone asks them if they have seen what they are talking about, then no one will be so shameless as to say that he saw it. We also have servants from whom it is impossible to hide: however, none of them spoke such a blatant lie against us. For those who, as you know, do not want to look even at the justly executed: those who will accuse of homicide or man-eating? If we affirm that women who persecute nascent babies are committing homicide and will give God an account for the persecution, then how can we ourselves begin to kill a person? What kind of person, who believes in the resurrection, will agree to become the tomb of those who have the right to be resurrected? Is it impossible that the same people believe in the resurrection of our bodies and eat them together as unworthy of the resurrection? Those who are convinced that no one can hide from the judgment of God and that the body itself will suffer punishment along with the soul, for which it served as an instrument of unreasonable inclinations and passions, they will - very thoroughly think - will avoid even the slightest sin (ch. 35-36).
But you, sovereigns, honor me with your royal approval for the fact that I refuted slander and proved our piety, meekness and good character. What people are more deserving of receiving what they ask than we, who pray for your power, so that the son, as justice requires, inherits the kingdom from the father, and that your power is more and more established and extended and everything submits to you? (ch. 37).
1. Based on a Christian name.
Athenagoras the Athenian Christian philosopher about the resurrection of the dead.
The Christian dogma of the resurrection is one of the hardest to comprehend and most contested by pagans. Even the idea of the immortality of the soul, held in mythology and philosophy, was not shared by all ancient paganism: many thought that death is a complete cessation of life, so that the soul dies and decays along with the body. The idea of the immortality of man in his entire composition was completely alien to pagan consciousness. Therefore, the Christian teaching about the resurrection of people, with the same bodies that they had during their life on earth, seemed to the pagans pure absurdity. “Eternal life of the soul,” says Celsus, “is possible. But as for bodies, then ... bodies, according to Heraclitus, are nothing more than dirt, and God cannot and, of course, will not want to determine them for eternal existence. For this would be contrary to His understanding (Origen. "Against Celsus", 5, 14). The impossibility of the resurrection was also proved by other rather witty arguments. Thus, for example, it has always been pointed out that it is difficult to compose a whole body from particles that have undergone decay and complete destruction. Then it was pointed out that some of the bodies of people were eaten by fish, birds and animals and, therefore, as food, became part of their body. How, then, at the resurrection can they be separated from the bodies with which they entered into union? It is even more difficult to isolate them if the animals that devoured people were themselves eaten by other people and, having been processed into food, entered a new organism. Transitions of parts of the human body directly into another human organism are possible, for example, during hunger, or in a fit of madness, when people devour each other. How, under these conditions, will the separation of particles of the body follow? If they pass over to the organism to which they originally belonged, the other organism, in which they have become one of the constituent parts, will be damaged and incomplete. But if they remain in this latter, then there will be a defect in the former (ch. 4).
Athenagoras, in his treatise on the resurrection, refutes all these cunning objections and proves that the resurrection is not only possible, but necessary. He affirms the possibility of the resurrection on the omniscience and omnipotence of God.
“God,” he says, “cannot help knowing the nature of the resurrected bodies, whether they are whole members or their parts, cannot help knowing where each particle went after the destruction of the bodies and which of the elements accepted each particle that was destroyed and united with its kindred , although for people the particles of bodies, connected with the parts of the universe akin to themselves, are completely elusive. For He who, before the construction of every thing, knew the nature of the future elements from which human bodies should come, and those parts of them from which He intended to take suitable for the construction of the human body — He, obviously, even after the destruction of the whole body cannot but know where each of the particles that He used to complete the formation of each body entered (chap. 2).
That the power of God is sufficient for the resurrection of bodies is proved by their very origin. For if God in the original creation created human bodies that did not exist and their very beginnings, then He will resurrect those that are destroyed in any way with the same ease, since it is equally possible for Him. What power was it to create matter, to adorn the formless and unorganized with many and different forms, to combine parts of the elements into one, and to divide the single and simple seed into many, to dismember the inarticulate and give life to the lifeless: the same force tends to unite the collapsed, raise the lying, again to revive the dead and change the corruptible into the incorruptible. The same Creator and the same power and wisdom also possess what is plundered by many different animals,
God has prepared for each animal food akin and in accordance with its nature and kind, and has not allowed every substance to enter into union or mixture with any body, and does not find it difficult to separate what has been combined. Not everything that someone takes turns into food akin to an animal, but something else, immediately after being taken by the parts surrounding the stomach, spoils and vomits, is separated or otherwise vomited, so that it is not even subjected to the original and natural digestion, and not just not combines with food. In the same way, not everything that has been boiled and undergone the initial change completely enters the nourishing parts of the body, because some in the womb itself loses its nutritional power, and some, after a secondary change and digestion in the liver, is separated and combined with something else, having no nutritional value. And after the change that takes place in the liver, not everything enters the food of people, but is separated in ordinary eruptions, and that food, which is of a different nature and alien to nature, soon spoils if it meets with the strongest substance, or easily spoils another if it is itself stronger than it, and turns into unusable juices and poisonous qualities, as bringing nothing akin to or corresponding to the nourished body. The best proof of this is that in many animals pain or dangerous injury or death occurs from this kind of food when they take something poisonous and contrary to their nature. So, if, according to the difference in the nature of animals, the types of food characteristic of them are different, then it is obvious that nothing contrary to nature will ever unite with them, since it does not constitute food akin and corresponding to them (ch. 5-6).
Even if one were to assume that from such substances food, although it is contrary to the nature of the body, nevertheless enters into it, and changes into something wet or dry, into warm or cold, then from such an assumption there will be no benefit to opponents, for the resurrected bodies will again be composed of their own parts, and none of the substances mentioned will be part of them, and at the resurrection they will not be resurrected, since then neither blood, nor moisture, nor bile, nor air will be needed to maintain life. Thus, if we properly discuss what we have now investigated, and even admit the assumptions put forward by opponents, then it is impossible to prove the truth of what they assert - that human bodies would ever mix with others like them, out of ignorance. Has anyone, deceived by others, tasted such a body,
The bodies of men can never unite with similar bodies, for which this food is unnatural, although it often passes through their wombs through some terrible misfortune; having no nutritive power, and being dispersed over those parts of the universe from which they received their original origin, substances unite with these latter for a time, as long as each of them has to; then they will again be separated from them by the wisdom and power of Him Who endowed every animal creature with its own powers — and, according to nature, each unites with its own, even if they were burned by fire, or rotted in water, even if they were swallowed up by beasts or other animals, at least one member, torn from the whole body, decomposed before the other members. Once again united with each other, they will take their former place to make up the same body,
Having thus proved that God can resurrect human bodies that have died and collapsed under all kinds of conditions, Athenagoras further proves that it is pleasing to God to resurrect them. “What is displeasing to God,” he says, “is displeasing to Him either as unjust or unworthy. But, obviously, the resurrection does not injustice to any of the extraneous beings. In the same way, it cannot be said that any injustice in relation to the resurrected man himself would be imagined. Nor can it be said that it was unworthy of God to resurrect and rebuild a broken body. For if it was not unworthy of Him to create a worse body, perishable and subject to suffering, it is even less unworthy of Him to create a better one, a body incorruptible and free from suffering” (ch. 10).
The resurrection of people who have died, finally, according to Athenagoras, is not only possible for God and pleasing to Him, but also necessary “both on the basis of the reason for which the first man and his descendants originated, and on the basis of the common nature of all people; also on the basis of the future judgment, which the Creator will execute on them for all actions” (ch. 11) and, finally, on the basis of the highest destiny of man.
Considering the question from the point of view of the purpose for which man was created, Athenagoras says that “God did not create man in vain, for He is wise, and no work of wisdom is in vain, and not for one's own benefit; for He does not need anything. Nor did He create man for any of His creations. So, if man was not created without a cause and not in vain, then, obviously, for the life of those who were created, and, moreover, for a life that does not kindle for a short time, and then completely extinguishes. For those who bear the image of the Creator Himself, possess the mind and are endowed with rational sense, the Creator determined eternal existence, so that, knowing their Creator and His power and wisdom, and following the law and truth, painlessly stay forever with what they spent previous life, being in perishable and earthly bodies. Those beings who are created for their very being and life, since the cause of being is connected with their very nature and is seen only in their very being, can never be subjected to the complete annihilation of their being from any cause. So, if the Creator of everything created man so that he would be a partaker of rational life, and that he, having become a contemplator of His majesty and wisdom shining in all, would always remain in such contemplation, in accordance with His intention and with the nature that man received, then the cause of this creation attests to the continuity of its existence, and the continuity in the resurrection, without which man would not have always existed ”(ch. 12-13). can never be subjected for any reason to the complete annihilation of their being. So, if the Creator of everything created man so that he would be a partaker of rational life, and that he, having become a contemplator of His majesty and wisdom shining in all, would always remain in such contemplation, in accordance with His intention and with the nature that man received, then the cause of this creation attests to the continuity of its existence, and the continuity in the resurrection, without which man would not have always existed ”(ch. 12-13). can never be subjected for any reason to the complete annihilation of their being. So, if the Creator of everything created man so that he would be a partaker of rational life, and that he, having become a contemplator of His majesty and wisdom shining in all, would always remain in such contemplation, in accordance with His intention and with the nature that man received, then the cause of this creation attests to the continuity of its existence, and the continuity in the resurrection, without which man would not have always existed ”(ch. 12-13).
Turning to the nature of man, Athenagoras finds new evidence of the resurrection in its two-part composition, which convinces that a complete person is unthinkable without body and soul; consequently, man's eternal existence is possible only if he has that two-part composition that constituted the necessary condition of his earthly life. “The nature of created people,” says Athenagoras, “equally affirms faith in the resurrection. If, in general, human nature consists of an immortal soul and a body that is united with it at creation; If neither the nature of the soul in itself, nor the nature of the body separately, God gave independent existence and life, but only to people consisting of soul and body, then the body and soul in man constitute one living being, which experiences both what is proper to the soul and what is proper to the body. If there is unity and harmony in all this living being, if there is agreement between the actions of the soul and the functions of the body, then the ultimate goal of all this must be the same. There will indeed be one last goal, if the living being, destined for a certain end, will be in the same composition. It will be exactly the same living being when it has all the same parts that make up this living being. And these parts will only then appear in their proper combination, when those of them that have been destroyed will again unite into the composition of a living being. The formation of the composition of the same people necessarily leads to the resurrection of bodies that have died and collapsed; for without him the same parts would not have united with each other by nature, and the nature of the same people would not have been restored. If there is no resurrection then the nature of human beings as human beings will not remain. If, however, human nature does not remain in existence, then in vain is the soul bound to the infirmities of the body and its conditions, in vain is the body kept from achieving what it aspires to, being guided and restrained by the bridle of the soul; in general, to say, in vain is the very creation of people and their nature. If, however, there is absolutely nothing in vain in all the works of God and the gifts emanating from Him, then it is absolutely necessary that the eternal residence and body correspond to the immortal soul, in accordance with its nature ”(ch. 15). in vain is the very creation of men and their nature. If, however, there is absolutely nothing in vain in all the works of God and the gifts emanating from Him, then it is absolutely necessary that the eternal residence and body correspond to the immortal soul, in accordance with its nature ”(ch. 15). in vain is the very creation of men and their nature. If, however, there is absolutely nothing in vain in all the works of God and the gifts emanating from Him, then it is absolutely necessary that the eternal residence and body correspond to the immortal soul, in accordance with its nature ”(ch. 15).
The fact of a person's death, i.e. the temporary destruction of his bodily organization, according to Athenagoras, does not contradict the doctrine of the eternal stay of a person in his entire composition, because death and bodily destruction is the same change inherent in human nature as sleep, the transition from one age to another, etc. “One should not,” says Athenagoras, lament that the separation of the soul from the body and the decomposition of parts breaks the continuity of life, one should not reject the resurrection. For the life of conscious sensation seems also to be interrupted during sleep, and yet we do not refuse to call this state life. For this reason, I think, some call sleep the brother of death, in the similarity of the state of the dead and sleeping, in calmness and insensitivity to everything that exists and happens, and even to the being of one's own life. In general, the nature of people from the very beginning, and according to the Creator’s thought, was given the destiny to undergo changes and has a life and a stay that is not the same, but is interrupted either by sleep, or by death, or by changes at each age, since the subsequent age is not clearly revealed in the previous one. Who would believe if he had not been taught by experience that so many and such great forces are contained in the indifferent and formless seed, such a variety of parts that arise and are composed in it, such as: bones, nerves, cartilage, muscles, flesh, viscera and other body compositions? None of this is seen in wet seeds, nor in infants what is found in young men, nor in youthful age what is characteristic of mature men, nor in these last what happens to old people.
The truth of the resurrection is also affirmed on the concept of God's justice. “It is necessary that justice extend to the whole person, consisting of soul and body, if a righteous judgment assigns retribution for the action to both parts, and more than one soul should receive retribution for what it did with the body - for it is not in itself indulges in sins concerning bodily pleasures, food, or other sensual goods - and none of them alone - for it is in itself incapable of reasoning about law and justice: but a man, consisting of both, is subject to judgment. For each of its actions, meanwhile, the mind does not find this reward either in the present life, for in the present life it is not worthy of it, since many atheists, devoted to all lawlessness and ungodliness, do not experience misfortunes until death, and, on the contrary, those , who spend their lives in every virtue, are subjected to sorrows, insults, slanders, torments and all sorts of disasters - not after death - for a person does not yet consist of both parts, until the soul has separated from the body, and the body has decomposed into that from which it is was composed, and retains nothing of its former nature or form, not even the memory of what was done: that consequence is obvious to everyone; precisely what is due, according to the apostle, “this corruptible” and who was scattered, “put on incorruption,” so that when the dead come to life through the resurrection, and the divided or completely destroyed is again united, each one receives his due for “what he did with the body, good or evil” (1 Cor. 15:53 and 2 Cor. 5:10; ch. 18). - for a person does not yet consist of both parts, while the soul has separated from the body, and the body has decomposed into that from which it was composed, and does not retain anything of its former nature or form, not even the memory of what has been done: this consequence is obvious to everyone ; precisely what is due, according to the apostle, “this corruptible” and who was scattered, “put on incorruption,” so that when the dead come to life through the resurrection, and the divided or completely destroyed is again united, each one receives his due for “what he did with the body, good or evil” (1 Cor. 15:53 and 2 Cor. 5:10; ch. 18). - for a person does not yet consist of both parts, while the soul has separated from the body, and the body has decomposed into that from which it was composed, and does not retain anything of its former nature or form, not even the memory of what has been done: this consequence is obvious to everyone ; precisely what is due, according to the apostle, “this corruptible” and who was scattered, “put on incorruption,” so that when the dead come to life through the resurrection, and the divided or completely destroyed is again united, each one receives his due for “what he did with the body, good or evil” (1 Cor. 15:53 and 2 Cor. 5:10; ch. 18).
Finally, the highest purpose of man, which distinguishes him from all earthly beings, requires the resurrection [1]. “Both for works of nature, and for works of art, there must be a goal peculiar to each: this is what convinces us of the universal meaning and evidence of visual experience. If this is undoubted, then it is absolutely necessary that the appointment of people, as beings of a special nature, should have nothing in common with others. Carelessness cannot be their proper aim, for that would be common to them with beings devoid of all feeling; neither can the enjoyment of that which nourishes and delights the body, nor the abundance of pleasures, for then the bestial life would necessarily have an advantage, and the virtuous life would be aimless. In the same way, the bliss of the soul separated from the body cannot be the destiny of man. For we are considering life, or the purpose, not of any one of the parts of which man is composed, but of man, consisting of both. But if the purpose belongs to both parts, and meanwhile, for the reasons stated above, it cannot be indicated for living people either in this life or after the separation of the soul from the body, then it is absolutely necessary that the purpose of people be in some other the state of this two-part living being. And if this necessarily follows, then there must certainly be a resurrection of bodies that have died and completely destroyed, and a second existence of the same people, for they cannot exist as the same people unless the same bodies are returned to the same souls. But for the same body to receive the same soul, this is only possible through the resurrection. When this is done, then the goal will be reached, in accordance with the nature of people. No one would be wrong if they said
1. The last proof of the resurrection serves as an addition to the first, since both here and there it speaks of the purpose and purpose of man, with the only difference being that there it was said about the purpose of the creation of man, about the first reason for his being, but here the ultimate goal of human life is meant. .
St. Meliton, Ep. Sardinian
St. Meliton, one of the outstanding church leaders and writers, about whom the testimonies of antiquity speak with the greatest respect and praise, was the bishop of the Asia Minor city of Sardis (in Lydia). From his writings it is clear that he received an extensive education - oratorical, philosophical and proper Christian. In order to fulfill the latter and to study the books of Holy Scripture in the original, he undertook a journey to the holy places where the events of sacred history took place. "In the very place," he says, "where the sermon and events took place, I studied the books of the Old Testament." (Eusebius. "Church History", IV, 26). The result of this study was the compilation in six books of "extractions from the law and the prophets concerning the Savior and all our faith", which were preceded by the generally accepted Old Testament canon (ibid.). Then, according to Eusebius, he took an active part in ending the dispute about the time of the celebration of Easter, which worried the Laodicean church after the martyrdom of Bishop. Sagaris, and wrote two books about Easter on this occasion (ibid.). The valiant shepherd, who worked so tirelessly for the internal prosperity and peace of the Church, responded to her external needs, as in his time there was a persecution of Christians caused by the edict of the emperor Marcus Aurelius. Eusebius says that in Olympiad 237 (169-172) Meliton of Sardis gave Antoninus an apology for Christians (Eusebius, Church History, IV, 13, 26). The expression "submitted" suggests that St. Meliton did not even hesitate to travel to Rome to present his apology to the emperor. he took an active part in ending the dispute about the time of the celebration of Pascha, which worried the Laodicean church after the martyrdom of Bishop. Sagaris, and wrote two books about Easter on this occasion (ibid.). The valiant shepherd, who worked so tirelessly for the internal prosperity and peace of the Church, responded to her external needs, as in his time there was a persecution of Christians caused by the edict of the emperor Marcus Aurelius. Eusebius says that in Olympiad 237 (169-172) Meliton of Sardis gave Antoninus an apology for Christians (Eusebius, Church History, IV, 13, 26). The expression "submitted" suggests that St. Meliton did not even hesitate to travel to Rome to present his apology to the emperor. he took an active part in ending the dispute about the time of the celebration of Pascha, which worried the Laodicean church after the martyrdom of Bishop. Sagaris, and wrote two books about Easter on this occasion (ibid.). The valiant shepherd, who worked so tirelessly for the internal prosperity and peace of the Church, responded to her external needs, as in his time there was a persecution of Christians caused by the edict of the emperor Marcus Aurelius. Eusebius says that in Olympiad 237 (169-172) Meliton of Sardis gave Antoninus an apology for Christians (Eusebius, Church History, IV, 13, 26). The expression "submitted" suggests that St. Meliton did not even hesitate to travel to Rome to present his apology to the emperor. and wrote two books about Easter on this occasion (ibid.). The valiant shepherd, who worked so tirelessly for the internal prosperity and peace of the Church, responded to her external needs, as in his time there was a persecution of Christians caused by the edict of the emperor Marcus Aurelius. Eusebius says that in Olympiad 237 (169-172) Meliton of Sardis gave Antoninus an apology for Christians (Eusebius, Church History, IV, 13, 26). The expression "submitted" suggests that St. Meliton did not even hesitate to travel to Rome to present his apology to the emperor. and wrote two books about Easter on this occasion (ibid.). The valiant shepherd, who worked so tirelessly for the internal prosperity and peace of the Church, responded to her external needs, as in his time there was a persecution of Christians caused by the edict of the emperor Marcus Aurelius. Eusebius says that in Olympiad 237 (169-172) Meliton of Sardis gave Antoninus an apology for Christians (Eusebius, Church History, IV, 13, 26). The expression "submitted" suggests that St. Meliton did not even hesitate to travel to Rome to present his apology to the emperor. that in the 237th Olympiad (169-172) Meliton of Sardis gave Antonin an apology for Christians (Eusebius. "Church History", IV, 13, 26). The expression "submitted" suggests that St. Meliton did not even hesitate to travel to Rome to present his apology to the emperor. that in the 237th Olympiad (169-172) Meliton of Sardis gave Antonin an apology for Christians (Eusebius. "Church History", IV, 13, 26). The expression "submitted" suggests that St. Meliton did not even hesitate to travel to Rome to present his apology to the emperor.
In addition to fruitful activity, antiquity also noted other outstanding virtues of St. Meliton. Polycrates, Ep. Ephesian, in his letter to the Roman church, calls him a eunuch, i.e. a virgin, and says that he did everything under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for which, after the resurrection of the dead, episcopacy awaits him in heaven (Eusebius, Church History, V, 24). Tertullian, who was almost a contemporary of him, says that many Christians regarded him as a prophet. Eusebius considers him, along with Apollinaris, St. Irenaeus and other prominent persons, the faithful guardian of Orthodoxy, the apostolic tradition and the holy faith (Eusebius. "Church History", IV, 21),
St. Meliton died and was buried in Sardis in the 70s of the second century.
