The first heresies. Heresies and sects of the first three centuries of Christianity

The history of heresies, their ideological and social essence

“Heresy” in Christianity was a direction of thought that denies a certain doctrinal position of the Catholic faith (dogma), deviation from the teachings of the church, which is “the pillar and foundation of the Truth,” deviation from orthodoxy. In the latter sense, the term "heresy" is used in modern culture and in non-Christian contexts. Those who are heretical are characterized by a shade of proud assimilation to their personal, subjective opinion of the meaning of absolute, objective truth and the resulting desire for self-exaltation and isolation.

The word “heresy” itself is of Greek origin (hairesis) and originally meant selection, choice. In the language of church dogma, heresy means a conscious and deliberate deviation from the clearly expressed dogma of the Christian faith and, at the same time, the separation of a new society from the church.

According to Martin Luther, “heresy is also a spiritual substance that cannot be broken with iron, burned with fire, or drowned.” Somehow the Church tried to do this, trying to eradicate heresies.

However, if you try to understand the essence of the concept of “heresy,” then it becomes obvious that heresy is mainly a form of free thought. Any free-thinking in religion presupposes some kind of special attitude towards God. There are usually three possible relationships to God:

Firstly: complete confidence that God exists is the believer. Secondly: doubt about whether God exists - agnostics ("ignorant"). Thirdly: absolute certainty that there is no God - atheists.

The main historical formulas of free thought are skepticism, anti-clericalism, indifferentism, nihilism, pantheism, deism, atheism. The latter is the ultimate version of so-called freethinking and the opposite of theism. Freethinking means freethinking, denial of the church dispensation, and advocacy of the complete incompatibility of reason and faith.

In the Middle Ages, the spreaders of free thought were heresies. However, this does not mean that heretics were atheists, since at that time theological ideas were the only and absolute. The worldview of medieval man was religious and remained so, even if the person became a heretic.

The characteristics of the term “heresy” are not exhausted and cannot be reduced only to the deep and multifaceted concept of free thought. There are many more shades that have matured evolutionarily over time. Thus used by Christian authors in relation to Gnostic teachings, the term “heresy” is then extended to any concept that deviates from orthodoxy. Another meaning of this term is the designation of philosophical directions and schools. In this sense, Diogenes Laertius speaks of the “heresy of the Academicians.” Since the time of Gnosticism, heresy began to be defined as something low, unworthy, in the modern sense of the word.

In this regard, heresy should be distinguished:

1). From schism, which also means separation from the composition of the church community of believers, but due to non-submission to a given hierarchical authority due to disagreement, real or imaginary, in ritual teaching.

2). From unintentional errors in dogmatic teaching that occurred due to the fact that this or that issue was not foreseen and resolved by the church itself at the time. Such erroneous opinions are often found, moreover, among many authoritative teachers and even the Fathers of the Church (for example, Dionysius of Alexandria, especially Origen) in the first three centuries of Christianity, when there was great freedom of opinion in the field of theology, and the truths of church teaching were not yet formulated in the symbols and detailed statements of faith of ecumenical and local councils.

The concepts of “heresy” and “sect” should also be distinguished. The difference between them is that the first word denotes not so much the totality of persons who follow a well-known teaching, but rather the content of the teaching itself. Therefore, we can say: “the Aryan sect consisted of such and such persons” and “the Arian sect taught that the Son of God was created”, and on the other hand: “the Aryan heresy consisted in recognizing the Son of God as a creature”, “the Arian heresy followed or adhered to such- then faces."

The specified distinction between terms was established, and even then not entirely firmly, only in modern times (after the Reformation) and from here transferred to the most ancient eras, when the words “sect” and “heresy” were used completely as synonyms. The same circumstance gave the word “sect” another secondary connotation, in comparison with the concept and word “heresy”. The fact is that the main heresies from the 1st to the 7th centuries began not with the denial of church teaching and authority, but with attempts to clarify and formulate some point of teaching that had not yet been cast into a solid dogmatic formula. The initiators of these heresies did not recognize themselves in opposition to the continuous church tradition, but, on the contrary, considered themselves its exponents and successors. Having been subjected to a conciliar trial and condemnation, they and their followers either submitted to this court or broke off communion with the church. At the same time, having already placed their thought above the thought of the church in one point of teaching, the further they went, the more boldly they renounced church authority, both in the development of their just condemned dogma, and then in other points that had long been formulated by the church.

Meanwhile, the free thinkers of later times, especially since the Reformation, dealt with already thoroughly developed, formed and properly authorized church teaching, and dealt with this teaching as a whole and in its fundamentals, and not on any point. Thus, they found themselves in relation to him directly in a position in which ancient heresies came only in their second stage. Therefore, the word sect, applied primarily to communities of different views with the church of the Middle Ages and even more recent times, can most conveniently be applied to other heresies precisely at the second stage of their development - that is, to those sects into which they were split up after being separated from the church. So, for example, they rarely talk about the Monophysite sect (although this word usage cannot be called incorrect), but they constantly talk about the Monophysite sects (phthartolatras, agnoetes, kolianists, severians, etc.). For the same reason, in general, the word sect is usually associated with the idea of ​​a community that is sharply at odds with the church, rather than with the concept of heresy and heretical community.

However, in the literature devoted to heresies, as a rule, both terms are used, since they are in a single semantic connection. As an example, we can recall the definition of the word “heresy” that Hobbes gave him: “heresy is a Greek word denoting the teaching of a sect. A sect is a group of people who follow one teacher in science, chosen by them at their own discretion. The sect is called that from the verb “to follow" (sequi), heresy - from the verb “to choose" (eligere). Hobbes also believed that the words “truth” and “error” have absolutely no meaning in defining heresy: “after all, heresy means only the judgment expressed, whether it is right or false, whether it is legal or contrary to the law."

However, in the religious sphere, heresy as a choice is considered reprehensible. This term emphasizes the subjectivity, the vicissitudes of a teaching chosen in difference, and sometimes for the sake of difference from others. Already in the 2nd century, the work of Irenaeus of Lyons “Against Heresies” appeared, somewhat later the work of Tertullian “On the Proscription (against) Heretics.” The fight against heresies has become the main task of the denunciatory activities of church ideologists since the 4th century.

Lactantius compared heresies to puddles and swamps without a channel. He tried to explain the reasons for heresies. This is unsteadiness in faith, insufficient knowledge of Scripture, lust for power, inability to object to the enemies of Christianity, deception by false prophets. The concept of “heresy” during this period and a millennium later will most often include atheism. Heresy turns out to be a limitation of completeness, an excessive exaggeration of a particular situation to the extent of the general and exclusive, the arbitrary selection of one thing, a part instead of the whole, i.e. one-sidedness.

Regardless of how heresies arose, three types can be distinguished. First, there are direct heresies - statements that are in the same context and make judgments about one subject that contradict dogma. Secondly, there are “lost” heresies - when for some reason a certain judgment in itself, either correct or religiously indifferent, falls out of its context and is brought into the theological context. The third type is “arithmetic heresies”, which distinguish particular truth, but militantly do not want to see something more. Here the part is taken as the whole.

If we take into account the ideological basis of heresies, then all heretical movements can be divided into two types:

1. anti-Trinitarian - teachings that unorthodoxly interpret the problem of the relationship between the three hypostases of the Trinity.

2. Christological - teachings interpreting the relationship between the divine and human principles in Jesus Christ.

However, as noted above, this is a conditional division and in their original ideological basis, in addition to anti-trinitarianism and Christologism, one can more accurately distinguish dualism (Paulicianism, Bogomilism, Albigensian heresy, etc.), mystical pantheism (Almaricans), mystical chiliasm (Johamites) and others. The range of ideas, as we see, was very wide. The free-thinking of some thinkers led them in their own reasoning to the recognition of the eternity and uncreatedness of matter (David Diansky), the eternity of the world (Theodosius Kosoy). On the basis of these principles, the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, Christ, incarnation, atonement, salvation, and sinfulness was denied. Cultural sacraments, the “holiness” of the church, monasticism, the institution of the clergy were rejected, the earthly world was declared the kingdom of evil, the devil, the Antichrist.

Interestingly, attempts to classify heretics were made already in the Middle Ages. Medieval sources indicate that there are “very many...categories of heretics.” But the two most important ones stand out. The first category is those “who believe, but their beliefs are at odds with genuine faith.” The second category is those “who do not believe at all, very wicked people who think that the soul dies with the body and that neither for the good nor for the evil that a person does in this world, he will receive neither reward nor punishment.”

Heresies can be traced in the history of Christianity, starting from the first steps of this religion. There has been disorder and deviation from the apostolic tradition in Christian communities from the beginning.