Eusebius points out many writings that belonged to Meliton, such as books on the way of life and the prophets, on the Church, a word on Sunday, on human nature, the above-mentioned "extractions" and books on Easter, etc., but most of these writings have survived to of our time, or only names, or insignificant passages. Of the surviving literary works of Meliton, two passages from his apology and a speech to Emperor Antoninus (Marcus Aurelius) matter to us. The first passage was preserved by Eusebius (Eusebius. "Ecclesiastical History", IV, 26), the second was found in the Easter chronicle, and the "Speech" was discovered only in 1855 by the scientist Curton among other Syrian manuscripts of the British Museum.
Excerpt 1st
This passage is of great value as a historical monument, depicting the state attitude of paganism to Christianity, when, on the basis of the edict of Marcus Aurelius, special searches for Christians and denunciations against them were allowed with a reward for informers from the property of the executed.
In order to speak more freely about the injustice of this edict, without arousing the wrath of the emperor against himself, to whom the apology addressed, Meliton pretends that he does not know the true culprit of the injustices and cruelties committed against Christians. “Now,” he says, “what has never happened before is the race of pious people being persecuted, pursued by evil decrees throughout Asia. Shameless scammers and hunters to profit from other people's property, finding a reason for themselves in such orders, are clearly robbers, day and night robbing innocent people. And if it is done according to your command, then so be it, a just king will never want anything unjust; and we willingly accept the fate of such a death. We bring you only one request, so that you yourself know in advance the people who act with such stubbornness. [1] , and then rightly judged whether they were worthy of death and any punishment, or preservation of life and tranquility. If this definition and a new order, which would be indecent even in relation to hostile barbarians, did not come from you, then we ask you even more not to leave us to such robbery. Our philosophy [2] originally flourished among the barbarians [3] , then, in the mighty dominion of your ancestor Augustus, met with the peoples subject to you and was a good omen for your kingdom. For since then the Roman power has been exalted and glorified; and you have become a longed-for successor to the throne, and you will rule it with your son [4]if you protect the philosophy that grew with the empire and began with Augustus, and which your ancestors honored along with other religions. And that our doctrine flourished together with the prosperous beginning of the empire, precisely to its good, the most important proof is that nothing bad happened from the reign of Augustus, on the contrary, according to the general desire, everything was happy and glorious. Of all the emperors, only Nero and Domitian, at the instigation of certain malevolent people, tried to slander our teaching, and from them false slander against us spread to subsequent generations through the unreasonable custom of believing rumors. But their unbelief was corrected by your pious ancestors, many times in writing reproaching those who, regarding Christians, dared to start something new. Of these, your grandfather Adrian wrote as to others, [5] ; and your father, when you already shared the government with him, wrote to various cities, and among other things to the Larissa, Thessalonica, Athenians and all Hellenes, so that they would not undertake anything new regarding us. As for you, we are even more convinced that, having the same or even more philanthropic and reasonable thoughts about Christians, you will do everything we ask you to do.”
1. I.e. Christian. Christian teaching
2. Christian teaching
3. The Jews, ranked by the Greeks as barbarians.
4. Kommodomo.
5. The text of Hadrian's edict, which forbids punishing Christians for false accusations, is given at the end of Justin's 1st Apologia.
Excerpt 2
“We do not serve insensible stones, but we worship the one God, who is above all and above all, and Christ the true God, the eternal Word.”
The speech of Meliton the Philosopher, which he held before the emperor Antoninus, to teach him the knowledge of God and show him the path of truth
The subject of the "Speech" is very simple: Meliton develops only one idea that it is unworthy of a person to honor false gods and their images instead of the true God, whatever the motives for this veneration.
In the introduction to his speech, Meliton says that “it is not easy to quickly turn such a person to the right path, who has been in error for a long time. However, this is possible. For if a person turns away from error even a little, the testimony of the truth becomes acceptable to him. ”Then, proceeding to the main subject of his speech, he points out that the fundamental error of paganism“ consists in the fact that a person leaves what is truly there and serves it. which is truly not. But there is something truly, and this is called God; He truly is, and everything exists through His power. He is not a created being, has not received a beginning in time; but He is from eternity, and exists forever and ever, He will not change, while everything changes. No sight can see Him, no mind can understand Him, no word can explain Him. Those who love Him call Him the Father and the God of truth. Therefore, if a person, leaving the Light, says that there is another god, then the meaning of his words is that he calls one of the creatures a god. For if a man calls fire God, then it is not God, because it is fire, and if he calls water God, then it is not God, because it is water; and if this earth on which we walk is the sky which we see, if the sun, the moon, or one of these stars, which make their prescribed course, and if a man calls gold or silver a god, then all these are not things, which we use as we want? And if it is a tree that we burn, and if someone calls these stones (which we crush) a god, then can they be gods when they serve for the use of people? Do not they sin grievously, who in their words confuse the great God with these things that exist only by His command? However, I say that when a person does not hear, and does not discern and does not know that the Lord is above all these creatures, he may not deserve condemnation, because no one condemns a blind man if he does not go straight. But now, when a voice is heard throughout the earth announcing that there is a true God, and every man has been given an eye to see, now those who would like to have no excuse, but are ashamed because many share their error, turn to the right path. Therefore, I advise them to open their eyes and see. For why should a man be ashamed of those who err with him? Rather, he must persuade others to follow him; and if they are not convinced, let him save his soul from among them.” that exist only by His command? However, I say that when a person does not hear, and does not discern and does not know that the Lord is above all these creatures, he may not deserve condemnation, because no one condemns a blind man if he does not go straight. But now, when a voice is heard throughout the earth announcing that there is a true God, and every man has been given an eye to see, now those who would like to have no excuse, but are ashamed because many share their error, turn to the right path. Therefore, I advise them to open their eyes and see. For why should a man be ashamed of those who err with him? Rather, he must persuade others to follow him; and if they are not convinced, let him save his soul from among them.” that exist only by His command? However, I say that when a person does not hear, and does not discern and does not know that the Lord is above all these creatures, he may not deserve condemnation, because no one condemns a blind man if he does not go straight. But now, when a voice is heard throughout the earth announcing that there is a true God, and every man has been given an eye to see, now those who would like to have no excuse, but are ashamed because many share their error, turn to the right path. Therefore, I advise them to open their eyes and see. For why should a man be ashamed of those who err with him? Rather, he must persuade others to follow him; and if they are not convinced, let him save his soul from among them.” that when a person does not hear, and does not discern, and does not know that the Lord is above all these creatures, he may not deserve condemnation, because no one condemns a blind man if he does not go straight. But now, when a voice is heard throughout the earth announcing that there is a true God, and every man has been given an eye to see, now those who would like to have no excuse, but are ashamed because many share their error, turn to the right path. Therefore, I advise them to open their eyes and see. For why should a man be ashamed of those who err with him? Rather, he must persuade others to follow him; and if they are not convinced, let him save his soul from among them.” that when a person does not hear, and does not discern, and does not know that the Lord is above all these creatures, he may not deserve condemnation, because no one condemns a blind man if he does not go straight. But now, when a voice is heard throughout the earth announcing that there is a true God, and every man has been given an eye to see, now those who would like to have no excuse, but are ashamed because many share their error, turn to the right path. Therefore, I advise them to open their eyes and see. For why should a man be ashamed of those who err with him? Rather, he must persuade others to follow him; and if they are not convinced, let him save his soul from among them.” because no one condemns a blind man if he walks indirectly. But now, when a voice is heard throughout the earth announcing that there is a true God, and every man has been given an eye to see, now those who would like to have no excuse, but are ashamed because many share their error, turn to the right path. Therefore, I advise them to open their eyes and see. For why should a man be ashamed of those who err with him? Rather, he must persuade others to follow him; and if they are not convinced, let him save his soul from among them.” because no one condemns a blind man if he walks indirectly. But now, when a voice is heard throughout the earth announcing that there is a true God, and every man has been given an eye to see, now those who would like to have no excuse, but are ashamed because many share their error, turn to the right path. Therefore, I advise them to open their eyes and see. For why should a man be ashamed of those who err with him? Rather, he must persuade others to follow him; and if they are not convinced, let him save his soul from among them.” turn to the right path. Therefore, I advise them to open their eyes and see. For why should a man be ashamed of those who err with him? Rather, he must persuade others to follow him; and if they are not convinced, let him save his soul from among them.” turn to the right path. Therefore, I advise them to open their eyes and see. For why should a man be ashamed of those who err with him? Rather, he must persuade others to follow him; and if they are not convinced, let him save his soul from among them.”
In order to more clearly prove the madness of pagan worship and idolatry, Meliton explains "how and for what reasons they began to make images of kings" and tyrants, and how they were then compared to the gods. The inhabitants of Argos made statues of Hercules, because he was the son of their city, distinguished by his courage and killed harmful animals with his strength, and even more because the Argos were afraid of him, because he raped and took away the wives of many. The Actians [1] adored King Dionysus, because he was the first to introduce wine into their country. The Athenians adored Athena, the daughter of Zeus, the king of the island of Crete, because she founded the castle of Athens and installed Eriktin as king [2], her son, who was born from her adultery with the blacksmith Hephaestus, the son of her father's wife. Should I write about Nebo, who is revered in Mabug? All the priests of Mabuga know that this is an image of the Thracian magician Orpheus. And Adran is an image of the Persian magician Zeradusht [3] . In the same way, other people made statues of their kings and revered them.
But you are a rational being, free and knowing the truth, think about this with yourself; believe in Him who truly is God, open your heart to Him, trust Him, and He will give you eternal immortal life, for everything is in His hands. Honor other objects for what they are, images as images, statues as statues, and do not put any created thing in the place of the Uncreated. But God, who lives forever, enters into your soul, for your soul is His image, since it is invisible, intangible, has no form, and moves the whole body by its will. Therefore, know that if you revere the unchangeable, then you too, since he is eternal, when you leave the visible and transient, you will stand before Him forever, full of life and knowledge; and your deeds will be undiminishing riches, unfailing treasures. But know that the crown of your good deeds is the knowledge of God and the service of Him. And know that He does not require anything from you, does not need anything.
Who is this God? He Who Himself is the truth, and whose word is the truth. But what is truth? What is not created, not created, not formed, i.e. a being that has no beginning and is called truth. So, if a person worships something made by hands, then he does not worship the truth, and also not the word of truth. What crime is greater than that, when a man adores his wealth and leaves Him Who gives him wealth, swears at a man and adores his image, kills an animal and honors his image? If you like a work of art, then let you like the wonderful creation of God, who created everything. And artists work according to His model - they try to do as God created, but they do not achieve similarity.
The pagans, in defense of their worship of God, put forward or could put forward motives justifying it; therefore Meliton conscientiously considers all these motives and proves their fragility. “Perhaps you will say,” he says, “why didn’t God arrange for me to honor Him and not a statue? Speaking in this way, you want to be a mere tool and not a living person; God created you the way He pleased, and gave you reason and freedom. He has set many things before you so that you can discuss everything and choose the good. He set before you the sky and the stars in it; he has placed before you the sun and the moon, which flow around the sky every day; He set before you the great earth, which rests and stands before you in the same form; and lest you think that she stands by her own strength, He shakes her when He wants to; He has placed clouds before you, which, at His command, shoot water from on high and saturate the earth, so that you may know from this that He Who produces this is greater than all that exists, and that you may perceive the goodness of Him Who gave you a mind capable of reasoning about all this. Therefore, I advise you to know yourself, and you will know God. Know how in you there is what is called the soul, how the eye sees through it, the ear hears, the mouth speaks, the whole body moves. So, from what is in you, but invisible, know how God, at his own will, controls the world as if it were a body, such that if it pleases Him to take away His strength, then the world will fall and be destroyed. So, nothing prevents you, as a free man, from changing your wicked way of life, to seek and find Him who is the Lord of all, and to serve Him with all your heart;
To another justification of paganism, that the hidden God is worshiped under the guise of idols, Meliton objects that those who speak like this “do not know that God is in every place, that He is never in the absence and nothing is done that He would not know. And you, a miserable person, to whom God is present in you, outside of you and above you, go and buy yourself a tree from the artist's house, which has been cut and processed to desecrate God; you sacrifice to this image, and you do not know that the All-Seeing Eye sees you, and that the word of truth condemns you.
Finally, the strongest argument in favor of the pagan worship of gods and idols was that it was bequeathed by antiquity, which acquired a sacred character. Meliton says to this that not everything is good what the ancestors did or what they were. “Why, then, he asks, do those to whom their fathers left poverty try to become rich; and those who were not taught by their fathers try to learn and know what their fathers did not know? And why do the sons of the blind see and the lame walk? It is not good for a person if he follows ancestors who lived badly: but it is good if we deviate from this path in order to avoid what befell our ancestors. Therefore, investigate: if your father did well, then you follow him; but if he lived badly, then live well, and let your children imitate you. Say this to your sons: there is a God, the Father of all, a being without beginning and uncreated, containing everything in His will. He created the luminaries so that the creatures could see each other, and He Himself hid in His might from all His creatures; for it is impossible for a changing creature to see the Unchangeable. Those who incline towards conviction and reach the state of immutability see God as far as it is possible for them; they can also escape destruction when the fiery flood rushes over the whole world. There was a flood of water, and all people and animals died in a lot of water, and the righteous were preserved in a wooden ark, according to the command of God. In the same way, in the last time, there will be a flood of fire, and the earth with its mountains will be burned, people will be burned together with the idols that they made, and with the statues that they worshiped, and the sea will be burned with its islands, but the righteous will be preserved from anger, how the righteous were preserved in the ark from the waters of the flood. And then those who did not know God and made idols for themselves will groan, when they will see that their idols also perish with them, and nothing can help them.
1. Inhabitants of Acta, by which is meant Attica.
2. Erechthea.
3. Zoroaster.
St. Theophilus of Antioch
Where and when was St. Theophilus and how he spent his youth is unknown. From his first book to Autolycus (ch. 14), one can only see that he was born and raised in paganism, and accepted Christianity already in his mature years, after becoming acquainted with the books of Holy Scripture. A particularly strong impression was made on him by “the books of the holy prophets, who, by inspiration from the Spirit of God, foretold both the past as it happened, and the present as it happens, and the future as it will be fulfilled” (ibid.). Convinced on the basis of these books of the superiority of the revealed teaching over paganism, Theophilus left his former faith and came to know the true God, to whose service he dedicated his strength and abilities until the end of his days. His deep conscious faith, scientific education, acquired in the pagan period of his life, and the perfect way of life drew universal attention to him as an outstanding member of the Christian community. Therefore, when the fifth bishop of Antioch, Eros, died (168), he was chosen as his successor. In the episcopal service, a wide field of activity was opened to him for the benefit of the Church, which was shaken from within by the heretics-gnostics, and from the outside threatened by paganism. St. Theophilus showed himself to be a true shepherd in these difficult times for the Church, as can be seen from Eusebius' praise of him. “Since,” says Eusebius, “at that time heretics, like tares, no less threatened the pure seed of the apostolic teaching, the pastors of the Church everywhere tried to drive them away from the flock of Christ, like wild animals, sometimes by exhortations and exhortations to their brethren, sometimes open struggle against enemies, then verbal contests and denials, then through essays. Revolted against them, along with others, and Theophilus: this is evident from his excellent book, written against Marcion ”(Eusebius.“ Church History ”, IV, ch. 24). Further, Eusebius says that he also wrote against Hermogenes (ibid.). A monument to Theophilus' struggle with the delusions of paganism is his apology. How long he was a bishop is not known with certainty, as different authorities disagree on the timing; on one point alone they agree that St. Theophilus did not much survive the emperor Marcus Aurelius (161-180) and died in the eighties of the 2nd century, during the reign of Commodus. The pastoral labors and holy life of Theophilus, appreciated during his lifetime, were even more appreciated after his death: the Church canonized him among the saints. written against Marcion" (Eusebius. "Ecclesiastical History", IV, ch. 24). Further, Eusebius says that he also wrote against Hermogenes (ibid.). A monument to Theophilus' struggle with the delusions of paganism is his apology. How long he was a bishop is not known with certainty, as different authorities disagree on the timing; on one point alone they agree that St. Theophilus did not much survive the emperor Marcus Aurelius (161-180) and died in the eighties of the 2nd century, during the reign of Commodus. The pastoral labors and holy life of Theophilus, appreciated during his lifetime, were even more appreciated after his death: the Church canonized him among the saints. written against Marcion" (Eusebius. "Ecclesiastical History", IV, ch. 24). Further, Eusebius says that he also wrote against Hermogenes (ibid.). A monument to Theophilus' struggle with the delusions of paganism is his apology. How long he was a bishop is not known with certainty, as different authorities disagree on the timing; on one point alone they agree that St. Theophilus did not much survive the emperor Marcus Aurelius (161-180) and died in the eighties of the 2nd century, during the reign of Commodus. The pastoral labors and holy life of Theophilus, appreciated during his lifetime, were even more appreciated after his death: the Church canonized him among the saints. How long he was a bishop is not known with certainty, as different authorities disagree on the timing; on one point alone they agree that St. Theophilus did not much survive the emperor Marcus Aurelius (161-180) and died in the eighties of the 2nd century, during the reign of Commodus. The pastoral labors and holy life of Theophilus, appreciated during his lifetime, were even more appreciated after his death: the Church canonized him among the saints. How long he was a bishop is not known with certainty, as different authorities disagree on the timing; on one point alone they agree that St. Theophilus did not much survive the emperor Marcus Aurelius (161-180) and died in the eighties of the 2nd century, during the reign of Commodus. The pastoral labors and holy life of Theophilus, appreciated during his lifetime, were even more appreciated after his death: the Church canonized him among the saints.
Eusebius and Jerome attribute to St. Theophilus has several works containing polemics against the Gnostics, interpretation of Holy Scripture and edification to believers, but only his apology in 3 books, addressed to Autolycus, has been preserved about us. This Autolycus was an educated pagan personally known to Theophilus, with whom Theophilus had repeated long conversations about the pagan and Christian faiths, with Autolycus defending paganism and attacking Christianity, and Theophilus on the contrary. The subject of these conversations, in their gradual order, formed the content of the apologia of St. Theophilus.
Book one
In the first book of St. Theophilus touches on those questions disputed by Autolycus - about the existence of a spiritual and incomprehensible God, about the resurrection of the dead and about the meaning of the Christian name.
Brought up on human-like ideas, the ancient pagan could not imagine God as an exclusively spiritual Being, without any sensual forms; therefore, hearing about the veneration by Christians of an invisible, incorporeal God, he considered this teaching to be pure absurdity. “Show me your God,” declares Autolycus victoriously, thinking thereby to put Theophilus in a hopeless difficulty and to show the groundlessness and unprovenness of the Christian doctrine of God. "Show me your man [1]- answers Theophilus, - and I will show you my God. Show that the eyes of your soul see and the ears of your heart hear. For as the bodily eyes of sighted people see the objects of this earthly life, or as the ears discern the sounds that are subject to hearing, so exactly are the ears of the heart and the eyes of the soul to see God. And God is visible to those who are able to see Him, whose spiritual eyes are open. Man, when there is sin in him, cannot contemplate God” (ch. 2).
You will say to me: “You who see, describe to me the form of God. Listen, my friend: the form of God is indescribable and inexplicable, for it cannot be seen with carnal eyes. His glory is infinite, greatness is immense, height is incomprehensible, power is immeasurable, wisdom is inexhaustible, good deeds are inexpressible” (ch. 3). He is contemplated and known from His providence and action. Although not everyone sees the earthly king, they recognize his existence and know about him according to his laws, orders, troops and images. Don't you want to know God in the same way from His works and powers? Consider His deeds - the successive changes of the seasons and the changes of the airs, the proper course of the stars, the correct sequence of days and nights, months and years, the diverse beauty of seeds, plants and fruits, the many different types of quadrupeds, birds, reptiles and fish, river and sea, also the instinct given to animals for the birth and upbringing of offspring, not for their own benefit, but for the use of man, - the Providence of God, preparing food for all flesh, - that subordination, which is determined by animals in relation to the human race, - the flow of pleasant streams, periodic fallout dew and rain, etc. This my God is the Lord of the universe, who alone stretched out the sky and laid the breadth of the heavens, who established the earth on the waters (Ps. 23: 2) and gives the spirit that nourishes it, whose breath gives life to everything, and with the retention of which the universe will be destroyed. You talk about Him, man, you breathe His spirit, and you don't know Him. This happened to you from the darkening of your soul and the hardening of your heart. God by His Word and Wisdom created everything; for "by his word the heavens were established, and by his spirit all their strength" (Ps. 32:6). Excellent is His Wisdom: “God established the earth with wisdom, and established the heavens with understanding” (Prov. 3:19). “If you understand this, friend, and live pure, holy and righteous, then you can see God. When you put aside mortal things and put on immortality, then you will see God as you should. For God will raise up your immortal flesh together with your soul” (ch. 5-7).