The concept of heresy appears in the later books of the New Testament. Why did the church fathers insist that heresies could not arise before the true teaching, which warned of their occurrence and advised to avoid them. “It was said to the church: “If an angel from heaven preached to you any gospel other than what we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8).” The second letter of Peter says: “But there were also false prophets, so now false teachers will appear among you. They will secretly instill all kinds of heresies that lead to destruction.” The Apocalypse directly mentions the heresies of the “Nicolaitans”: “however, you are doing the right thing in hating the works of the Nicolaitans, I also hate this teaching.” The Apostle Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, condemns heretics who reject Sunday or question it: this was the error of the Sadducees, accepted in part by Marcion, Valentinus, Apelles and others, who rejected the resurrection of the body.

Attempts to explain the reasons for the emergence of heresies were also made from the beginning. But these explanations were quite in the spirit of that time and generally boiled down to the verbal formula of the fanatical apologist of Christianity, Quintus Septimius Florence Tertullian: “If anyone wanted to ask who incites and inspires heresies, I would answer: the devil, who makes it his duty to pervert the truth and tries in every possible way to imitate the holy rites of the Christian religion in the mysteries of false gods.”

Using a scientific approach, we can identify the following reasons for the emergence of early Christian heresies:

1). The reluctance of Jews and pagans, as well as followers of Eastern dualism who converted to Christianity, to finally part with their previous religious and philosophical worldview and the desire to compile old doctrines with new Christian ones into one whole. The mixing of Eastern dualism with Christianity produced Manichaeism, the heresy of Vardesan, Montanism, Messalianism and many other sects, which existed in a slightly changed form even in modern European history (Waldensians, Bogomils, etc.). From the mixture of ancient Judaism with Christianity, the earliest sects arose, with which the apostles and church fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries fought. V.; From the desire to compile into one whole the most abstract doctrines of Christianity (the doctrine of God the Word) with the doctrine of the Logos of the Platonists and Neoplatonists, the rationalistic heresies of the 3rd and 4th centuries (monarchians, subordinationists) originated.

2). The desire of stronger minds to put Christian teaching, given as revelation, on the same level with the philosophical and dialectical methods of the latter. These teachers had a good intention, but by the very nature of things it was impossible to fulfill; it led to rationalism, which was the basis for the most powerful heresy of the early Middle Ages - Arianism with its varieties.

The arrogance and conceit of the philosophers who lived in the time of the apostles were the cause of heresies in the early church and, according to Hobbes. “They were able to reason more subtly than other people, and more convincingly. Having converted to Christianity, they almost inevitably found themselves elected presbyters and bishops in order to defend and spread the faith. But even having become Christians, they, as far as possible, preserved the teachings of their pagan mentors and therefore they tried to interpret the Holy Scriptures, wanting to preserve the unity of their philosophy and the Christian faith." “In the early church, right up to the Council of Nicea, most of the dogmas that caused controversy among Christians concerned the doctrine of the Trinity, the mystery of which, although recognized by all as unknowable, many philosophers tried to explain, each in their own way, relying on the teaching of their mentors. From here they first arose disputes, then quarrels and, finally, in order to avoid indignation and restore peace, councils were convened, not at the direction of the rulers, but at the voluntary desire of bishops and pastors. This became possible when the persecution of Christians ceased. At these councils they determined how should resolve the issue of faith in controversial cases. What was accepted by the council was considered the Catholic faith, what was condemned was heresy. After all, the council in relation to the bishop or pastor was the Catholic Church, i.e. comprehensive, or universal, as in general their opinion (opinio); the separate opinion of any priest was considered heresy. This is where the name of the Catholic Church comes from, and in every church Catholic and heretic are correlative names."

3). The original theology of Christian teachers on the basis of Holy Scripture and the pure principles of reason, devoid of the guiding principles legitimized by the church - church tradition and the general voice of the Universal Church.

In addition to the indicated three categories of teachings - heresies, schisms, unintentional mistakes of church teachers, outside the symbolic, universally binding teachings of the church for all Christians there are also the so-called. private, or personal opinions of church teachers and church fathers on various detailed issues of Christian teaching, which the church does not authorize in its name, but does not deny.

However, it should be recognized that the above, with all its validity, is not able to explain why purely dogmatic disagreements with church teaching resulted in powerful mass movements, if we leave aside the social background of such a phenomenon as heretical movements. The march of Christianity was accompanied by a fierce class struggle, which was waged within Christian organizations, the exploitation of the masses of believers by the church hierarchy, later with bishops at the head, and bloody methods of suppressing protest against the churchmen, who were becoming already in the 3rd century. major political force. However, even staying on the basis of theological sources, one can trace from the 2nd and 3rd centuries a continuous line of class struggle of the masses, already intoxicated by Christianity, clothed in the religious form of heresy, among other things, in an attempt to reorganize the church, to return it to its “original simplicity.”