The last argument about the onset of full knowledge of God after the general resurrection would have had convincing force if Autolycus believed in the resurrection of the dead, and since he did not recognize it, Theophilus, in order not to be unfounded, had to prove the truth of the resurrection. He affirms the possibility of recognizing the resurrection on faith, which plays such an important role in people's lives, and on phenomena similar to the resurrection, and the possibility of its realization on the omnipotence of God. "Why don't you believe? he asks Autolycus, “Or do you not know that in all matters faith precedes? What farmer can reap the harvest if he does not first commit the seed to the ground? What patient can be cured if he does not first trust the doctor? So, if the farmer believes in the earth, and the sick in the doctor, and you do not want to trust God, having so many pledges from Him? The first is that He created you from nonexistence into existence, He formed you from a small wet essence and the smallest drop, which itself once did not exist; God brought you into this life. Do you believe that the statues created by people are gods and do marvelous things. But you do not believe that God, who created you, can once recreate you ”(ch. 8).
Further, Theophilus shows that the existence of pagan gods is also based on faith, since the pagans accept mythological legends on faith, not being embarrassed by the extreme perversion of the concept of the Deity in them (ch. 9-10).
But even these arguments did not convince Autolycus. As before he demanded to show him the Christian God so that he could recognize His existence, so now he demands to show him the resurrected dead so that he can believe in the resurrection. To this, Theophilus says to him: “What is great about believing when you see an event? On the other hand, God gives you a lot of evidence to believe in Him. Is there not also a resurrection of seeds and fruits? For, for example, when a grain of wheat or other seeds is thrown into the ground, it first dies and decays, then it rises and rises as an ear. And do not the trees, according to the command of God, at certain times produce fruits that were previously hidden and unseen? But if you want to see a more marvelous sight as proof of the resurrection, not only from earthly things, but also from heavenly ones, then imagine the ongoing monthly resurrection of the moon, how it decreases, disappears and rises again. Look again, my friend, into the work of the resurrection, which is taking place in yourself, although you do not know about it. You may have been subjected to some kind of illness and lost the stoutness of the body, strength and beauty, but, having received mercy from God and healing, again restored bodily health, beauty and strength. Therefore, do not be unbelieving, but believe, so that if you do not believe now, you will not then be forced to believe through eternal torment. Read the prophetic writings carefully, and they will lead you in the most sure way to avoid eternal torment and receive the eternal blessings of God. For “He who gave a mouth to speak, formed ears to hear, and created eyes to see (Ex. 4; 2; Ps. 93: 3), searches all things and executes righteous judgment, repaying each according to his deeds. To those who constantly seek incorruption through good deeds, He will grant eternal life, joy, peace, rest and many blessings, “which neither eye has seen nor ear has heard, and which have not entered the heart of man” (1 Cor. II, 9 ), but those who do not believe, despise and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, eternal fire will take ”(ch. 13-14).
In addition to denying Christian truths, Autolycus, like all pagans, treated the Christian name with contempt and mockery, as an indicator of all the evil that Christians were suspected of. To dispel this common pagan error, Theophilus shows where this name came from and what a good meaning it has. “What is anointed,” he says, “is pleasant, beneficial, and should not be ridiculed. Who, entering into this life or going out into the palestra, is not anointed with oil? Don't you want to be anointed with the oil of God? That is why we are called Christians, because we are anointed with the oil of God” [2] (ch. 12).
1. I.e. the inner man, is he what he must be in order to see God.
2. The Christian name Theophilus produced not from Christ, but from the anointing with oil at baptism.
book two
The second book of Autolycus contains a critique of pagan idolatry, worship of God and the doctrine of the deity and the world of philosophers and poets, and in contrast to this, sets forth the divinely revealed doctrine of the creation of the world and man and subsequent human history before the dispersion of peoples.
First of all, Theophilus “seems ridiculous that sculptors, painters or smelters make, write, carve, cast and make gods, which, after being finished by artists, are put to nothing by them; when they are bought and placed in a so-called temple or some kind of house, then not only those who bought them offer sacrifices to them, but also those who made them and sold them, come with zeal and with a supply of sacrifices and libations to worship them and revere them for gods, forgetting that these gods are stone, copper, wood, paint, or some other substance” (ch. 2).
It seems to Theophilus no less contrary to common sense that the pagans render divine honors to those whom they themselves consider simple people who have occurred in a natural way (ch. 2-3).
He goes on to point out that even the highest authorities of pagan wisdom, the philosophers, are entangled in contradictions regarding views of the Deity. Thus, some of the Stoics say that there is no God at all, or if there is, they assert that He cares for nothing but Himself. Plato and his followers recognize God as beginningless, the Father and Creator of everything, but then they believe that “God and matter are beginningless and that the latter is co-eternal with God,” thereby destroying their own doctrine of God’s creativity, and also humiliate God’s power, as not having the power to create matter (ch. 4).
The poets, creators of theogony and mythology, also created base and unworthy ideas about God. Homer considers the ocean to be the ancestor of the gods; water, “but God, if He is the creator of everything, as He really is, He is the creator of water and seas” (ch. 5). Following Hesiod, one must also consider the gods to have appeared later than the world and it is impossible to find out who created the matter from which the world originated (ch. 5-6).
Making an assessment of the narratives of the poets, Theophilus says: “They composed fables and stupid tales about their gods, because they represented them not as gods, but as people. And about the origin of the world, they conveyed absurd and contradictory stories. In addition, they either introduced a multitude of gods, or spoke of the sovereignty of God, and while some recognized Providence, others rejected its existence. Therefore, Euripides makes the following confession: “We study a lot with full hope, but we work in vain and we do not know anything” (“Fiestes”). Thus, they unwittingly confess that they do not know the truth (ch. 8).
In contrast to such unreliable authorities on which the foundations of paganism are based, Theophilus points to strong authorities on which the revealed teaching, the content of Christians, is based. “There were,” he says, “people of God, filled with the Holy Spirit, and true prophets, inspired and made wise by God Himself, who received from on high knowledge, holiness, and righteousness. They were honored to be organs of God and vessels of wisdom from God, according to which they spoke about the creation of the world and about everything else. All of them spoke in agreement with each other about what was before them, and about what happened under them, and about what is now being fulfilled before our eyes; that is why we are sure about the future, that it will also be fulfilled, as the first happened” (ch. 9).
And above all, the prophets taught us in agreement that God created everything out of nothing. “In the beginning God created the heaven [1] and the earth; but the earth was invisible and without structure, and darkness (was) over the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters” (Genesis 1:1-2). Thus, matter, from which God created and arranged the world, received a beginning and was created from God” (ch. 10).
Then Theophilus, in the original words of the Bible, conveys the story of the six-day creation and the consecration of the seventh day (ch. 11), in conclusion of which he says: languages; even if someone lived a thousand years in this world, and then he will not be able to say anything about it in a worthy way, because of the excellent greatness and richness of the wisdom of God inherent in this six-day creation. Many writers, imitating this, tried to tell the creation of the world, but they did not say even a spark similar to the truth” (ch. 12).
Theophilus interprets the biblical account of creation both literally and figuratively. So, for example, he compares the sea with the world, in which "the law of God and the prophets, exuding sweetness, mercy, truth and the teaching of the holy commandments," are likened to the tides of rivers and springs that feed the seas. “Trayers, having calm places and harbors, the islands are likened to holy churches, in which, as in well-organized harbors, the teaching of the truth is preserved, to which those who want to be saved resort, as soon as they become lovers of the truth and want to avoid the wrath and judgment of God” (ch. 13 ). Those three days that were before the creation of the luminaries, according to Theophilus, are images of the Trinity, God and His Word and Wisdom ”(ch. 15). The last interpretation is important in the sense that St. Theophilus was the first of the Church Fathers to use the word Trinity. In the creation of man, he draws the attention of his listener to such features that distinguish the creation of man from the creation of other earthly objects and living beings. “In the words: “Let us make man in Our image and likeness,” says Theophilus, “God, firstly, shows the dignity of man. Having created everything with a word, He, as it were, considered it unimportant, and considers only the creation of an immortal man to be a deed worthy of His hands. Further, as if in need of help, God says: "Let us make man in the image and likeness." He said to no one else, “Let us do,” but to His Word and His Wisdom. “And God formed man of dust from the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:6-7). For this reason the soul is called immortal by many. Having created man and giving a blessing to that,
Having finished with the interpretation of creation, Theophilus again returns to the biblical text and talks about the placement of a person in paradise, with the prohibition to eat fruits from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, about the creation of Eve (Gen. 2, 15-25), about the fall of the first people and punishment for him (Gen. 3, 1-24, ch. 2-21). On the history of the fall, he had to interrupt the thread of the biblical narrative, since Autolycus misinterpreted God's walk in paradise, seeing in this case the limitation of God by space and thinking to catch Theophilus in contradiction with his previous indication of the impossibility of limiting God to any place. Theophilus explained to Autolycus that “God and the Father of all is immense and is not located in any place, for there is no resting place for Him. But His Word, through which He created all things, being His power and wisdom, taking the form of the Father and Lord of all, - It walked in paradise under the guise of God and talked with Adam. And the Holy Scripture itself teaches us that Adam said that "he heard a voice." What is a voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as your poets and mythologists speak of the sons of the gods born of copulation, but as the truth says, the Son is the Word, always existing in the bosom of God. But before anything happened, God had Him as counselor, for He is His mind and thought. When God wanted to create what He had determined, He gave birth to this unmanifested Word, the firstborn of all creation, not, however, in such a way that He Himself was deprived of the Word, but He gave birth to the Word and always dwelt with the Word. Therefore, we are taught by the Holy Scriptures and all spirit-bearers, of which John says: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,” showing with these words, that in the beginning there was only God, and in Him the Word. Then he says: “God was the Word; everything was created through Him, and without Him nothing was created” (John 1:1-3). Therefore, this Word, which is God and begotten of God, the Father of the universe, when he wants, sends to some place, and when He is sent by God, when He appears, He is heard and seen and is in a certain place ”(ch. 22) .
Theophilus also resolves another puzzling question raised by the history of the fall, namely: what was man before the fall, mortal or immortal by nature. According to Theophilus, “he was created by nature neither mortal nor immortal. For if God had made him immortal at the beginning, he would have made him God; if, on the contrary, he created him mortal, then he himself would be the cause of his death. So, He created him neither mortal nor immortal, but capable of both, so that if he aspires to that which leads to immortality, fulfilling the commandment of God, he would receive immortality from Him as a reward for this, and would become God; but if he strays to the works of death, disobeying God, he himself would be the cause of his own death. For God created man free and sovereign. How by disobedience a man brought death upon himself, thus, by obedience to the will of God, he who desires can secure eternal life for himself. For God has given us the law and the holy commandments, by fulfilling which everyone can be saved and, having reached the resurrection, inherit incorruption” (ch. 27).
Continuing after these necessary clarifications of the biblical story, Theophilus speaks of the birth of the first children Cain and Abel (Gen. 4, 1-2) from Adam and Eve expelled from paradise, about the murder of the second by the first and the curse of Cain for this (8-12), about the original offspring of Cain and the birth among him of the first arts (17-22), about the birth of Adam and Eve Seth (25; ch. 29-30). Omitting the further genealogy of Adam to Noah and his family, inclusive, as indicated in his other book [2] , Theophilus begins his speech with the events following the flood, and brings his story to the dispersion of peoples and their settlement in different countries (ch. 31- 32).
From his narrative, Theophilus concludes that “only Christians possess the truth, since they are taught by the Holy Spirit, Who spoke in the holy prophets and foreshadowed everything,” while pagan sages, poets and historians, who did not rely on reliable sources, could not say about this truth and introduced many gods, who themselves were born after the emergence of cities, wars, etc. (ch. 33). If in pagan writings there are plausible and approaching the truth news, then they represent the result of acquaintance with the undoubtedly true tales of the prophets (ch. 37). “So,” Theophilus says to Autolycus, “those who want to learn must learn. Try to get along with me more often, so that, hearing the speech that is still alive, you will correctly know the truth ”(ch. 38).
1. The sky, as can be seen from the further story, Theophilus understands in the physical sense, without implying by it the angelic world, as established by our dogmatists.
2. Which is lost.
Book Three
The third book gives an analysis of the accusations of Christian immorality and the late appearance of their religion, exposing, according to the pagans, its untrue character. To the first point of the accusations, the answer is given that immorality reigns among the pagans themselves, legitimized by the example of their gods, while Christians contain divine teaching, imbued with the demand of the strictest moral purity from their followers. The accusation of the novelty of the Christian religion is refuted by a comparison of biblical and pagan chronology, which makes it clear that the sacred books of Christians date back to such deep antiquity that pagan books do not have behind them.
Accusing Christians of immorality, the pagans pointed out that Christians “have common wives for all and live in unlawful mixing, even copulate with their own sisters and, what is most godless and inhuman, eat human flesh” (ch. 4).
Before refuting these accusations and showing their inapplicability to Christians, Theophilus points Autolycus to the books of Zeno, Diogenes and Cleanthes, “which teach that children can boil and devour their own fathers, and if anyone does not want to eat or vomit some of the disgusting food, he can and himself, not eating, be eaten. In the books of Herodotus, he finds actual cases of anthropophagy or cannibalism. So, according to Herodotus, Cambyses [1] , having killed the children of Harpagus and boiled them, offered them to his father for food. Of the Indians he also relates that their fathers were devoured by their own children (ch. 5).
“And about illegal copulations,” says Theophilus, “almost the entire erring choir of your philosophers agrees. And the first - Plato, the most respected of them in his philosophy, in the first book [2] of his essay on politics, expressively legitimizes, as it were, that everyone should have common wives, using the example of the son of Zeus and the legislator Cretans [3], on the grounds that through this the childbearing increases and that those who are dejected by labors receive consolation from such communications ... And what else can I say about this, when they preached such things about the so-called gods among them (ch. 6)? Your poets loudly sing the great atrocities of Zeus. Is it necessary to enumerate the debauchery of the so-called mother of the gods, or Zeus Latiarius, thirsting for human blood, or castrated Atys? I am silent about the temples of Antinous and about others called gods: for what is told about them excites laughter in various people ”(ch. 8).
The Christian doctrine, according to Theophilus, is of a completely different character. “We,” he says, “recognize God, the one, Creator, Creator and Organizer of the whole world, Who teaches us to act truthfully, to be pious and to do good (ch. 9). In the Law given by Him through Moses, it is commanded to honor the one true God and reject all other gods, to honor parents, not to commit adultery, not to kill, not to steal, not to testify falsely, not to envy (Ex. 20, 4, 12-17) and not to oppress the stranger (Ex. 23:9; ch. 9-10). When the people of the Jews, to whom this law was given, transgressed it, then God, good and merciful, not wanting to destroy the Jews, sent prophets to them from among their brothers, to admonish them and remind them of the commandments of the law and turn them to repentance, so that in the future they would not sinned." The prophets spoke about repentance and turning to God - Isaiah (Isaiah 55:6; 31:6), Jeremiah (Jeremiah 6:9) and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 18:21-23). Justice was taught by Isaiah (Isaiah 1:16; 58:6-8), Jeremiah (Jeremiah 6:16), Hosea (Hosea 12:6 and 13:4), Joel (Joel 2:16) and Zechariah (Zech. 8, 9). Solomon speaks of purity (Prov. 6, 25 and 6, 27-29) and even more strongly the gospel voice, which forbids even looking at a woman with lust, marrying a divorced woman or divorcing a wife (Matt. 5, 28-32). The prophets and the gospel, finally, teach to love enemies (Is. 66; Mt. 5:44, 46), not to boast of good works (Mt. 6:3), to obey principalities and authorities, and to pray for them (1 Tim. 2:2 ; Ch. 11-14). 12:6 and 13:4), Joel (Joel 2:16) and Zechariah (Zechariah 8:9). Solomon speaks of purity (Prov. 6, 25 and 6, 27-29) and even more strongly the gospel voice, which forbids even looking at a woman with lust, marrying a divorced woman or divorcing a wife (Matt. 5, 28-32). The prophets and the gospel, finally, teach to love enemies (Is. 66; Mt. 5:44, 46), not to boast of good works (Mt. 6:3), to obey principalities and authorities, and to pray for them (1 Tim. 2:2 ; Ch. 11-14). 12:6 and 13:4), Joel (Joel 2:16) and Zechariah (Zechariah 8:9). Solomon speaks of purity (Prov. 6, 25 and 6, 27-29) and even more strongly the gospel voice, which forbids even looking at a woman with lust, marrying a divorced woman or divorcing a wife (Matt. 5, 28-32). The prophets and the gospel, finally, teach to love enemies (Is. 66; Mt. 5:44, 46), not to boast of good works (Mt. 6:3), to obey principalities and authorities, and to pray for them (1 Tim. 2:2 ; Ch. 11-14).
“So, look,” Theophilus concludes from here, “those who teach in this way whether they can live dissolutely and enter into illegal copulations, or, what is most godless, eat human flesh, especially when it is not allowed for us to look even at the games of gladiators, so that we would not be participants and witnesses of the murder? We must not look at other spectacles, so that our eyes and ears are not defiled by taking part in the words spoken there. For if anyone speaks of the eating of human flesh, the children of Fiesta and Tireus are devoured there; or about adultery - there are presented on the stage not only the adultery of people, but also the gods, which they proclaim in a melodious voice, receiving honors and rewards for this. Far be it from Christians to think about things of this kind: they have chastity, abstinence is observed, monogamy is observed, purity is preserved, unrighteousness is exterminated, sin is eradicated, justice is respected, the law is honored, worship is performed; God confesses, truth reigns, grace preserves, the world protects, the Word of God guides, wisdom teaches, life governs, God reigns (ch. 15).
Now, with the help of God, I want to give you a more detailed chronology so that you know that our teaching is not new and fabulous, but more ancient and reliable than all your poets and writers who wrote about the unknown. How much more do we know the truth, taught from the holy prophets, filled with the Holy Spirit of God! That is why all the prophets spoke in agreement with each other, and foreshadowed the future events of the whole world. For those who love knowledge, or better, those who love the truth, from the very fulfillment of foretold and past events, can be convinced that what they proclaimed about the years before the flood, about how many years have passed from the creation of the world to our time, is also completely true, and thus can be convinced that your writers spoke falsely and that what they said was untrue” (ch. 16-17).
Theophilus, firstly, proves the antiquity of the biblical story by the antiquity of the author of the first books of the Bible, Moses, who lived before many persons and events considered by the pagans to be very ancient. Thus, the exit of the Jews from Egypt under the leadership of Moses, according to Theophilus, preceded by 330 years the resettlement of Danae in Argos and by 900 or 1000 years - the Trojan War [4] (ch. 21).
Then he points out that the construction of Solomon's temple, which took place 560 years after the Jews left Egypt, was 133 years and 8 months earlier than the founding of Carthage, as can be seen from the history of the Tyrian kingdom of Menander the Ephesian, which gives a complete chronology of Tyrian kings from Jerome (Hiram), a contemporary of Solomon, to Pygmalion, in whose reign Carthage was founded (ch. 22). Finally, one of the later prophets, Zechariah, wrote before the legislation of Solon appeared (ch. 23).
Theophilus proves the reliability of the biblical story both by the clarity and truthfulness of the story, which does not allow any doubts and fluctuations, for example, about the flood (ch. 19), and by the most accurate chronology of the Jewish patriarchs, judges and kings (ch. 23-24), which time from the creation of the world before the flood is determined in 2242 (chap. 24 and 28), while the pagan writings of times long past do not have these signs of the truth of the story. Apollonius the Egyptian arbitrarily counts fifty million three thousand and seventy-five years from the creation of the world (ch. 16). About the flood “Plato says that it was not over the whole earth, but only in the plains, and that some fled to the highest mountains. Others say that Deucalion and Pyrrha were then, and they were saved in the ark, and that Deucalion, having come out of the ark, threw back stones from which people were made.
“So,” notes Theophilus, “from a consideration of the times and everything we have said, one can see the antiquity of the prophetic writings and the divinity of our teaching — that this teaching is not new, and our beliefs are not fabulous and not false, as some think, but the most ancient and true (chap. 29), - older and more true than the writings of Greek and Egyptian, and any other historians. Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon and other historians began to write from the reign of Cyrus and Darius, and did not have the opportunity to say more reliable about ancient and primitive times ”(ch. 26).
“Therefore, if you wish, diligently read these my books, so that you may have an adviser and a guarantee of the truth” (ch. 29).
1. The fact indicated by Theophilus, Herodotus attributes not to Cambyses, but to Astyages, who cooked the son of Harpagus (Herodotus. History. 1.119).
2. Not in the first, but in the fifth.
3. Minos.
4. Theophilus obviously follows the opinion of Josephus, who was held by Tertullian and Cyril, while more correctly from Moses to the Trojan War there are about 400 years (Tatian, Clement, Alexander and Eusebius).
Ermiy
Extremely scarce information about Hermias can be gleaned only from the title of his work, from which it is clear that Hermias was called a philosopher and wrote a book about a subject well known to him and once close to his heart. His work is called "The Mockery of Pagan Philosophers".
In the position of pagans who converted to Christianity, who were philosophers, or at least were well acquainted with pagan philosophy, a twofold attitude towards it is possible: or a certain respect for the best of its views, as can be seen from the example of St. Justina, or, in order to prove the incomparable superiority of divinely revealed truth over her, a strict condemnation of all the concepts developed by her. The latter is seen in almost all apologists and is especially striking in the work of Tatian. Hermias, in his views on philosophy, belongs to this second category of Christian writers. And a more sober attitude towards the subject of his former passion and, in particular, the words of St. Paul "the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God" (1 Cor. 3:19), convinced him, that the pagan wisdom of the philosophers not only cannot be compared with the Christian wisdom received from God Himself, but also does not contain anything true. Therefore, the ridicule of philosophical systems of all directions occupies all of his small literary work, leaving no room for the exposition of Christian truths and the defense of Christians. He shows that the philosophers, in spite of their large number and the presence of great thinkers among them, did not develop a true idea even about man, and even more so could not come to an agreement on the basic principle from which the whole world originated. Each philosopher has created his own theory, which disagrees with others and denies them. Therefore, the ridicule of philosophical systems of all directions occupies all of his small literary work, leaving no room for the exposition of Christian truths and the defense of Christians. He shows that the philosophers, in spite of their large number and the presence of great thinkers among them, did not develop a true idea even about man, and even more so could not come to an agreement on the basic principle from which the whole world originated. Each philosopher has created his own theory, which disagrees with others and denies them. Therefore, the ridicule of philosophical systems of all directions occupies all of his small literary work, leaving no room for the exposition of Christian truths and the defense of Christians. He shows that the philosophers, in spite of their large number and the presence of great thinkers among them, did not develop a true idea even about man, and even more so could not come to an agreement on the basic principle from which the whole world originated. Each philosopher has created his own theory, which disagrees with others and denies them. from which the whole world originated. Each philosopher has created his own theory, which disagrees with others and denies them. from which the whole world originated. Each philosopher has created his own theory, which disagrees with others and denies them.
On the basis of internal signs, the edition of the works of Hermias belongs to the end of the 2nd century A.D. X.
Hermias the Philosopher mockery of pagan philosophers
The Apostle Paul in his epistle to the Corinthians proclaims: “The wisdom of this world is foolishness in the sight of God” (1 Cor. 3:19), and this he did not miss the truth, for philosophers, expounding their teachings, do not agree with each other in words, not in thought. So, some of them recognize the human soul as fire, like Democritus; others for air, like the Stoics; some for mind, others for movement; others for evaporation, others for the power flowing from the stars, others for a number endowed with the power of movement, like Pythagoras, etc. (Ch. 1). Further, some say that the nature of the soul is immortal, others that it is mortal, still others that it exists for a short time; some reduce it to the state of animals, others decompose it into atoms; some say that she passes into bodies three times, others assign her such wandering for a period of three thousand years. How to call these opinions? Is it not stupidity, or madness, or absurdity, or all of these together? Then I am immortal, and rejoice; then I am mortal and weep; they decompose me into atoms; I become water, I become air, I become fire; then I am neither air nor fire, but they make me a beast, or they turn me into a fish, and I become the brother of the dolphins. Looking at myself, I am horrified by my body, I don’t know what to call it, whether a man, or a dog, or a wolf, or a bull, or a bird, or a snake, or a dragon, or a chimera. Those lovers of wisdom turn me into all sorts of animals, into earthly, watery, flying, multi-species, wild or domestic, mute or uttering sounds, dumb or intelligent. I swim, I fly, I float, I crawl, I run, I sit. Finally, Empedocles appears and makes a plant out of me” (ch. 2). or absurdity, or all of these together? Then I am immortal, and rejoice; then I am mortal and weep; they decompose me into atoms; I become water, I become air, I become fire; then I am neither air nor fire, but they make me a beast, or they turn me into a fish, and I become the brother of the dolphins. Looking at myself, I am horrified by my body, I don’t know what to call it, whether a man, or a dog, or a wolf, or a bull, or a bird, or a snake, or a dragon, or a chimera. Those lovers of wisdom turn me into all sorts of animals, into earthly, watery, flying, multi-species, wild or domestic, mute or uttering sounds, dumb or intelligent. I swim, I fly, I float, I crawl, I run, I sit. Finally, Empedocles appears and makes a plant out of me” (ch. 2). or absurdity, or all of these together? Then I am immortal, and rejoice; then I am mortal and weep; they decompose me into atoms; I become water, I become air, I become fire; then I am neither air nor fire, but they make me a beast, or they turn me into a fish, and I become the brother of the dolphins. Looking at myself, I am horrified by my body, I don’t know what to call it, whether a man, or a dog, or a wolf, or a bull, or a bird, or a snake, or a dragon, or a chimera. Those lovers of wisdom turn me into all sorts of animals, into earthly, watery, flying, multi-species, wild or domestic, mute or uttering sounds, dumb or intelligent. I swim, I fly, I float, I crawl, I run, I sit. Finally, Empedocles appears and makes a plant out of me” (ch. 2). then I am mortal and weep; they decompose me into atoms; I become water, I become air, I become fire; then I am neither air nor fire, but they make me a beast, or they turn me into a fish, and I become the brother of the dolphins. Looking at myself, I am horrified by my body, I don’t know what to call it, whether a man, or a dog, or a wolf, or a bull, or a bird, or a snake, or a dragon, or a chimera. Those lovers of wisdom turn me into all sorts of animals, into earthly, watery, flying, multi-species, wild or domestic, mute or uttering sounds, dumb or intelligent. I swim, I fly, I float, I crawl, I run, I sit. Finally, Empedocles appears and makes a plant out of me” (ch. 2). then I am mortal and weep; they decompose me into atoms; I become water, I become air, I become fire; then I am neither air nor fire, but they make me a beast, or they turn me into a fish, and I become the brother of the dolphins. Looking at myself, I am horrified by my body, I don’t know what to call it, whether a man, or a dog, or a wolf, or a bull, or a bird, or a snake, or a dragon, or a chimera. Those lovers of wisdom turn me into all sorts of animals, into earthly, watery, flying, multi-species, wild or domestic, mute or uttering sounds, dumb or intelligent. I swim, I fly, I float, I crawl, I run, I sit. Finally, Empedocles appears and makes a plant out of me” (ch. 2). or they turn me into a fish and I become the brother of the dolphins. Looking at myself, I am horrified by my body, I don’t know what to call it, whether a man, or a dog, or a wolf, or a bull, or a bird, or a snake, or a dragon, or a chimera. Those lovers of wisdom turn me into all sorts of animals, into earthly, watery, flying, multi-species, wild or domestic, mute or uttering sounds, dumb or intelligent. I swim, I fly, I float, I crawl, I run, I sit. Finally, Empedocles appears and makes a plant out of me” (ch. 2). or they turn me into a fish and I become the brother of the dolphins. Looking at myself, I am horrified by my body, I don’t know what to call it, whether a man, or a dog, or a wolf, or a bull, or a bird, or a snake, or a dragon, or a chimera. Those lovers of wisdom turn me into all sorts of animals, into earthly, watery, flying, multi-species, wild or domestic, mute or uttering sounds, dumb or intelligent. I swim, I fly, I float, I crawl, I run, I sit. Finally, Empedocles appears and makes a plant out of me” (ch. 2). flying, of many kinds, wild or domestic, mute or uttering sounds, dumb or intelligent. I swim, I fly, I float, I crawl, I run, I sit. Finally, Empedocles appears and makes a plant out of me” (ch. 2). flying, of many kinds, wild or domestic, mute or uttering sounds, dumb or intelligent. I swim, I fly, I float, I crawl, I run, I sit. Finally, Empedocles appears and makes a plant out of me” (ch. 2).
Even more disagreement and mutual negation is found by Hermias in the philosophical concepts of the world and God. He points out that Anaxagoras considers the mind to be the beginning of all things, Parmenides - one, eternal, boundless, motionless and completely equal to himself, Anaximenes - air, Empedocles - hatred and love, Thales - water, Anaximander - perpetual motion, Archelaus - warmth and cold , Plato puts God, matter and idea at the beginning of all things, Aristotle - two principles: one active and the other passive, Pherekides - Zeus, Chthonia and Kronos, understood in the sense of ether, earth and time, Leucippus - atoms, Democritus - existing and bearing (fullness and emptiness), Cleanthes - God and matter. Carneades and Cleitomachus teach that the nature of things is incomprehensible; Pythagoras says that the beginning of all things is unity, and from its various forms and numbers come the elements.
Outlining the most varied philosophical views, Hermias picturesquely depicts how, having mastered each new teaching, he was carried away by it and recognized its truth, but then, after becoming acquainted with other teachings, he rejected the previous ones and gave preference to the newest of them, until, finally, from the variety of ideas received and he didn't feel dizzy. In addition, he notes the funny aspects in the life of philosophers, for example, that Empedocles threw himself into the volcano Etna, Cleanthes found death at the bottom of a well, and the Pythagoreans were distinguished by importance and silence, they transmitted their teachings like sacraments, and the main proof of its truth was that this is "Pythagoras himself said." From such a peculiar manner of the story, the work of Hermias is read easily and with interest.
In conclusion, he says: “I said all this with the aim of making it clear how philosophers contradict each other in opinions, how their research is lost in infinity, without stopping at anything, and how unattainable and useless the goal of their efforts is, not justified neither evidence nor common sense” (ch. 10).
Tertullian
A number of Western apologists who came out in defense of Christianity at the very end of the second century begin with Tertullian.
Quintus Septimius Florence Turtullian was born (approximately in 150-160) in the African city of Carthage from pagan parents. The good material resources of his father, who was a centurion (centurion) of the proconsular army, gave Tertullian the opportunity to study everything that was considered necessary for an educated person of that time to know - history, mythology, eloquence, philosophy, physics and other sciences. He even knew Greek and could not only read, but also write easily in this language. And since in Carthage, as in Rome, in his time, jurisprudence was considered the most fashionable and necessary science, which gave access to all public offices, Tertullian did not lag behind the century in this respect, making it his specialty. In all his literary works one immediately feels a brilliant orator and a good connoisseur of Roman law. In addition, Eusebius also calls him an exact expert on Roman laws (Eusebius, Church History, II, 2). On this basis, all researchers believe that his first profession was the teaching of eloquence and advocacy.
Entering life after leaving school, Tertullian showed himself to be a true African with all his virtues and shortcomings. When the seething, Punic blood and young forces demanded an outcome and satisfaction, Tertullian, like most young people of his circle, indulged in the pleasures of a wild life. Carthage was just such a city where it was easiest to get carried away with such a life. The climate itself, sensual religion, lack of morality, general cynicism and corruption, barely covered by external decorum, presented such temptations that only a few could resist. The circus, theater and other sensual pleasures captured Tertullian's attention, but not for long. His remarkable nature could not be satisfied with what the majority was satisfied with. All this empty life with its fleeting pleasures turned out to be petty and insignificant for his powerful spirit, endowed with much better needs than the desire for sensual pleasures. But where was he to seek the satisfaction of that spiritual thirst which inevitably appeared after he put an end to his wild life? Obviously, not in paganism, which was untenable in all respects. His religious and moral side was beyond all criticism and in no way could satisfy an educated person who had outgrown its rude, ignorant concepts. Philosophy, which alone could somewhat reconcile with paganism, in the time of Tertullian was divided into many schools that contradicted one another and, not having come to any positive results, ended its studies with complete skepticism, doubt even in the possibility of reliable knowledge. Tertullian understood all this when he took a sober look at the matter. He saw now that paganism is indeed unable to answer many of the most essential demands of the human spirit. This greatly cooled his zeal for paganism, which he had previously served so sincerely, ridiculing and persecuting Christianity. “And we once laughed at this,” he says, pointing to Christian dogmas about the unity of God, about the creation of man, about the resurrection of the dead, about eternal rewards and punishments (“Apologetics”, ch. 18). whom he had previously served so sincerely, ridiculing and persecuting Christianity. “And we once laughed at this,” he says, pointing to Christian dogmas about the unity of God, about the creation of man, about the resurrection of the dead, about eternal rewards and punishments (“Apologetics”, ch. 18). whom he had previously served so sincerely, ridiculing and persecuting Christianity. “And we once laughed at this,” he says, pointing to Christian dogmas about the unity of God, about the creation of man, about the resurrection of the dead, about eternal rewards and punishments (“Apologetics”, ch. 18).
Without breaking his ties with paganism in fact, he was already mentally far from it and, as a person accustomed to living a full life, was weighed down by the consciousness of the emptiness that appeared after the conviction of the failure of paganism. The desire to settle on something solid and stable did not leave him. At that very time, Christianity, towards which he had previously treated with unreasonable hatred, drew his attention to itself. Now he could no longer look at him as prejudicedly as before. The steadfastness of Christians in misfortunes, their virtuous life, as phenomena too bright and outstanding among the dissolute life of that time, struck him and led him to the idea that such a doctrine, which can change the morals of people beyond recognition and make them tremblingly go to torment and death itself, can give peace to his restless spirit. Tertullian became closer acquainted with Christianity, and this acquaintance convinced him of incomparable superiority over paganism, and reading the sacred books of Christians finally decided his fall away from paganism and conversion to Christianity. The Bishop of Carthage Agrippinos completed the conversion of Tertullian by baptism when the latter was 30 or a little more years old.
Tertullian devoted himself wholeheartedly and wholeheartedly to the new religion, devoting all his time and all his strength to its service. The church in his time was in an extremely difficult position: outwardly it was persecuted by the pagans, inside it was weakened by heretics. With all the zeal of a convert and all the passion of his ardent nature, Tertullian entered into a struggle with these and other enemies of Christianity. In a relatively short period of time (5-6 years), he wrote many essays against pagans, Jews and heretics, which brought him the glory of an outstanding church writer. For such zeal for the interests of Christianity and for a strict, almost ascetic life, Tertullian was appointed presbyter in his native city of Carthage.
But his fame as a protector and minister of the Church was overshadowed by his conversion to Montanism. As elsewhere, in this case the whole thing is explained by his fiery temperament, which lacked patience and endurance, and by his ardent imagination, which pushed him to various extremes. Having accepted Christianity because of its religious and moral superiority over paganism, he wanted to see the full realization of the gospel ideal in the life of Christians. Meanwhile, in modern Christian society there were deviations from it, which the Church looked at rather condescendingly. For example, she allowed a second marriage, flight during persecution, accepted the fallen, which, according to Tertullian, defiled a pure Christian society and therefore should not be tolerated in it. Dissatisfied with the existing church order and the life of contemporary Christians, he drew attention to the teaching of the Phrygian monatnists, which had spread since the middle of the 2nd century, and whose severe rigorism corresponded to his religious mood. Tertullian might have been pleased that they denounced marriage as a pitiful concession to human weakness, and considered the second marriage even a kind of adultery and forbade it. He, constantly engaged in the fight against the devil's machinations, was to his liking, as a means of counteracting the devil, the harsh prescriptions of the Montanists about repentance, fasting, more frequent and longer than in the Orthodox Church. Dissatisfied with church discipline, Tertullian saw that the Montanists treat human weaknesses with extreme severity. Their teaching that fornication and adultery cannot be let go on earth, their desire for martyrdom, their refusal to accept into their society the fallen during persecution, the view of them as unforgivable sinners, to whom the gates of the Church are forever barred, were consistent with Tertullian's own views. The mystical delusions of the Montanists about visions in a state of ecstasy also pleased Tertullian, who was already by nature inclined towards mysticism. All this forced Tertullian to hasten the transition to Montanism (in 200-202).
In the Montanistic period of his life, Tertullian is a sincere enemy of Orthodoxy. He composes several compositions in which, on the one hand, he tries to make his principles and customs appear ridiculous, and, on the other hand, to inspire respect and give importance to the doctrines of his sect. But Tertullian did not remain faithful to Montanism to the end, since he did not justify his hopes. Carried away by Montanism for its imaginary severity, he had to be bitterly convinced that all this was only pretense, only external. And among the Montanists one could often meet self-interest, ambition, debauchery and other vices that, in theory, should not have existed in this society of "spiritual people", as the Montanists liked to call themselves. This prompted Tertullian to depart from Montanism, but did not lead him to convert to Orthodoxy. Still remaining a rigorist, he gathered around him a party of like-minded people, which, with the name of Tertullianists, existed until the 5th century and was destroyed by the efforts of the blessed. Augustine. Tertullian lived to a ripe old age and died in the thirties of the third century.
Among Tertullian's apologetic works, the Apologeticus occupies the first place in terms of its significance and importance. It was an exemplary work, in which, according to the blessed. Jerome, Tertullian outlined all the learning of his time, and according to Lactantius, he depicted the state of the Church. The Apologetics was written during the Orthodox period of Tertullian's life, in the first half of the reign of Emperor Septimius Severus, around 199-200. It is addressed to all the governors (praesides) of the Roman provinces in general and the African provinces in particular, whose orders most closely concerned Christians of the same tribe as Tertullian. The reason for his writing was the insults and persecution of Christians by the pagan mob, in which the Roman rulers also took part, taking advantage of the anarchy during the three-year struggle of Septimius Severus with two other contenders for the throne and, in general, the weakness of the central government, occupied with other interests and therefore unable to protect Christians from the injustices committed against them. It is known that in 188 the priestesses of the goddess Celeste aroused the rage of the pagan mob against the Christians and, with the help of the Jews, desecrated their cemeteries and attacked church meetings. Christians were insulted by crude caricatures and subjected to vile slanders. In Carthage in 180, the Scillitan martyrs were beaten, and in 198, with the execution of Namphan and the martyrs in Madavra, new bloodshed began. Under such circumstances, Tertullian hastened to publish his Apologetics. occupied with other interests and therefore not having the opportunity to protect Christians from the injustices committed against them. It is known that in 188 the priestesses of the goddess Celeste aroused the rage of the pagan mob against the Christians and, with the help of the Jews, desecrated their cemeteries and attacked church meetings. Christians were insulted by crude caricatures and subjected to vile slanders. In Carthage in 180, the Scillitan martyrs were beaten, and in 198, with the execution of Namphan and the martyrs in Madavra, new bloodshed began. Under such circumstances, Tertullian hastened to publish his Apologetics. occupied with other interests and therefore not having the opportunity to protect Christians from the injustices committed against them. It is known that in 188 the priestesses of the goddess Celeste aroused the rage of the pagan mob against the Christians and, with the help of the Jews, desecrated their cemeteries and attacked church meetings. Christians were insulted by crude caricatures and subjected to vile slanders. In Carthage in 180, the Scillitan martyrs were beaten, and in 198, with the execution of Namphan and the martyrs in Madavra, new bloodshed began. Under such circumstances, Tertullian hastened to publish his Apologetics. the priestesses of the goddess Celeste aroused the rage of the pagan mob against the Christians and, with the help of the Jews, desecrated their cemeteries and attacked church meetings. Christians were insulted by crude caricatures and subjected to vile slanders. In Carthage in 180, the Scillitan martyrs were beaten, and in 198, with the execution of Namphan and the martyrs in Madavra, new bloodshed began. Under such circumstances, Tertullian hastened to publish his Apologetics. the priestesses of the goddess Celeste aroused the rage of the pagan mob against the Christians and, with the help of the Jews, desecrated their cemeteries and attacked church meetings. Christians were insulted by crude caricatures and subjected to vile slanders. In Carthage in 180, the Scillitan martyrs were beaten, and in 198, with the execution of Namphan and the martyrs in Madavra, new bloodshed began. Under such circumstances, Tertullian hastened to publish his Apologetics.
Second place after the "Apologetics" is occupied by two books "To the Nations", a work so similar to the first that one can find in it not only the same thoughts and the same proofs, but often almost verbatim expressions. Tertullian's repeated remark that he would speak of some subjects in another work, and the fulfillment of this promise only in the Apologetics, suggests that the books of the To the Nations were written before the Apologetics and served as a model for him. The difference between the two is that the Apologetics, which is addressed to the nobility, is more carefully crafted than the books To the Nations, which are intended for the common people. This essay was written around 198.
In addition to these two large works, Tertullian has two more small apologetic works - "To the Scapula", "On the Testimony of the Soul" and one polemical - "Against the Jews". The first of these is addressed to Scapula, the African proconsul. The reason for writing it was the fact that after some rest, which was given to Christians between 205 and 210, persecution against Christians began again, in which Scapula took a very active part. According to Tertullian, he wanted to execute the tenth of all the Christians of Carthage ("To the Scapula", ch. 3). The time of writing this work, judging by the historical data contained in it, falls on the year 211.
All Tertullian's apologetic writings bear the imprint of their author's ardent temperament: Tertullian devotes himself entirely to the fight against opponents, as to any other business, trying to develop and destroy them as his personal enemies, and, moreover, he uses all the many and various means at his disposal. - logic, dialectics, witticisms, sarcasm, etc.
Apologetic
In the "Apologetics" after the introduction, which proves the groundlessness of pagan hatred of Christians and the injustice of Roman legal proceedings in relation to them, Christians are defended against popular and state accusations, from which the conclusion is made about the superiority of Christianity over paganism and the need to stop the persecution of Christians.
“If you, the authorities of the Roman Empire,” says Tertullian, do not want to allow Christians to defend their case before the court, then let the truth be allowed to reach your ears, at least in a secret way with the help of silent letters. She does not ask for mercy, because she knows that she is a wanderer on earth, that her origin, her place, her hopes, her patronage and glory in heaven. What will the laws that govern the empire lose if the defense of the truth is heard? By not listening to her, you make you think that you don't want to listen to the defense, because once you listen to her, you will no longer be able to condemn her.
Having prepared for himself the ground for further reasoning by these deft oratorical devices, Tertullian then points out that the name of Christians is first of all exposed to the unreasonable hatred of the pagans. Insufficient acquaintance with Christians, as the main reason for the hatred of their name, he places a special blame on the pagans. “Hatred,” he says, “is only legitimate when there is confidence that the object of hatred really deserves it, and there is nothing in the world more unjust than hatred of what you don’t know.” To the objection of the pagans that there may be criminals among Christians, he replies: “The evildoers love darkness; avoid showing themselves openly; caught, they tremble; when accused, they recant; even in torture they do not confess at all, or they confess at the last minute; mourn when condemned. Can anything similar be found among Christians? He is not ashamed of any Christian, he does not repent of anything, except that he was not always a Christian. If he is informed that he belongs to the number of Christians, he rejoices; does not defend himself when accused; thanks after condemnation. What a strange kind of crime that does not have its characteristic features: fear, evasion, remorse, regret! (Ch. 1).
Finally, if it is true that we are very criminal, why do you treat us differently from other criminals equal to us? Other defendants can prove their innocence themselves or with the help of a lawyer. Christians alone are not allowed to say anything in their defense. Even a search in our case is prohibited. Trajan answered (Pliny) that there was no need to look for Christians; if they are caught on a denunciation, then they should be executed. Alas, the order is contradictory by virtue of necessity! Trajan declares us innocent, forbidding us to be searched for, and at the same time considers us criminal, ordering us to be executed; he is merciful and merciless, malleable and stern. You condemn (the Christian) who has been denounced, and at the same time you forbid making a search, and therefore he deserves punishment, not because he is a criminal, but because he was found without a search. You are violating all forms of legal process in relation to us, because you are torturing other defendants in order to force them to confess, and Christians, on the contrary, in order to force them to renounce the name of a Christian, i.e. renounce at the same time all the crimes that you concluded after confessing the truth. After all, the laws, if I am not mistaken, order to find criminals, and not to hide them; they prescribe their execution, since they confessed to the crime, and not release. But a Christian, a man who, according to you, is guilty of all crimes, an enemy of gods, emperors, laws, morality, an enemy of all nature, you force him to renounce in order to be able to free him, since you cannot free him if he does not renounce. A clear perversion of the law!” (Ch. 2). in order to force them to confess, and Christians, on the contrary, in order to force them to renounce the name of a Christian, i.e. renounce at the same time all the crimes that you concluded after confessing the truth. After all, the laws, if I am not mistaken, order to find criminals, and not to hide them; they prescribe their execution, since they confessed to the crime, and not release. But a Christian, a man who, according to you, is guilty of all crimes, an enemy of gods, emperors, laws, morality, an enemy of all nature, you force him to renounce in order to be able to free him, since you cannot free him if he does not renounce. A clear perversion of the law!” (Ch. 2). in order to force them to confess, and Christians, on the contrary, in order to force them to renounce the name of a Christian, i.e. renounce at the same time all the crimes that you concluded after confessing the truth. After all, the laws, if I am not mistaken, order to find criminals, and not to hide them; they prescribe their execution, since they confessed to the crime, and not release. But a Christian, a man who, according to you, is guilty of all crimes, an enemy of gods, emperors, laws, morality, an enemy of all nature, you force him to renounce in order to be able to free him, since you cannot free him if he does not renounce. A clear perversion of the law!” (Ch. 2). After all, the laws, if I am not mistaken, order to find criminals, and not to hide them; they prescribe their execution, since they confessed to the crime, and not release. But a Christian, a man who, according to you, is guilty of all crimes, an enemy of gods, emperors, laws, morality, an enemy of all nature, you force him to renounce in order to be able to free him, since you cannot free him if he does not renounce. A clear perversion of the law!” (Ch. 2). After all, the laws, if I am not mistaken, order to find criminals, and not to hide them; they prescribe their execution, since they confessed to the crime, and not release. But a Christian, a man who, according to you, is guilty of all crimes, an enemy of gods, emperors, laws, morality, an enemy of all nature, you force him to renounce in order to be able to free him, since you cannot free him if he does not renounce. A clear perversion of the law!” (Ch. 2). for it is impossible to set him free unless he renounces. A clear perversion of the law!” (Ch. 2). for it is impossible to set him free unless he renounces. A clear perversion of the law!” (Ch. 2).
After this, Tertullian shows to what obvious madness blind hatred of the Christian name leads. “The hatred that the crowd has for this name is so blind among most people that they, even praising a Christian, impute his name to him as a crime. “Kai,” says one, “although the kindest person, he is still a Christian. It is amazing,” says another, “that such an intelligent man as Lucius became a Christian.” And no one will think that Caius is kind or Lucius is smart because they are Christians, or they are Christians because one is smart and the other is kind. Some even choose to hurt themselves rather than put up with the name they hate so much. The husband, who no longer has cause for jealousy, divorces his wife, who, having become a Christian, has become chaste. The father disinherits the obedient son, whose former disobedience he willingly endured. The master drives away from himself the faithful servant, with whom he used to treat meekly. Hatred of the Christian name takes precedence over all good that flows from it. Does the sound of this word strike the ears in an unusual way, or does it sound ominous, insulting, or hinting at shamelessness? Not at all! The word Christian comes from a Greek word meaning anointing. When you pronounce it incorrectly, then even then it has no other meaning than good, pleasant. Therefore, they hate the innocent name of innocent people; they hate a sect that has received a name from the name of its Founder” (ch. 3). insulting or suggestive of shamelessness? Not at all! The word Christian comes from a Greek word meaning anointing. When you pronounce it incorrectly, then even then it has no other meaning than good, pleasant. Therefore, they hate the innocent name of innocent people; they hate a sect that has received a name from the name of its Founder” (ch. 3). insulting or suggestive of shamelessness? Not at all! The word Christian comes from a Greek word meaning anointing. When you pronounce it incorrectly, then even then it has no other meaning than good, pleasant. Therefore, they hate the innocent name of innocent people; they hate a sect that has received a name from the name of its Founder” (ch. 3).
To justify their hatred of the Christian name, the pagans pointed out that the Christian religion was not permitted by law. Non licet esse vos (you are not allowed to be), pagans used to say to Christians. In view of this, Tertullian considers the question of what is the law, what should be the attitude towards it, and how all religious laws should apply to Christians. Contrary to the predilection of the Romans for ancient laws and the view of them as something invariable, Tertullian says that the law, as a human product, is subject to change and improvement, and proves this with facts from history. “Have not the Lacedaemonians corrected the laws of Lycurgus? Are you not yourselves clearing the vast and tangled forest of your ancient laws with new rescripts and edicts of emperors? Is the Emperor North, this fundamental enemy of innovation, did not destroy, in spite of venerable antiquity, the ancient Papian law, which prescribed to have children before the period appointed by the Julian law for marriage? The barbaric law, which allows a creditor to kill an insolvent debtor, has also been destroyed by the common consent of all the people. The death penalty was replaced by a brand of shame on the forehead and confiscation of property. How many laws are waiting for reform, if laws are really respected not on the basis of their antiquity or the merits of legislators, but in proportion to the justice that penetrates them! And while they are recognized as unjust, we have the right to condemn those laws that condemn us (ch. 4). also destroyed with the common consent of all the people. The death penalty was replaced by a brand of shame on the forehead and confiscation of property. How many laws are waiting for reform, if laws are really respected not on the basis of their antiquity or the merits of legislators, but in proportion to the justice that penetrates them! And while they are recognized as unjust, we have the right to condemn those laws that condemn us (ch. 4). also destroyed with the common consent of all the people. The death penalty was replaced by a brand of shame on the forehead and confiscation of property. How many laws are waiting for reform, if laws are really respected not on the basis of their antiquity or the merits of legislators, but in proportion to the justice that penetrates them! And while they are recognized as unjust, we have the right to condemn those laws that condemn us (ch. 4).
It is not uninteresting for us to note that with us the human caprice decides the question of a deity. If a man does not like a god, he will not be a god; here a person should show a gracious disposition towards God. Looking at the annals, you will find out that Nero was the first to draw the imperial sword and opened the first cruel persecution against the followers of the Christian religion, which only began to spread in Rome under him. But we consider it an honor to ourselves that we have him at the head of our persecutors, because whoever knows Nero will understand that only something too good could be persecuted by Nero. Domitian, who inherited part of Nero's cruelty, wanted to follow the example of his predecessor, but soon stopped the persecution. Such have always been our persecutors - unjust, godless, contemptible people. On the contrary, of all sovereigns, who knew and respected divine and human rights, point me to at least one who would persecute Christians. What then is the meaning of all the laws that only godless, unjust, contemptible, cruel, empty, crazy emperors enforced? Trajan partially weakened their decrees by forbidding the search for Christians. They were not recognized by either Adrian, who was interested in everything, or Vespasian, the conqueror of the Jews, or Antoninus, or Ver. Meanwhile, of course, it would be more decent to exterminate a gang of villains (Christians) for virtuous sovereigns, and not for those who themselves were villains ”(ch. 5). prohibiting the search for Christians. They were not recognized by either Adrian, who was interested in everything, or Vespasian, the conqueror of the Jews, or Antoninus, or Ver. Meanwhile, of course, it would be more decent to exterminate a gang of villains (Christians) for virtuous sovereigns, and not for those who themselves were villains ”(ch. 5). prohibiting the search for Christians. They were not recognized by either Adrian, who was interested in everything, or Vespasian, the conqueror of the Jews, or Antoninus, or Ver. Meanwhile, of course, it would be more decent to exterminate a gang of villains (Christians) for virtuous sovereigns, and not for those who themselves were villains ”(ch. 5).
Another reason for pagan hatred of Christians was the rumors circulating in society about the immorality of Christians. On this occasion, Tertullian reports that it was precisely the evil things that were said about Christians, and makes it clear how implausible all this is. “They say that in our mysteries we kill a child, eat him, and after this feast we commit depraved deeds, while dogs, accomplices of our shameful pleasures, extinguish torches, freeing us from excessive light and shame for shameful passions. You have been talking about this for a long time, but you have never thought to find out the truth since you started talking about it. The fame of the Christian religion began from the time of Tiberius. Truth was hated as soon as it was revealed to people. How many people are alien to her, so many enemies: the Jews hate her out of envy, the army - because of corruption, slaves - according to the nature of their position. We are constantly being held as if under siege, we are constantly being betrayed; often forcibly break into our meetings. And what! Has anyone among us heard the cry of a child being slaughtered? Name at least one informer who would show in court the blood that has dried on our lips, like that of the Cyclopes and Sirens? Have you noticed on our Christian wives any traces of depraved orgies that you attribute to us? And if, as you say, we are constantly hiding, how could our crimes be discovered? The criminals themselves, the participants in the mysteries, could not betray them, because secrecy is always observed in all the mysteries. But if Christians do not cheat on themselves, then it means that outsiders could betray them? But how could people who are strangers to us become acquainted with our mysteries, when all initiations frighten the profane and remove superfluous witnesses? If you listen to the rumor, then everyone knows what the rumor is. She is constantly lying; even when it conveys the truth, it does not cease to deceive: it weaves falsehood into the truth, adding or subtracting something in it, or giving it a different look.
Her character is such that she exists only by lying; it lives until then, until what it proclaims becomes reliable, and after that it disappears, since everything reliable lies outside the realm of rumor. Therefore, no one brings rumors as witnesses, and only a fool can believe it, because a smart one cannot believe an unbeliever” (ch. 7).
Having proved the unreliability of the source from which the rumors about Christian immorality came out, Tertullian turns to human nature, showing how disgusting it is the crimes attributed to Christians. “I call to witness,” he says, “human nature against those people who consider such rumors worthy of probability. Let us suppose that we do indeed promise eternal life as a reward for such crimes. But I ask you, will you agree to buy this award at such a high price? Come plunge a sword into the heart of a child who has done no harm to anyone and which you consider your own child. If, however, such a barbarous deed is entrusted to another, then come to see a man like you die, who loses life before he has tasted it. Take uncooled blood, soak bread in it and eat with pleasure. During the feast, pay close attention to the places occupied by the mother and sister, so as not to be mistaken when the dogs put out the lamps, since it would be a crime not to commit an ungodly act. Now answer me: do you desire immortality on these terms? If not, then you must not believe that eternal life is bought at such a price. Even if you believed, you wouldn't want to; and even if they wanted to, they could not. But if you cannot do it, then you must not believe it, because Christians are people like you” (ch. 8). you wouldn't want to; and even if they wanted to, they could not. But if you cannot do it, then you must not believe it, because Christians are people like you” (ch. 8). you wouldn't want to; and even if they wanted to, they could not. But if you cannot do it, then you must not believe it, because Christians are people like you” (ch. 8).
Developing further his idea of the innocence of Christians in the crimes erected against them, Tertullian points out that too gross violation of the laws of human nature and trampling on the best human feelings is possible only in paganism, which learns crimes from its gods, while the prescriptions of the Christian religion force Christians to carefully avoid everything. bad and even more misdeeds, contrary to human nature.
“In Africa,” he says, “children were openly sacrificed to Saturn until the proconsulship of Tiberius, who hanged the priests of Saturn. But these criminal sacrifices are still being made, only secretly. If Saturn did not spare his own children [1] , then can he spare other people's children, who are brought by a voluntary vow of parents? The ancient Gauls sacrificed elderly people to Mercury. Let the tragic poets tell you about the bloody customs of Taurida. But in Rome, in this most pious city of the pious descendants of Aeneas [2], do they not worship Jupiter (Latiar), whose statue during the games is sprinkled with the blood of criminals? And we, who are forbidden to kill, are also not allowed to kill in the womb before the fetus is formed into a person. You can read about the terrible bloody feasts in Herodotus - that some peoples, in order to seal the concluded agreements, drink from each other a little blood released from the shoulder veins. But why should we go so far when initiates in the mysteries of Bellona have to drink blood from a split rib? Do not epileptics greedily suck the blood of criminals killed in the arena from you for their healing? Don't those who eat animals killed in the arena feed on human blood, tearing off pieces from a wild boar, from a deer? Be ashamed of your misconceptions about Christians, who are forbidden to consume even the blood of animals at feasts, and who for this reason refrain even from eating animals that have been strangled or died of natural death, for fear of being defiled by blood, even if it remains in the entrails! Can you really consider those guilty of human blood who, you see, have a horror of the blood of animals? Then, who is more depraved than those accustomed to debauchery by Jupiter himself? [3]Think how delusions can increase depravity among you devoted to unbridled luxury! You are throwing away your children; the traces of a family thus dispersed must necessarily be blotted out. Thus, delusions, increasing from generation to generation, strengthen and strengthen depravity. Finally, since your passion travels with you everywhere, in your homeland, beyond its borders, across the seas, it may happen that children born of your intemperance, scattered in all places, unknown to you yourself, meet each other or parents, not recognizing kinship between them. The most strict and reliable purity protects us from such a result, we owe it to purity that it protects us from adultery and from lust in marriage, as well as from depravity. Some,
From accusations of immorality, Tertullian proceeds to public-state accusations of Christians of atheism, of maintaining a strange and unlawful religion, of insulting majesty, of a lack of patriotism, that Christians are the culprits of social misfortunes, and, finally, of the plight of Christians.
To the most common accusation of godlessness, he says: “We have ceased to honor your gods since we learned that they do not exist. Christians would be worthy of execution if it were known that the gods they do not revere actually exist. But for us, you say, they are gods. We transfer the matter from you to your conscience; let her accuse us if she can deny that your gods were human. If she argues with us, she will be convicted by her ancient books, from which she received information about the gods, because they still testify about the cities in which these gods were born, and about the countries in which they left traces, and in which their tombs are shown. Before Saturn, you didn't have a single god. Neither Diodorus Siculus, nor Thales, nor Cassius Severus, nor Cornelius Nepos, nor any of the historians speak of him differently, as about a person. The mountain on which he lived was called Saturnian; the city he founded is still called Saturnia. Finally, all of Italy, having lost the name of Enotria, began to be called Saturnia. He was the first to give laws to this country, and from his time they began to mint a coin with his image, which is why he is considered the patron of the public treasury. Therefore, Saturn is a man, and if a man, then the son of a man, and not of heaven and earth. But since his parents are unknown, it was easy to honor him as the son of heaven and earth, who can justly be called the father and mother of all people. I am silent about the fact that in those distant times people were so rude that the sight of a new man struck them like some kind of deity, when even now their enlightened descendants include among the gods people whose death is confirmed by public mourning (ch. 10) .
Not daring to deny that your gods were human, you ventured to assert that they became gods after death. Let's see what could be the reasons. First of all, it is necessary to admit the existence of a supreme god who could communicate divinity to people. After all, those who did not have it could not receive divinity, and no one could give it to them, except for the one to whom it actually belongs. So, if there is a being capable of making people gods, I turn to an analysis of the reasons that it could have for communicating divinity to people. I find no other reason for this, except for the services that this great god would need from their assistance. But, firstly, it is indecent for him to need the help of another and, moreover, a deceased; it would have been more appropriate to create (to help oneself) some other god from the very beginning. And then I don't even see the need for this new god to exist. The being that created everything cannot be imperfect, and it cannot need the help of Saturn and his offspring. But you find another reason, believing that divinity is given as a reward for merit. So, I want to consider the merits of your gods: whether they are worthy to be raised to heaven, or to be cast into tartar. The wicked who commit incest with mothers and sisters, adulterers, seducers of virgins, sodomists, murderers, thieves, robbers, and all those who resemble one of your gods, of which you cannot put forward one free from crimes, are usually cast down there. and vice, unless you reject its human origin. Let us assume that they were honest, good, blameless people. However, how many people have you left in hell, who are superior to them, such as Socrates in his wisdom, Aristides in his justice, Themistocles in his courage. Your supreme god, knowing in advance that there will be these best, most worthy people, should have waited for them to accept them among the gods (ch. 11).
As for the images themselves (statues), I notice that they are made up of the same material as all kinds of ordinary vessels and tools. The artist makes and remakes them according to his will, dealing with them in the most cruel way. We should take comfort in the fact that they endure the same torments in order to reach the godhead that you subject us to for them. You scrape the ribs of Christians with iron claws; but the limbs of your gods are more tormented by axes, scrapers, and saws. We are burned on fire; the same happens with the mass from which the images of your gods are molded. We are assigned to work in the mines; but from there your gods also take their origin. Your gods do not feel any insults, or insults, or your honors. So, if we do not honor statues and lifeless images, similar to the dead they represent, then does not our rejection of the error that is obvious to all deserve more praise than execution? Since we are sure that the gods do not exist, can it seem to anyone that we are insulting them? (ch. 12).
Further, Tertullian shows that the pagans themselves are guilty of what the Christians are accused of - of disrespect to their gods, since they pawn, sell and exchange the domestic gods (lars) for various everyday objects, and rent out the public ones at auction; unfit animals, emaciated, emaciated, sick, are sacrificed to them; their low passions are represented in literature, and they are presented on the stage in a comical form, and the role of the gods is played by contemptible people, often slaves; in temples, plans for adultery are drawn up; at the altars, negotiations are conducted with pimps. “I don’t know,” Tertullian concludes from this, “against whom your gods have more reason to complain, against Christians, or against yourself!” (Ch. 13-15).
Christians were further blamed for the fact that, while denying the pagan gods, they contain some amazing religion - they worship the donkey's head, the cross, the sun, the crucified man. Replying to these accusations, Tertullian, regarding the first, says that the invention of Tacitus, attributing the worship of donkeys to the Jews and later transferred to Christians because of the similarity of their religion with the Jewish one, is refuted by Tacitus himself, who, in another place of his work, says that Pompeii, having entered the Jerusalem temple , did not find a single idol there. On the other hand, as if recognizing the justice of the accusation, Tertullian thinks that the pagans should not be surprised and outraged by the veneration of the donkey's head by Christians, since they themselves venerate the goddess of horses Epona. Nor should they be surprised by the veneration of the cross, which is found among the pagans themselves in the form of the basis of their statues, in the form of banners and trophies. The accusation of worshiping the sun, according to Tertullian, arose from the fact that Christians pray, turning to the east, and honor Sunday, called the day of the sun. But the pagans themselves often pray to the east, and on the day of Saturn indulge in idleness and feasting (ch. 16).
Having shown that the pagans, in their accusations of the Christian religion, came to wrong conclusions about it because of their ignorance of it, Tertullian then shows them the true objects of Christian worship. “We revere,” he says, “one God, Who by His Word, wisdom and omnipotence created the world with the elements out of nothing, created bodies and spirits in the manifestation of His power. He is invisible, though one can see Him; He is infinite, although by His grace one can imagine; He is incomprehensible, although He can be comprehended with the help of reason. From here its truth and greatness are revealed. After all, everything that can be seen, embraced, felt in the ordinary way is insignificant than the eyes with which they see, the hands with which they touch, the senses with which they feel. The Infinite is only known by Itself. It is this incomprehensibility of God that prompts one to strive for knowledge of Him. The power of His majesty makes Him both incomprehensible and comprehensible to people. This is the main fault of those who do not want to know Him whom they cannot but know. Do you want us to prove the existence of God by His creations that surround us, protect us, delight us, frighten us? Do you want us to prove His existence on the basis of the testimony of the soul itself? Imprisoned in the body, seduced by perverted instructions, weakened by passions and lusts, enslaved to false gods, the soul, as soon as it wakes up, as if from a hangover or from sleep, or after an illness finds its health, calls God by the only name that is befitting to Him: “Great God! good God! what God will give!” - everyone says so. The soul recognizes God as its judge when it says: “God sees, I submit myself to God for judgment, and God will reward me." This is the testimony of the soul, by nature a Christian! And while pronouncing these words, she does not look at the Capitol, but at the sky - there is the dwelling place of the living God, and she knows that she is from God and descended from heaven to earth ”(ch. 17).
In order to leave no doubt about the existence of a true God with such signs, Tertullian points out to the pagans the books of Holy Scripture confirming this, the translation of which, made under Ptolemy Philadelphus, gives the pagans the opportunity to get acquainted with them. The deep antiquity of these books, to which the pagans attach great importance, is confirmed by the fact that their first writer, Moses, was a contemporary of the Argos king Inach, lived 400 years earlier than Danae, 1000 years earlier than the destruction of Troy and 500 years earlier than Homer. The rest of the prophets (writers) lived after Moses, but the later ones also lived before the most ancient pagan sages, legislators, and historians. The divine origin of the books of Holy Scripture is proved by the fact that everything predicted by the prophets was fulfilled with literal accuracy: the earth swallowed up the cities, the sea flooded the islands, there were international and internecine bloody wars - everything, as was predicted. On the basis of this, one must believe that what has been predicted, but has not yet been fulfilled, will also be fulfilled” (ch. 18-20).
In addition to the invisible God, Father and Creator of the universe, Christians also revere His Son, Jesus Christ, Whom the pagans unreasonably consider a simple man. “The prophets,” says Tertullian, “proclaimed to the Jews that God in the last times of the age would choose for Himself from every people and tribe and in all places of the earth more devoted worshipers, on whom He would pour out great grace, in accordance with the dignity of the Founder of the doctrine. It was foretold that the mediator and teacher of this grace and this teaching, the light and leader of the human race, would be the Son of God, born not in such a way that he could be ashamed of His origin; He will not owe His birth to incest with a sister, or dishonor of a girl, or adultery with another's wife, or a father-god, who turned either into a snake, or into a bull, or into a bird, or into a golden rain (in this you will recognize your Jupiter ). The Son of God was not even born of marriage: His mother did not know her husband. But first I will talk about His nature, so that you can understand how He was born. We have already said that God created the universe by His Word, wisdom and power. Your philosophers (Zeno, Cleanthes) also recognize that the Creator of the world is logoz - the word and the mind. And we also affirm that the essence of the word, wisdom and power, with which the world was created, is the spirit, which has the word when He commands, wisdom when He puts everything in order, power when He does everything. We believe that God spoke (the Word), and having spoken, begat Him, and that for this reason He is called the Son of God, and because of the unity of the being is called God; for God is spirit. When the sun emits a ray, then this ray is a part of the whole; but the sun is in the beam, because it is its beam, and through this there is no separation, but only an expansion of the being. So, from the spirit - the spirit and from God - God, like light, kindled from the light. The initial substance remains intact and does not decrease, although it produces many properties from itself. So the one born of God is God, the Son of God, and both are one being: thus the spirit comes from the spirit, from God - God, different in personal property, and not in number; by degree, not by nature; comes from its origin without leaving it. This ray of God, according to ancient prophecy, having descended on the Virgin and incarnated in Her womb, was born a God-man. This is Christ. The Jews, on the basis of the prophecies, knew about His coming and expected Him, but, not understanding the prophecies about His twofold coming - the first humiliated, and the second glorious - they did not believe Him who had come and were embittered by His teaching, which convicted them, betrayed him to Pontius Pilate, crucified and buried him, but he rose again on the third day, appeared to his disciples for forty days and then ascended to heaven, and his disciples, according to his command, dispersed to preach the gospel throughout the world. This happened under Tiberius, the Roman emperor, to whom Pilate reported these events in Judea. “Consider,” says Tertullian after this, “him for a man; but we believe that God wants to be known and honored through Christ and in Christ. May Christ be allowed to preach his divinity in order to enlighten for the knowledge of the truth. Investigate whether Christ is really God, whether His religion really transforms, leads to the good of those who have come to know it! From this it will be possible to conclude that every other religion that contradicts it is false; especially the one that
Returning again to paganism, whose vitality, despite the obvious absurdity of his teaching, was supported by imaginary signs, miracles and prophecies, Tertullian shows that these phenomena that astonish the pagans come from demons who lead the pagans into error. These demons, whose entire activity is aimed at evil, and mainly towards strengthening pagan idolatry and disrespect, make predictions, having learned them from Holy Scripture; having sent diseases on people and then healing them, they make them believe in their power. They participate both in divination and in the divination of oracles; in a word, they try in every possible way to show that they are gods, whose names they hide behind, but “let,” says Tertullian, “before your tribunal they bring a possessed demon; let some Christian command this spirit to speak, and he will confess that he is in fact a demon, and falsely called himself God. If the virgin Celestis, the representative of the rains, if Aesculapius, the inventor of medicine, do not recognize themselves as demons, not daring to lie to a Christian, then shed the blood of an impudent Christian in the same place. Therefore your gods, whom you revere, are insignificant. If the divine origin of your gods were true, then the demons would not abuse it, and the gods themselves would not deny it. Having exposed the falsity of your gods with the help of the gods themselves, we will in the same way let you know what the true God is, whether He is exactly God, and whether the God whom we Christians profess is not the only one, and whether we should not believe in Him and to worship Him in the way that the faith and teaching of Christians prescribe? All our power and power over demons lies in the name of Christ and in the mention of threatening punishments, which they expect from God through Christ. Fearing Christ in God and God in Christ, they submit to the servants of God and Christ. Believing their lies, believe them when they tell the truth. No one lies, revealing their shame. By their own admission that they are not gods, that there is no other God but the One God whom we serve, we can absolve ourselves of the charge of insulting, chiefly, the Roman religion. For if it is true that your gods are not gods, then your religion ceases to be a religion. And if there is no religion, then we are not guilty of insulting religion” (ch. 22-24). we can acquit ourselves of the charge of insulting, chiefly, the Roman religion. For if it is true that your gods are not gods, then your religion ceases to be a religion. And if there is no religion, then we are not guilty of insulting religion” (ch. 22-24). we can acquit ourselves of the charge of insulting, chiefly, the Roman religion. For if it is true that your gods are not gods, then your religion ceases to be a religion. And if there is no religion, then we are not guilty of insulting religion” (ch. 22-24).
The attachment of the Romans to their gods was also based on the conviction that for especially zealous service to national deities and a respectful attitude towards all foreigners, Rome gained dominance over the whole world. Dispelling this illusion, Tertullian says that, on the one hand, the religiosity of the Romans did not precede their greatness, since at the beginning of Rome the Roman cult was not developed, and on the other hand, history notes more cases of Roman disrespect for the gods than reverence for them. “Because kingdoms start from war and expand with victories. And wars and victories are inconceivable without the capture and destruction of cities, which entails an insult to the gods: gods and people equally suffer from robbery along with citizens. Consequently, the Romans have as many trophies as sacrileges. Is it possible to imagine that those who, rising up, offended religion and, offending her, exalted themselves. Does not He distribute kingdoms, in whose possession is the world divided into kingdoms, and the people who reign? Was it not He who arranged the order of the change of dominion in certain periods of time, Who was before all times, Who created the periods of time? Is it not He who exalts the cities, Who ruled over the human race, when there were no cities? (Ch. 25-26).
From the proof that the pagan gods, despite all the efforts of the pagans to protect their existence, do not really exist, Tertullian concludes that such imaginary gods should not be sacrificed, which pagan Christians are forced to do under pain of punishment (ch. 27). According to Tertullian, forcing Christians to such sacrifices is an unjust and stupid violation of the religious freedom of man. From here he moves on to another, very important accusation of Christians of insulting the imperial majesty. He says that just as it is useless to make sacrifices to pagan non-existent gods in general, so in particular sacrifices for the health of the emperor, because these gods are not able to protect their own statues and entrust their protection to the imperial guard (ch. 28-29).
“But we,” says Tertullian, “for the health of emperors, we pray to the eternal, living God, whose mercy, preferably before others (gods), the emperors themselves seek, since thanks to Him each of them became an emperor, and even before being an emperor, - a person; power came to them from the same source as life. From this God we ask all emperors long life, quiet reign, security in the palace, courage in the troops, fidelity in the senate, honesty among the people, peace in the universe; finally, the fulfillment of everything that a person and an emperor can desire. Whoever believes that we do not care at all about the health of the emperor, may look into our books, which contain the words of God himself. From there you will know that God speaks clearly and precisely: “pray for kings, rulers, authorities, so that everything will be calm with you.” However, we have another most important reason for praying for the emperor, even for the entire system of the empire and for the Roman state; we know, after all, that the existence of the Roman Empire postpones the end of the whole world and the terrible disasters that threaten it at the end of the age. Thus, not wishing to see the end of the world and praying for this moment to be removed from us, we wish the longevity of the Roman Empire (ch. 30-32). Why are Christians state criminals? Is it not because they give emperors not empty, not false, not reckless honors, but, professing the true religion, celebrate the solemn imperial days by pouring out the feelings of their hearts, and not by committing debauchery? We are probably very guilty for wishing the emperor all the best, without ceasing to be sober, chaste and modest. In these joyful days, we do not cover our houses with laurels, we do not kindle lamps in broad daylight, we do not give our dwellings the appearance of brothels. Perhaps those who do not want to regard us as Romans, but as enemies of the Roman emperors, will themselves turn out to be more criminal than Christians?! If nature clothed our hearts with some kind of transparent veil, in whose heart would we not discover more and more emperors, quickly succeeding one another, each new emperor distributing gifts? “But the crowd,” you say, “will always remain a crowd.” People of other classes, no doubt, are distinguished by sincere fidelity, in accordance with their high position. But where do the Cassias come from? If nature clothed our hearts with some kind of transparent veil, in whose heart would we not discover more and more emperors, quickly succeeding one another, each new emperor distributing gifts? “But the crowd,” you say, “will always remain a crowd.” People of other classes, no doubt, are distinguished by sincere fidelity, in accordance with their high position. But where do the Cassias come from? If nature clothed our hearts with some kind of transparent veil, in whose heart would we not discover more and more emperors, quickly succeeding one another, each new emperor distributing gifts? “But the crowd,” you say, “will always remain a crowd.” People of other classes, no doubt, are distinguished by sincere fidelity, in accordance with their high position. But where do the Cassias come from? [4], Niger, Albina? Where do those who kill the emperor between two groups of laurel trees come from?40 Whence come those who have previously perfected themselves in gymnastics in order to more skillfully strangle him? And until the very last minute of the attack on the emperor, all of them, both in temples and at home, made sacrifices for the health of the emperor and swore by his genius, and regarding Christians they did not miss the opportunity to call them public enemies. Loyalty and devotion to emperors does not consist in vain manifestations of imaginary zeal, under the guise of which treason is so well able to hide. They consist in the feelings of love that we are obliged to have for all people. We are forbidden to do evil to anyone or to desire it, and what is not allowed against anyone else is even less allowed against him whom God has exalted so highly. I take you as judge. How many times the crowd without even waiting for your order, threw stones at us and set fire to our houses? During bacchanalia, even the dead are not spared. The corpses of Christians, already spoiled, disfigured, are removed from the coffins, cut into pieces and subjected to desecration. But have you noticed that we have ever tried to avenge such bitterness that haunts us even beyond the grave? One night with torches would be enough to repay evil for evil, but God forbid that the divine religion ever uses human means to avenge itself. Without even taking up arms, without raising a rebellion, we could defeat you by the mere fact that we would separate ourselves from you. The loss of such a great number of citizens of every fortune would weaken the state and punish you enough (ch. 33-37). Therefore, you should have spared and counted among the permitted sects religion, in which there is nothing that arouses fear in unlawful assemblies. Being not obsessed with predilection for either glory or honor, we have no need of crowds or conspiracies; the universe is our state” (ch. 38). The idea that Christians were hostile to the social system and that they were conspiring against the state arose from the fact that Christians held prayer meetings in secret places. Therefore, Tertullian describes these meetings in detail, making it clear that their innocent, exclusively religious character destroys any suspicion of their political unreliability. “We come together,” he says, “to pray to God, we make a sacred alliance favorable to Him, we pray for emperors, for their ministers, for all authorities, for peace, for the welfare of the whole world and for the continuation of this age. We are going to read the Holy Scriptures, from which, depending on the circumstances, we draw the information and instructions necessary for us. This holy word nourishes our faith, supports our hope, strengthens our confidence, establishes in good morals, impressing the commandments in us. It is here that exhortations and corrections take place, sentences are pronounced in the name of God. Being sure that we are always in His presence, we perform, as it were, a Divine judgment, and we excommunicate those who have seriously sinned from common prayers, from our meetings and from all communication with us, and this condemnation anticipates the future Last Judgment. The elders preside, reaching such an honor not by buying, but by proven dignity. The work of God is not sold at the price of gold. And if we have something like a treasury, then we do not acquire it from a shameful trade in faith. Every month, or whenever he wants, contributes a certain moderate amount, as much as he can and as much as he wants, because no one is forced, but brings it voluntarily. This is the fund of piety, which is spent neither on feasts nor on debauchery, but is used to feed and bury the poor, to support poor orphans, to maintain ministers exhausted by old age, to alleviate the plight of the unfortunate shipwrecked. If there happen to be Christians exiled to the mines, imprisoned in dungeons, removed to the islands for confessing their faith, then they also receive help from us. There are people who accuse us of such brotherly love for our neighbor. “Look,” they say, “how they love each other, how they are ready to die for each other.” We call each other brothers, you put us to shame, but only because that you have unrelated feelings hidden under related names. We and you are taken by the right of nature, common to all mothers, although you are unkind brothers, because there is little human in you. Much more justly are those called and considered brothers who recognize God as their one and only Father, who are imbued with the one spirit of holiness, who, leaving ignorance, have seen the one light of truth. But perhaps you do not consider us brothers, either because our name is not mentioned in any of your tragedies, or because we live as brothers, united by a common property, while these properties produce discord among you. between brothers. Constituting among ourselves one heart, one soul, can we renounce the community of property! We have everything in common, except for our wives; in this one respect we differ from one another, while in this respect you have fellowship with everyone. You try to defame our suppers, considering them not only criminal, but also luxurious. Meanwhile, their name alone shows by what motive they are compiled. They are called agapes. Greek word meaning love. Everything that happens on them is decent and established according to the types of religion. During the supper, no baseness, no immodesty is tolerated: they sit down at the table only after praying to God; eat as much as necessary to satisfy hunger; they drink as befits people who strictly observe abstinence and sobriety; they are sated so that they can offer up prayers to God that same night; they talk, knowing that God hears everything. After washing their hands and lighting the lamps, everyone is invited to sing songs of praise to God, taken from the Holy Scriptures, or composed by someone. The supper ends as it began, with prayer. They go out from there not to commit outrages, rampages and murders, but go home quietly, modestly, chastely: they leave the school of virtue rather than from the supper. Prohibit, destroy our meetings if they are in any way related to dangerous and criminal crowds, or if you can reproach them with the same things that ordinary conspiracies are accused of ”(ch. 39).
A common accusation against Christians was that Christians were considered the perpetrators of social disasters and useless members of society. To the first accusation, Tertullian replies that even greater disasters than now befell the world even before the advent of Christianity as a punishment for the distance of people from the true God, and that now these disasters have been significantly mitigated, since the world has intercessors before God in the person of Christians (ch. 40). Surprised at the second accusation, he says: “We live together with you, we use the same food, clothing, we have the same external way of life, the same vital needs. Living with you, we cannot do without a forum, without a market, without baths, without hotels, workshops, fairs. Together with you and like you, we sail, send military service, cultivate the land, and trade. I don't understand how we can be useless members of society, in which we live? But you will say that temple revenues are decreasing day by day. Sorry: our funds are not enough to help both people and the poor gods. Moreover, we believe that we are obligated to give only to those who ask. Let Jupiter lend a hand, we will give him one too. We spend more on street alms than you do on temple offerings. The true, real loss, which, however, no one pays attention to, is the loss of so many innocent people that you are destroying. We alone are innocent. Is it any wonder if innocence is a necessity for us? God Himself instructed us in it. Can human wisdom find out where the true good lies? Which of the commandments is more perfect: the one that says: "Thou shalt not kill," or the one that prescribes: "Do not be angry." Is it the one that forbids adultery, or the one that which blames even the temptation of the eye? Which one is wiser: the one that forbids doing wrong, or the one that forbids even repaying an insult with an insult? (Ch. 42, 44-45).
Since, finally, rejecting the divine origin of Christianity, they considered it a philosophical sect, Tertullian, on the one hand, reproaches the pagans for inconsistency, because they treat Christians differently than philosophers, and on the other, shows a profound difference between philosophical doctrines. and Christian teaching. “Philosophers,” he says, “cannot be compared with Christians either in their teachings or in purity of morals. Among Christians, the last of the artisans not only knows God, but can also teach others the knowledge of God and satisfactorily gives an answer to every question about God. Meanwhile, as Plato claims, it is not easy to know the Creator of the universe and, having known, it is difficult to explain to everyone. It is known how Speusippus, a disciple of Plato, was killed, captured in the place of adultery. A Christian is only the husband of his wife. What do philosophers and Christians have in common? Between the disciple of Greece and the disciple of heaven? Between the one who invents new delusions, and the one who cherishes the truth? Between the stealer of truth and its guardian? These people (philosophers), passionately thirsting for glory, tried to penetrate into the sublime meaning of our writing; when they met anything there that met the purpose of their curiosity, they appropriated it for themselves. Not recognizing the divinity of the scriptures, they did not think to change them. Instead of knowing God as they found Him in the Holy Scriptures, they began to think about His nature, properties, and habitat. The Platonists consider God to be incorporeal, the Stoics to be corporeal. According to Epicurus, God consists of atoms, according to Pythagoras - from numbers, according to Heraclitus - from fire. They look differently at the substance of the soul; according to some, it is divine and mortal, according to others, it is inseparable from the body. Everyone adds and changes according to his will. To all the distorters of the Gospel, we object that the one, true religion originated from Jesus Christ, was handed down to us by the apostles, by whom these later interpreters will someday be exposed” (ch. 46-47).
The Apologetic ends exactly as it began, pointing out the injustice of the persecution of the Christian religion and the torment of its followers, which lead to completely the opposite results than what the pagans expect from them: the blood of executed Christians becomes the seed from which new Christians grow (ch. 50 ).
1. Saturn killed male children.
2. Irony over the imaginary piety of the Romans, manifested in the exact, but purely outward observance of ritual prescriptions.
3. Married to his sister Juno.
4. Cassius Brutus - a traitor to the fatherland.
To the nations
In the first book, "To the Nations", consisting of 20 chapters, the same arguments are expressed in defense of Christianity that were given in the "Apologetics", in almost the same order, and sometimes in the same words. More original is the second book, of polemical content, in which Tertullian criticizes pagan polytheism.
“If I turn,” he says, “to Varro with the question of who created the pagan gods, he will tell me: philosophers, peoples or poets. So, there are three classes of gods: physical gods, recognized by philosophers, mythical gods, sung by philosophers, and finally, national gods, revered by the common people. But if philosophers created their gods with the help of hypotheses, if poets borrowed their mythical gods from fables, peoples invented their gods thanks to fantasy or their own arbitrariness, then where is the truth to be found? In hypotheses? But the hypothesis is unreliable. In myth? But the myth is nothing but a tangle of absurdities. In popular veneration? But this kind of deity is only an accidental deity, and, moreover, belongs only to the city that worships him. In short: philosophers have nothing certain, for they are in eternal disagreement among themselves; poets have shameful stories that do not deserve attention; As for the peoples, then everything here is accidental, temporary, for everything is the fruit of arbitrariness. The signs of true divinity are such that they are not derived from unreliable conclusions or hypotheses, cannot have anything to do with the latest fables, do not need the accidental acceptance of a deity by one or another people. The Deity should be understood as He is in reality - unconditionally true, perfect in its properties and universal - belonging to all people in general. Is it possible to believe in any god, relying on some hypothesis, myth, or on the basis of the decree of some city? It would be wiser not to believe anything at all than to admit a supposed god, or a god for whom I have to blush, or a god elevated to that dignity by the city. For example, we express our gratitude or censure not to those material objects with which we get pleasure or trouble, but to those who have these objects in their hands and who use them according to their will. If one of you falls into an illness, then for the cure of it he will thank not wool, not antidotes, not medicines, but the doctor, whose experienced hand was able to apply or give them to the patient in time. The wounded in battle complains not about the sword, not about the spear, but about the enemy or the robber. The shipwrecked curse the storm, but do not attribute their misfortune to the shoals and waves, and they are right, for it is obvious that everything that happens should be attributed not to the instrument, but to the cause that produces it: in it is the beginning of each fact, the goal and means of its accomplishment.
to the scapula
In a letter to the Scapula, Tertullian shows this African proconsul, who was about to execute the tenth of the inhabitants of Carthage, with a number of historical fittings, how the punishment of God befell both entire cities and individuals who persecuted Christians, and that philanthropy is compatible with the duties of service.
“During the time of being the judge of Gilaran,” says Tertullian, “the people rushed to our cemeteries, shouting: “Do not take the fields under the tombs for Christians!” But they were severely punished for this: torrents of rain destroyed all their harvest. What did the lights that wandered along the walls of Carthage and the terrible thunders that shook the city mean? All such meteors signify the wrath of the formidable God, and we must lift up our feeble voice to proclaim this wrath, and to avert it with our prayers. We could also cite as an example some rulers who, on their deathbed, expressed repentance for their persecution against Christians. Vigelius Saturninus, who was the first to draw the sword of execution on us, lost his sight. Claudius Lucius Herminian, angry that his wife had adopted the Christian faith, cruelly persecuted and tortured Christians. Sitting alone in his court, he was stricken with a plague, and worms showered his body. After that, he saw his error and confessed that the executions served only to increase the number of Christians; finally died almost a Christian. As for you, we would like one example to suffice for you: just remember what happened when you condemned the Adrimetikos Mavillus to be torn to pieces by wild beasts, and how your persecution was interrupted (ch. 3).
We do not think to frighten you, because we ourselves are not afraid of you, but we would like the whole world to be saved. We advise you out of compassion not to fight with God. You can easily combine the duties of your service with the duties of philanthropy. Remember that the sword also hangs over your heads. What does the law require of you? That you condemn the guilty to death when they confess their crimes, and put them to torture when they renounce them. Therefore, you are the first offenders of the law by torturing those who confess in order to force them to recant (ch. 4). So hold back. Spare this unfortunate province (Carthage), which the mere discovery of your intentions has subjected to oppression by greedy soldiers and all other enemies. We have no other supreme ruler but God. He is above you
About the testimony of the soul
In this short work, Tertullian develops the idea expressed in the Apologetics (ch. 17) that the soul is by nature a Christian, since in moments of excitement, when it shakes off the concepts instilled by education and environment, it involuntarily expresses Christian truths. Tertullian considers the testimony of the soul to be the strongest and most convincing proof of the truth of Christianity, so that in this respect neither the literary and philosophical writings of the pagans, sometimes expressing thoughts similar to Christian ones, can be compared with it, since the pagans in these cases reproach their authors with frivolity and ignorance, nor the holy books of the Christians, which the pagans do not read.
“Appear,” he says, “for judgment, O human soul! If you are divine and eternal, as famous philosophers say, then you cannot lie. Appear to us in all the coarseness of your original simplicity, appear in a barbaric and ignorant form, in the form that those who possess you alone have. Tell me what concepts you bring to a person, whether you come from your own essence or owe it to an unknown originator of your being. Christians demand your testimony so that our persecutors will be ashamed before you of their contempt for what you yourself are by nature involved in (ch. 1).
We are being attacked for preaching the one God who created everything and governs everything. Respond and tell us what you know about this. Often you freely and loudly say: “What God will give!”, “As God wills.” With these words you proclaim the Supreme Being, you recognize by this the omnipotence of the One before whose will you bow. But in attributing to Him alone the name of God, you reject the deity of the gods Saturn, Jupiter, etc., called by you by their proper names. You also know about the nature of the God whom we preach. This is evident from your exclamations: “God is good!”, “God is merciful!” You clearly confess the goodness of God and thereby indirectly acknowledge that a person is evil due to the distance from God, the source of all blessings. When we Christians want to bless someone, we do it in the name of our God. Meanwhile you, not following any law, you say: "God bless you" - as naturally as it is proper for a Christian. There are people who, without rejecting the existence of God, take away from God the ability to discern, to judge, to will, while we recognize both the judgment of God and the fear of God. This is what our soul tells us at any time, in any place, and no one thinks to hinder it in this, or to laugh at it: “God sees. May God save you! God bless you! May God be the judge between us!” Tell me, non-Christian soul, where do you get all these sayings from? In the very temples of your gods, at the feet of your Aesculapius, on your knees before the airy Juno, you seek justice not from these gods. Oh, how powerful you are! (Ch. 3). deprive God of the ability to disassemble, judge, want, while we recognize both the judgment of God and the fear of God. This is what our soul tells us at any time, in any place, and no one thinks to hinder it in this, or to laugh at it: “God sees. May God save you! God bless you! May God be the judge between us!” Tell me, non-Christian soul, where do you get all these sayings from? In the very temples of your gods, at the feet of your Aesculapius, on your knees before the airy Juno, you seek justice not from these gods. Oh, how powerful you are! (Ch. 3). deprive God of the ability to disassemble, judge, want, while we recognize both the judgment of God and the fear of God. This is what our soul tells us at any time, in any place, and no one thinks to hinder it in this, or to laugh at it: “God sees. May God save you! God bless you! May God be the judge between us!” Tell me, non-Christian soul, where do you get all these sayings from? In the very temples of your gods, at the feet of your Aesculapius, on your knees before the airy Juno, you seek justice not from these gods. Oh, how powerful you are! (Ch. 3). God bless you! May God be the judge between us!” Tell me, non-Christian soul, where do you get all these sayings from? In the very temples of your gods, at the feet of your Aesculapius, on your knees before the airy Juno, you seek justice not from these gods. Oh, how powerful you are! (Ch. 3). God bless you! May God be the judge between us!” Tell me, non-Christian soul, where do you get all these sayings from? In the very temples of your gods, at the feet of your Aesculapius, on your knees before the airy Juno, you seek justice not from these gods. Oh, how powerful you are! (Ch. 3).
I turn now to what concerns you, human soul. It's about your fate. We affirm that you must survive your mortal shell in order to wait for the day of judgment, and then you will be punished or rewarded forever for your deeds. For pleasure or suffering, you will need to perceive your body, your feelings, your memory. But meanwhile people consider it a sect, stupidity, boasting. Let's get into the matter. When you talk about the dead, you call him unfortunate, probably not because he is deprived of life, but you consider him condemned and, as it were, already punished; sometimes you also say that the dead are blessed and at rest. Therefore, you sometimes admit that life is a burden, and death brings happiness. If you don't have any feelings after death, then why would you lie like that, contrary to your nature, why assume pleasure or sorrow in the dead, why be afraid of death, after which you have nothing to fear or experience? (Ch. 4).
All these testimonies of the soul are all the more probable because they are usually very simple. Simplicity makes them popular; and the more popular they are, the more universal; their universality proves that they are natural and therefore, in a certain sense, divine. Instead of accusing us of frivolity and stupidity, it would be better for you to think about the greatness of nature, from which comes the authority of the soul. Nature is the educator, and the soul is her pupil: everything that the former teaches, that the latter learns, comes from God, Who is the Teacher and from nature itself” (ch. 5).
At the end, Tertullian reproaches the soul with extreme inconsistency and folly in relation to Christians. “Christian truth,” he says, “was innate in you (soul), and you raised up persecution against Christians” (ch. 6).
Against the Jews
The essay "Against the Jews" was written on a random occasion. Once a dispute about faith took place between a Christian and a Jewish proselyte, in which Tertullian also took part, but due to the uproar raised by the public present at the same time, he could not convince the Jew of the justice of his words. As a result, he decided to write an essay in which, in a consistent order, he outlined his arguments in favor of Christianity and in denunciation of Judaism, which persisted in its blindness (“Against the Jews, ch. 1).
This essay is quite similar to that of St. Justina: it also speaks of the temporal and relative significance of the law of Moses and all its prescriptions, of replacing it with a new law given through Jesus Christ, it is proved that Christ who appeared on earth was the promised Messiah, and finally it is said that instead of the rejected Jews, new nations will be called. The similarity between the apologists is enhanced by the fact that the same order of presentation is observed, the same prophecies are given and the same objections of the Jews are refuted, for example, about the possibility of the birth of Jesus Christ from the Virgin, about the compatibility of His suffering with His Divine nature. The difference between the writings of St. Justin and the work of Tertullian consists only in the fact that the second is shorter than the first and, in addition, it contains reasoning that the commandment given to Adam, contained the entire subsequent law, and about the weeks of Daniel, which St. Justin.
“At the beginning of the world,” says Tertullian, “God gave a law to Adam and Eve, forbidding them to touch the fruit of a tree in the midst of paradise, and warning them that they would die the death when they violated this command. This law would have been sufficient if they had kept it. In it we find the hidden root of all the precepts of the law subsequently issued by Moses, such as: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul; love your neighbor as you love yourself; don't kill, don't steal, don't covet someone else's." The original law given to Adam and Eve in Paradise is, as it were, the source of all God's ordinances. In a word, if they had loved the Lord their God, they would not have broken His commandments. If they truly loved their neighbor as themselves, they would not have believed the suggestions of the serpent, and they would not have been murderers against themselves, losing immortality through the violation of the commandment of God. Likewise, they would have refrained from stealing, if they had not secretly tasted the fruit and hidden themselves from the sight of the Lord. They would not have suffered the death that befell the devil if they had not relied on his word that they would be like God. If they had not desired someone else's good, they would not have touched the forbidden fruit” (ch. 2).
As proof that Jesus Christ is the true Messiah, Tertullian cites the well-known prophecy of Daniel about the weeks (Dan. 9, 1, 2, 21-27). “It is impossible not to notice,” he says, “with what accuracy the prophet indicates here the time of the birth, suffering and death of Jesus Christ. The angel clearly says that “from the exodus of the word to Christ” sixty-two weeks will pass, “and the Holy of Holies will be anointed”; then "an anointing will be required"; after the expiration of seven weeks, in one week and in half a week, "the hail will crumble, the sacrifice will be taken away, and the end will be given into desolation." We will begin our reckoning with Darius, when the vision took place; the incidents that follow will be our guides. Let us look at the succession of sovereigns. Darius reigned 19 years, Artaxerxes - 40, Cyrus - 23, Argus 1 year, Darius II - 22, Alexander the Great - 12, Soter - 35, Ptolemy Philadelphus - 39, Cleopatra - 20 1/2, August together with Cleopatra - 13, August alone - 43. Total, 438 1/2. Thus, 62 1/2 weeks were fulfilled, equal to 438 1/2 years before the coming of Jesus Christ, when eternal righteousness was installed, when the Holy of Holies - Christ was anointed, when the vision and the prophet were sealed, and when the sins were forgiven for all who believe in the name of Christ . Let us now see how the remaining 7 1/2 weeks were fulfilled. Augustus lived another 15 years after the birth of Christ. He was succeeded by Tiberius, who reigned 22 years, 7 months, 20 days. In the 15th year of his reign, Jesus Christ suffered, having been about 30 years old when eternal truth is installed, when the Holy of Holies — Christ is anointed, when the vision and the prophet are sealed, and when the sins forgiven by all who believe in the name of Christ are blotted out. Let us now see how the remaining 7 1/2 weeks were fulfilled. Augustus lived another 15 years after the birth of Christ. He was succeeded by Tiberius, who reigned 22 years, 7 months, 20 days. In the 15th year of his reign, Jesus Christ suffered, having been about 30 years old when eternal truth is installed, when the Holy of Holies — Christ is anointed, when the vision and the prophet are sealed, and when the sins forgiven by all who believe in the name of Christ are blotted out. Let us now see how the remaining 7 1/2 weeks were fulfilled. Augustus lived another 15 years after the birth of Christ. He was succeeded by Tiberius, who reigned 22 years, 7 months, 20 days. In the 15th year of his reign, Jesus Christ suffered, having been about 30 years old [1] . After Tiberius there were emperors: Caligula - 3 years, 7 months, 13 days, Nero - 9 years, 9 months, 13 days, Galba 7 months 6 days, Otho - 3 months 5 days, Vitelius - 8 months 10 days, Vespasian triumphs over Jews in the first year of his reign. A total of 52 years and 6 months have passed. This is how the seventy weeks predicted by Daniel were fulfilled for the Jews until their final destruction. After the expiration of these years, their sacrifices and offerings were stopped in the country, which since then could not be sent there, for this anointing was required during the time of the suffering of Jesus Christ ”(ch. 8).
1. The calculus is wrong
Mark Minucius Felix
Biographical information about Minucius Felix is extremely scarce, so that it is impossible even to accurately indicate either the place of his homeland or the time of his life, i.e. answer the very first and very important questions in the biography of each writer. On the basis of some data, either Rome or Africa is considered to be his homeland, but none of these assumptions has such solid grounds for itself that any of them can be recognized as undoubtedly reliable. Similarly, with regard to the life of Minucius, it is impossible to establish a strictly defined date. It can only be stated that he lived no earlier than 160 and no later than 250, or, according to Baronius, at the end of the second and at the beginning of the third century A.D.
Questions about his education, occupation and religious beliefs are resolved more satisfactorily, since information about these subjects is provided by third-party witnesses, such as Jerome, Lactantius and Eucherius, and Minucius himself in his apology. The extensive acquaintance with poetry, history and philosophy, which he reveals in his apology, convinces us that he received a comprehensive education. Mainly, his thorough knowledge of jurisprudence and oratory is indisputable, since, upon entering real life, he chose judicial advocacy as his profession (Octavius, ch. I) and even in Rome at that time, where there were so many outstanding lawyers and orators, he used great fame as a scholar and eloquent orator. Blessed Jerome and Lactantius (the latter is very stingy with praises) give the most flattering reviews of him,
At the first time of his advocacy, as well as before, Minucius Felix kept paganism and, despite his education, did not rise above the crowd in his views on Christians. Like most pagans, he looked at them with prejudice, suspected them of various vices and crimes, and when they brought them to trial, he, like a lawyer, accused them, doomed them to torture and rejoiced when the weaker ones renounced the faith (ch. 28). But then he became convinced of his error, turned “from the darkness of ignorance to the light of wisdom and truth” (ch. 1), accepted Christianity, and proved the sincerity of his conversion by a pious life and holy zeal for the benefit and glory of the Church. His pious disposition is attested by Eucherius, ep. Lyons, who puts Minucius Felix on a par with Saints Cyprian, John Chrysostom and Ambrose, who received the Kingdom of Heaven for their Christian deeds. A monument to his zeal for the faith is his apology, written with the aim of dispelling the prejudice of the pagans against Christianity and giving a true concept of it, as a religion distinguished by the lofty teaching and good morality of its followers.
The apology of Minucius Felix, published, one must think, in the reign of the emperor Caracalla, when, during the lull from the persecutions of the previous reign (Septimius Severus), it was most convenient to publish a book in defense of Christianity, is called Octavius and, in external form, is a dialogue of two friends Minucius - the pagan Caecilius and the Christian Octavius (in honor of the latter, she got her name). Each of them, in his speech, tries to expose the superiority of his religion and the falsity of the religion of the enemy, as evidence of which a lot of all kinds of arguments are given, but the victory, as one should expect, remains on the side of the Christian, since the pagan had to recognize his strong arguments as convincing for himself and therefore he converted to Christianity.
Octavius
Octavius begins with a long introduction (chaps. 1-4), which tells the reason for the conversation; then come the speeches of Caecilius (ch. 5-13) and Octavius (ch. 14), and finally the conclusion. Caecilius' speech consists of three parts. In the first of them, he expresses the main position of the skeptical school of academicians, that "in human affairs, everything is doubtful, unknown and false, and only more likely than true." Therefore, he is indignant that Christians, people “uneducated, ignorant, alien to the concepts of the simplest arts, dare to talk about the essence of things and the Divine, about which philosophers of various schools have been arguing among themselves for so many centuries.” As a skeptic, he does not like any categorical teaching, especially the teaching of Christians about the Providence of God that governs the world. In contrast to Octavius, he develops the thought that chance reigns in the life of nature and man, which completely excludes and renders unnecessary the providential actions of the Divine (ch. 5). Recognizing the uselessness of a Deity with such qualities, he thereby denies His existence and in the second part of his speech puts pagan gods in His place, the existence of which, in his opinion, is beyond doubt, since it is confirmed, firstly, by the primordial faith in them. all pagans (ch. 6), and secondly, fortune-telling, oracles and prophetic dreams, in which the gods communicate their will to people (ch. 7). Having established with seeming certainty the existence of the pagan gods, Caecilius, in the third part of his speech, attacks Christians who reject these gods with their cults. “I cannot,” he says, “bear the insolence, the impious folly of those people who would reject or destroy a religion so ancient, so useful and saving”, while Christians “despise temples, reject gods, mock sacred rites” (ch. 8). Instead of the pagan religion they rejected, they adopted some new one, characterized by extreme depravity of morals, absurd objects of worship and strange beliefs. “These people recognize each other by special secret signs and have love for each other, not even knowing each other; everywhere between them some kind of love bond is formed, they call each other indiscriminately brothers and sisters in order to make ordinary fornication through the sacred name into incest. It is heard that they, I don’t know for what absurd conviction, honor the head of a donkey. They also say that they revere a man punished for a crime with a terrible punishment, and the inglorious tree of the cross; it means that they have altars suitable for villains and robbers, and honor what they themselves deserve. What they say about the rite of admission of new members into their society is known to all and no less terrible. They say that an initiate in their society is offered a baby who, in order to deceive the careless, is covered with flour: and he, deceived by the sight of flour, at the invitation to make seemingly innocent blows, inflicts deep wounds that kill the baby, and then - oh, wickedness! Those present greedily drink his blood and share his members among themselves. And their suppers are known. On the day of the sun, they gather for a common supper with all children, sisters, mothers, without distinction of sex and age. When, after various dishes, the feast flares up, and the wine ignites the ardor of lust in them, then the dog,
Moving on to the doctrinal side of Christianity, Caecilius says: “Whence, what is and where is this God, one, lonely, deserted, Whom no free people, no state, or at least Roman piety knows? And what wonders Christians invent! They say that their God, whom they cannot see or show to others, carefully watches over the customs of all people, the deeds, words and even thoughts of each person, penetrates everywhere and is everywhere present: thus they represent Him as constantly restless, preoccupied and shamelessly inquisitive, for He is present at all things, is in all places. But that's not all: Christians threaten the earth and the whole world with its luminaries with burning, predict its destruction (ch. 10). Not satisfied with this absurd opinion, they add other old women's fables: they say that after death they will again be reborn to life from ashes and dust. Double Madness! To the sky and the stars, which we leave in the same form in which we find them, they portend destruction, but to themselves - to people who have died, collapsed, they promise eternal existence. However, I would like to know: without a body or with a body, and with which one - new or old, will each of you resurrect? Without a body? But without him, as far as I know, there is no mind, no soul, no life. With the same body? But it has long been destroyed in the ground. With a new body? In this case, a new person is born, and not the old one is restored. But countless centuries have already passed, and not one of the dead has returned from the underworld” (ch. 11). which we leave in the same form in which we find them, they portend annihilation, but they promise eternal existence to themselves - people who have died, collapsed. However, I would like to know: without a body or with a body, and with which one - new or old, will each of you resurrect? Without a body? But without it, as far as I know, there is no mind, no soul, no life. With the same body? But it has long been destroyed in the ground. With a new body? In this case, a new person is born, and not the old one is restored. But countless centuries have already passed, and not one of the dead has returned from the underworld” (ch. 11). which we leave in the same form in which we find them, they portend annihilation, but they promise eternal existence to themselves - people who have died, collapsed. However, I would like to know: without a body or with a body, and with which one - new or old, will each of you resurrect? Without a body? But without it, as far as I know, there is no mind, no soul, no life. With the same body? But it has long been destroyed in the ground. With a new body? In this case, a new person is born, and not the old one is restored. But countless centuries have already passed, and not one of the dead has returned from the underworld” (ch. 11). as far as I know, there is no mind, no soul, no life. With the same body? But it has long been destroyed in the ground. With a new body? In this case, a new person is born, and not the old one is restored. But countless centuries have already passed, and not one of the dead has returned from the underworld” (ch. 11). as far as I know, there is no mind, no soul, no life. With the same body? But it has long been destroyed in the ground. With a new body? In this case, a new person is born, and not the old one is restored. But countless centuries have already passed, and not one of the dead has returned from the underworld” (ch. 11).
Finally, turning to the external life of Christians, Caecilius rebukes them for their plight, as proof of the weakness or injustice of their God, and the avoidance of Christians from pagan holidays. “Most of you, moreover, the best, as you say, endure poverty, suffer from hunger and cold, are burdened with hard work, and now God allows this or does not seem to notice: He does not want or cannot help you; it means He is weak or unjust. You shun even decent pleasures, do not attend spectacles, do not attend our holidays, do not participate in public feasts, abhor sacred games, sacrificial dishes and wine. You don't decorate your heads with flowers, you don't anoint your bodies with incense, you don't even decorate your tombs with wreaths. Unhappy, you do not live here, and you will not rise there” (ch. 12).
Having finished his speech, which seems irrefutable to him, Caecilius, already conscious of his own superiority, challenges Octavius: “What will Octavius from the generation of Plautus dare to say to my words, the first of the bakers and the last of the philosophers?” (ch. 13).
Octavius' response speech is similar in structure to Caecilius' speech and also falls into three parts, because Octavius considered it necessary to refute all the provisions of Caecilius and went step by step along the path outlined by the enemy.
“My brother said,” he says, “that it is disgusting, outrageous and painful for him that the unlearned, the poor, the unskilled (Christians) undertake to talk about heavenly things; but he should think that all men, without distinction of age, sex, or condition, are created intelligent and capable of understanding. Therefore, there is nothing outrageous or regrettable in the fact that everyone is engaged in the study of divine things” (ch. 16). Further, Octavius says that everything in a person and even his appearance shows that he not only can, but must strive for the knowledge of nature, and in connection with this, for the knowledge of God. “We,” he says, “mainly differ from animals in that they, bowed and turned towards the earth, are unable to see anything other than food; while we, having a face turned forward and an eye fixed on heaven, and being endowed with the ability to speak and the mind, through which we know God, feel Him and imitate Him, we must not, cannot but know the heavenly beauty that so strikes our eyes and all the senses. And as soon as a person cognizes the universe, everything here will point him to its Creator and Provider. “Indeed, if you only raise your eyes to the sky and consider what is under it and on it, then can anything be clearer and more certain than the truth that there is some Being of the most excellent mind, Who penetrates, moves and directs all nature . Look at the sky itself, how wide it spread! What a rapid movement is made there! Look at it at night, when it is dotted with stars, or during the day, when it shines with bright rays, and you will find out in what amazing, divine balance is kept by its Supreme Ruler. Notice how the year comes from the motion of the sun, and how the moon, waxing and waning, measures the months. All this not only could not happen, be formed and come into order without the supreme artist, without the most perfect mind, but it cannot even be perceived, investigated and comprehended without the greatest effort and activity of the mind. Does not the spring with its flowers, the summer with its harvests, the autumn with its ripe and pleasant fruits, and the winter full of olives point us to its Cause? And what foresight is visible in the fact that spring and autumn are given to us with their average temperature, so that winter does not torment us only with its cold, and summer does not scorch with its heat, and that the transitions from one time to another are imperceptible and insensitive! Look, how all plants get their life from the interior of the earth. Look at the ever churning ocean, those ever-flowing springs, those rivers that never stop flowing. Especially in the beauty of our image it is revealed that God is an artist: a direct position, a look directed upwards, eyes placed high, as if in a watchtower, and all other feelings, located as if in a fortification.
The recognition of Providence inevitably leads to the recognition of the unity of God. “When providence cannot be doubted, you must also investigate whether the Kingdom of Heaven is governed by the power of One or the arbitrariness of many. And this question is not difficult to understand when you think about the earthly kingdoms, which are images of the heavenly. Where did the reigns of many co-rulers begin with loyalty and end without bloodshed? Look further: one king of the bees, one leader of the sheep, one leader of the herd. Do you really think that in heaven the sovereignty is divided and the authority of this true and divine dominion is fragmented? In addition, the unity of God is affirmed by the very concept of God, God is “the father of all things. He himself is eternal. He called the non-existent into being by His Word, put it in order with His mind, completed it with His power, He cannot be seen, He is too majestic; It cannot be touched, It is too thin; He cannot be measured, He is beyond the senses, infinite, immeasurable, and in all His greatness known only to Himself; our heart is too tight for such knowledge. And look not for another name for God: God is His name.” The unity of God is finally confirmed by universal human consciousness. The common people are convinced of the unity of God when they use no other name than God and exclaim: "Great is God, God is true, if God pleases." Poets also glorify "the one Father of gods and men" (ch. 18). "Philosophers, although in different words, actually express the same idea," i.e. monotheism. (The teachings of Thales, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Pythagoras, Xenophanes, Antisthenes and many others are given). He is beyond the senses, infinite, immeasurable, and in all His greatness known only to Himself; our heart is too tight for such knowledge. And look not for another name for God: God is His name.” The unity of God is finally confirmed by universal human consciousness. The common people are convinced of the unity of God when they use no other name than God and exclaim: "Great is God, God is true, if God pleases." Poets also glorify "the one Father of gods and men" (ch. 18). "Philosophers, although in different words, actually express the same idea," i.e. monotheism. (The teachings of Thales, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Pythagoras, Xenophanes, Antisthenes and many others are given). He is beyond the senses, infinite, immeasurable, and in all His greatness known only to Himself; our heart is too tight for such knowledge. And look not for another name for God: God is His name.” The unity of God is finally confirmed by universal human consciousness. The common people are convinced of the unity of God when they use no other name than God and exclaim: "Great is God, God is true, if God pleases." Poets also glorify "the one Father of gods and men" (ch. 18). "Philosophers, although in different words, actually express the same idea," i.e. monotheism. (The teachings of Thales, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Pythagoras, Xenophanes, Antisthenes and many others are given). God is His name." The unity of God is finally confirmed by universal human consciousness. The common people are convinced of the unity of God when they use no other name than God and exclaim: "Great is God, God is true, if God pleases." Poets also glorify "the one Father of gods and men" (ch. 18). "Philosophers, although in different words, actually express the same idea," i.e. monotheism. (The teachings of Thales, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Pythagoras, Xenophanes, Antisthenes and many others are given). God is His name." The unity of God is finally confirmed by universal human consciousness. The common people are convinced of the unity of God when they use no other name than God and exclaim: "Great is God, God is true, if God pleases." Poets also glorify "the one Father of gods and men" (ch. 18). "Philosophers, although in different words, actually express the same idea," i.e. monotheism. (The teachings of Thales, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Pythagoras, Xenophanes, Antisthenes and many others are given). although in different words, they actually express one and the same thought”, i.e. monotheism. (The teachings of Thales, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Pythagoras, Xenophanes, Antisthenes and many others are given). although in different words, they actually express one and the same thought”, i.e. monotheism. (The teachings of Thales, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Pythagoras, Xenophanes, Antisthenes and many others are given).
Having proved the truth of monotheism with such weighty arguments, from which the reference to philosophers should be especially convincing for Caecilius, Octavius naturally proceeds to criticize pagan polytheism. Historically and factually, he proves the insignificance and absurdity of the religion that Caecilius so exalted in comparison with Christianity. Referring to the authoritative opinion for the pagans of their poets (Euhemerus, Prodicus and Perseus) and historians (Nepos, Cassius, Tallus and Diodorus), Octavius says that even the supreme deities of Greco-Roman mythology are nothing more than ordinary people, erected after their death helpful descendants to the degree of a deity. And in their new (divine) position, they retain the same qualities that they had on earth: they can grow old, die and are buried; experiencing the same feelings in heaven, what worries even ordinary mortals: they cry, rejoice, love, quarrel, reconcile; often they commit such deeds that are unforgivable even to moral people (ch. 20-23). Worst of all, the pagans not only revere such gods, but also bow down to their idols. Octavius describes with vivid colors how unworthy of a man is the worship of these soulless idols, the works of human hands. “And if anyone thought with what tortures, with what tools, every idol gets off, he would blush with shame that he is afraid of the substance that the artist trimmed to make a god. God wooden - from some cut or stake is chopped off, squeezed out, pulled out; and the silver or gold god is most often made from some unclean vessel, as was the case with the Egyptian king, forged with blacksmith hammers and given its shape on an anvil; and stone is hewn, hewn and made smooth by the hands of a dirty worker; such a god does not feel the baseness of his origin, just as he does not feel the honors given to him by your worship. If stone or wood or silver does not constitute a god, when does it become one? Here it is cast, trimmed and carved; it is not yet a god; he is soldered with lead, arranged and erected, and this is not yet a god; here they adorn him, pay respect to him and pray, - and he finally becomes a god when a person already wants and consecrates him ”(ch. 23). “And how do dumb animals appreciate your gods in their natural instinct? Mice, swallows, kites know that your gods do not feel; they gnaw on them, sit on them, and if you do not drive them away,
As for fortune-telling, predictions and prophetic dreams, on which Caecilius asserted the existence of pagan gods, Octavius first historically shows that not all predictions and dreams came true and not all good omens were accompanied by success, but bad ones by failure. So, for example, Paul Aemilius at Cannae suffered a terrible defeat, despite the fact that the chickens foreshadowed success. Caesar disregarded the fortune-telling that forbade him to go to Africa before winter, however, he easily swam and won. Amphiarius predicted what would happen after his death, but did not know that his wife would cheat on him for a necklace (while he was still alive). If predictions and fortune-telling were sometimes fulfilled, then Octavius sees in this the main root of wickedness and pagan seduction, since this was the work of evil demons. “There are,” he says, “deceitful, unclean spirits, falling from heavenly purity into the mire of earthly passions. These spirits have lost the purity of their nature, having defiled themselves with vices, and to console themselves in misfortune, the dead themselves do not stop destroying others, and those alienated from God strive to remove everyone from God, introducing false religions between people. Their existence is recognized by poets, magicians (Sosthenes), who perform their imaginary miracles with the help of them, and philosophers (Socrates and Plato) (ch. 26). These unclean spirits, demons, hide in statues and idols; they inspire soothsayers, dwell in temples, act on the entrails of animals, direct the flight of birds, utter divinations mixed with lies. They turn people away from heaven to earth and from God to matter. Instilling secretly into the bodies of people, like subtle spirits, they instill diseases in order to force people to revere them for what they satiated with the blood of the victims and the smell of their meat, they healed those whom they stopped harming. But these same spirits, who have such power over the pagans, openly confess their impotence when confronted with Christians. "Conjured by the name of the one true God, they immediately leave the bodies of those possessed by them." Not being able to openly harm the Christians who defeat them, they try to harm them secretly, inciting pagans against them so that, having recognized Christians, they would not imitate them, or at least not stop persecuting them ”(ch. 27).
Not without the participation of demons, a bad rumor about Christians was formed, which gave rise to accusations of their vices, crimes and the maintenance of a strange cult. Having reached this main point of his speech, Octavius further shows that the absurd rumors about Christians are explained either by ignorance of Christians, or by the fact that the pagans transfer their own vices, their objects of worship, to them. For example, a rumor about Christians worshiping a donkey's head could easily have arisen among pagans who honor Elona, the patroness of donkeys, honor Pan, who is a mixture of a man with a goat, Apis (bull) and other animals. In accusing Christians of honoring a criminal man, Octavius again sees such a judgment of the pagans, which is fully consistent with their view of religion. Themselves accustomed to the deification of people, especially emperors, they want to impose the same worship on Christians, not knowing that the Christ whom they revere was not only not a criminal, but also not a simple man, but God himself, who took the form of a man. Accusing Christians of slaughtering a baby, the pagans again judge by themselves, since they have an etching with the fruit of infanticide and the sacrifice of children. Nothing like this is found in Christian society. “As for us,” says Octavius, “we are not allowed to see homicides, or even hear about them; and we are so afraid of shedding human blood that we abstain even from the blood of animals that we use for food” (ch. 30). pagans again judge according to themselves, since they have etching with the fruit of infanticide and the sacrifice of children. Nothing like this is found in Christian society. “As for us,” says Octavius, “we are not allowed to see homicides, or even hear about them; and we are so afraid of shedding human blood that we abstain even from the blood of animals that we use for food” (ch. 30). pagans again judge according to themselves, since they have etching with the fruit of infanticide and the sacrifice of children. Nothing like this is found in Christian society. “As for us,” says Octavius, “we are not allowed to see homicides, or even hear about them; and we are so afraid of shedding human blood that we abstain even from the blood of animals that we use for food” (ch. 30).
The accusation of sexual licentiousness is even less reconciled with the moral society of Christians, while among the pagans themselves it reigns in full force. Pointing at the same time to the vile customs of the Persians and noting that the Egyptians and Athenians are allowed by law to marry sisters, Octavius continues: “Your stories and tragedies, which you read and listen to with pleasure, are rich in examples of incest, and the gods you worship are bloodsuckers. And we have chastity not only in the face, but also in the mind; we willingly remain in the bonds of marriage, but only with one woman, in order to have children. Our meetings are distinguished not only by chastity, but also by sobriety; on them we do not indulge in food, we do not delight the feast with wine; we temper the very gaiety with severity, chaste speech, and still more chaste movements of the body. Very many are distinguished by the everlasting virginity of their undefiled body and do not boast about it; finally, we are so far from incest that some are ashamed even of legal intercourse. We have mutual love among ourselves and call each other brothers, as children of one Father God, as accomplices of faith, as joint heirs of hope” (ch. 31).
Having refuted all the accusations of the pagans and turned them on themselves, Octavius proceeds to analyze and explain the Christian truths, which Caecilius touched upon in his speech. To the reproach of godlessness, based on the fact that Christians have neither temples nor altars, Octavius answers: “What temple will I build for Him (God) when this whole world, created by His might, cannot accommodate Him? Shall I bring to the Lord the sacrifices and the gift that He has made for my own benefit, in order to throw His own gift to Him? The sacrifice pleasing to Him is a good heart, a pure mind and a spotless conscience. Therefore, whoever honors innocence prays to God; whoever refrains from deceit, he propitiates God; whoever saves his neighbor from danger will slay the best victim.” Answering another reproach of Caecilius that Christians themselves do not see their God, and they cannot show Him to others, Octavius says: “The reason why we believe in God is that we do not see Him, but we can feel Him with our hearts. For in all His deeds, in all the manifestations of the world, we see His everlasting power, which is manifested in the peals of thunder, and in the brilliance of lightning, and in the clear silence of the sky. In the same way, His omniscience is not subject to doubt, because everything heavenly and earthly, and everything that is outside this visible world, everything is known to God, everything is full of His presence. He is everywhere and not only close to us, but also within us. We not only do everything in the eyes of God, but, so to speak, we live with Him” (ch. 32). which manifests itself in the peals of thunder, and in the brilliance of lightning, and in the clear silence of the sky. In the same way, His omniscience is not subject to doubt, because everything heavenly and earthly, and everything that is outside this visible world, everything is known to God, everything is full of His presence. He is everywhere and not only close to us, but also within us. We not only do everything in the eyes of God, but, so to speak, we live with Him” (ch. 32). which manifests itself in the peals of thunder, and in the brilliance of lightning, and in the clear silence of the sky. In the same way, His omniscience is not subject to doubt, because everything heavenly and earthly, and everything that is outside this visible world, everything is known to God, everything is full of His presence. He is everywhere and not only close to us, but also within us. We not only do everything in the eyes of God, but, so to speak, we live with Him” (ch. 32).
Should not, according to Octavius, confuse the pagans and the Christian teaching about the destruction of the world and the resurrection of the dead. The first assert and pagan philosophers - Stoics, Epicureans, Plato. “And it is not at all surprising if this bulk is destroyed by the One by whom it is arranged.” And regarding the resurrection of the dead, philosophers (Pythagoras and Plato) give a weak hint in the doctrine of the existence of souls after the death of a person, but the Christian teaching infinitely surpasses them both in its completeness and in its perfection. It teaches not only about the existence of souls, but also about the resurrection of the whole person and in the same body. “Indeed, who is so stupid and senseless that he dares to say that God, who could originally create man, cannot then recreate him? It is much more difficult to give life to that which did not exist than to renew that which that has already received it. Do you think that something disappears even for God, how quickly it is hidden from our weak eyes? Every body, whether it turns into dust or moisture, into ashes or steam, disappears for us, but God preserves its elements. See also how all nature, to our consolation, inspires the thought of a future resurrection. The sun sets and reappears; the stars hide and return again; flowers wither and bloom; trees bloom again after winter; seeds will not be reborn if they do not first rot, so the body for a while, like trees for the winter, hides the vital force under a deceptive appearance of death. The doubt of the pagans in the resurrection Octavius explains them by their fear of a posthumous judgment for their bad deeds (ch. 34). How soon is it hidden from our weak eyes? Every body, whether it turns into dust or moisture, into ashes or steam, disappears for us, but God preserves its elements. See also how all nature, to our consolation, inspires the thought of a future resurrection. The sun sets and reappears; the stars hide and return again; flowers wither and bloom; trees bloom again after winter; seeds will not be reborn if they do not first rot, so the body for a while, like trees for the winter, hides the vital force under a deceptive appearance of death. The doubt of the pagans in the resurrection Octavius explains them by their fear of a posthumous judgment for their bad deeds (ch. 34). How soon is it hidden from our weak eyes? Every body, whether it turns into dust or moisture, into ashes or steam, disappears for us, but God preserves its elements. See also how all nature, to our consolation, inspires the thought of a future resurrection. The sun sets and reappears; the stars hide and return again; flowers wither and bloom; trees bloom again after winter; seeds will not be reborn if they do not first rot, so the body for a while, like trees for the winter, hides the vital force under a deceptive appearance of death. The doubt of the pagans in the resurrection Octavius explains them by their fear of a posthumous judgment for their bad deeds (ch. 34). inspires the thought of a future resurrection. The sun sets and reappears; the stars hide and return again; flowers wither and bloom; trees bloom again after winter; seeds will not be reborn if they do not first rot, so the body for a while, like trees for the winter, hides the vital force under a deceptive appearance of death. The doubt of the pagans in the resurrection Octavius explains them by their fear of a posthumous judgment for their bad deeds (ch. 34). inspires the thought of a future resurrection. The sun sets and reappears; the stars hide and return again; flowers wither and bloom; trees bloom again after winter; seeds will not be reborn if they do not first rot, so the body for a while, like trees for the winter, hides the vital force under a deceptive appearance of death. The doubt of the pagans in the resurrection Octavius explains them by their fear of a posthumous judgment for their bad deeds (ch. 34).
Finally, Octavius turns to the reproaches of Caecilius regarding the plight of Christians, in which the pagan saw the weakness or injustice of the Christian God. “And the fact that we for the most part are considered poor is not a shame for us, but glory, because the soul, as it relaxes from luxury, is strengthened by moderation. And how can one be poor who does not have a lack, who does not thirst for someone else's, who is rich in God? Just as it is more convenient for a traveler to go, the less he has with him a load, so, on this life path, a person is happier who relieves himself through poverty and does not suffocate from the burden of wealth. But Christians endure not only poverty, but also all sorts of other shortcomings, hardships and misfortunes, also finding their own beneficial sides in this. “And that we feel the shortcomings of the body and endure them is not a punishment, but a proof of our warfare, for courage is strengthened by infirmities, and misfortune is often the school of virtue. Therefore, do not think that God is not strong enough to help us or forsake us, for He rules over everything and loves His own; but He puts every one to trial. Thus, we are tested by misfortunes, like gold by fire” (ch. 36). “What a beautiful sight for God when a Christian struggles with grief, when he stands firm against threats, torture and executions, when he laughs at the fear of death and is not afraid of the executioner, when he preserves his freedom before kings and lords and bows only before God, to whom it belongs; when he, like a triumphant conqueror, laughs even at the one who sentenced him to death!” Before such feats of Christians, the feats of pagan heroes (Muzio Scaevola and others) should fade. because among Christians “not only men, even youths and women, armed with patience in suffering, despise crosses, torture, animals and all the horrors of executions. And you don’t understand, unfortunate ones, that no one would want to put himself to death without a reason, no one could endure such torments without divine help. But perhaps you are deceived by the fact that even without knowing God, many abound in riches, enjoy honors, and have power? Unhappy! Can there be happiness without the knowledge of God, when, like a dream, this happiness flies away before it is seized? Octavius then lists several types of earthly happiness - power, wealth, nobility of the family, but finds that such happiness is fragile, fleeting. The only happiness lies in virtue, and it is precisely this that belongs to Christians. She serves as a scale for them, by which their actions are measured. Therefore, they rightly abhor immoral pagan spectacles and do not eat sacrificial meat. They consider it useless to decorate themselves with wreaths, since flowers are created for smelling, and not for wearing on the head. It is even more useless to lay wreaths on the dead who do not feel anything. Christians are looking for only unfading wreaths, given by God for their patience (ch. 37-38).
The evidence of Octavius, reinforced by references to philosophers authoritative for Caecilius, and his convinced tone had such an effect on Caecilius that he had to confess his error. He said: "We both won, and I justly attribute victory to myself, for Octavius defeated me, and I won victory over my error" (ch. 40).
The result of this conversation was the conversion of Caecilius to Christianity, and recent opponents, now like-minded, returned home in joy.
================================