It was this simplicity that most often attracted large masses of people to sects and made the ideas of heresiarch teachers popular. Tertullian, describing the behavior of heretics, notes how “frivolous, worldly, ordinary” it is. “It is unknown who their catechumen is, who is faithful. ... Since they differ from each other in their beliefs, they don’t care, everything is suitable for them, as long as more people join them in order to triumph over the true.” The simplicity of the internal structure of heretical sects, the simplicity of the relationships between heretics are the main reasons for the popularity of sects, with the exception of those that were distinguished by strict asceticism, which proves the correctness of the above. In addition, within a heretical organization it was possible to quickly rise in rank: “nowhere do people rise in rank so quickly as in crowds of rebels” and this is regardless of social status, “which is why they have no or imperceptible strife.”

The early Christian period is characterized by an abundance of heresies. Celsus already mentions a number of heresies of pneumatics, psychics, sibilists and others: “Some declare themselves Gnostics... some, recognizing Jesus, want to live with him according to the law of the Jews (Ebionites).” Celsus also mentions the Marcionites, led by Marcion. Jerome, in his letter to Augustine, writes that there is a heresy among the Jews, which is called the Minaean; "They are usually called Nazarenes." In addition, we can list the following heresies of the first period: Cerinthianism, Elkesianism, Docetism, Manichaeism, Montanism, Chiliasm. In the doctrine of the Trinity, triadological heresies arose, such as Monarchianism, Arianism, the heresies of the Eunomians, Anomeans, Eudoxians, Semi-Arians or Doukhobors, Sabellians, Fokinians, Apolinarians, etc.

Many of these heresies were greatly influenced by Gnosticism. Initially, it was the Gnostics who were called heretics. Although it is hardly legitimate to consider Gnosticism a Christian teaching, it is the most important chapter in the history of heresies. The teachings of philosophical schools had a great influence on people's religious ideas. No wonder Tertullian noted that “philosophers and heretics talk about the same subjects, confuse themselves with the same questions.”

However, one should not think that Gnosticism was a reaction of the ancient world to an already emerging, completely new phenomenon (Christianity) - this is exactly the point of view on Gnosticism that existed in the first centuries of Christian apologetics (for example, in Clement of Alexandria) and to which European, and Russian science in the last century. After the discovery of the Gnostic library in Nag Hammadi (Egypt), it became clear that the Gnostic worldview has a more independent meaning. Although the first Gnostic is traditionally considered to be a contemporary of the apostles, Simon Magus, there is no doubt that the origins of Gnosticism historically lie in the same place as the origins of Christianity: in Palestine, or more precisely, in Judaism at the time of the Nativity of Christ. Proto-Gnosticism had Jewish roots. And if Judaism itself, after the events of the 1st-2nd centuries, after the bloody uprisings against Roman rule, closed and returned to the state of a tribal religion, then Christianity and Gnosticism turned out to be widespread precisely because of the idea of ​​​​the supra-tribal nature of the revelation of the Divine. The mimicry of Gnosticism under Christianity began only in the 2nd century, but in the same way at this time Gnosticism took on certain aspects of ancient philosophizing, Egyptian religion and Zoroastrianism. In this century, the line between Gnosticism and Christianity is thin, sometimes to the point of elusiveness. We can recall, for example, that the catalyst for the process of collecting the New Testament was the Gnostic Marcion (or rather a Christian - a “Paulist”, that is, who recognized the exclusive authority of the Apostle Paul). Christianity self-defined itself in a dogmatic and ecclesiastical sense precisely during the polemics of the 2nd century, and accepted some ideas first expressed by the Gnostics.

Gnostic philosophizing arose very early, went alongside the victories of the Christian doctrine itself, and, already under the emperor Hadrian, in the theory of Saturninus, a student of Menander, managed to take shape in distinct forms. An unbroken tradition connects the first Gnostics - Euphrates, Simon, Menander, Cerinthos and especially the Syrian school of Saturninus, Cerdon, Marcion, the Egyptian Basilides - with those Cathars against whom Rome rose up in an uncompromising war in the 13th century. Basilides explains the afterlife in the same way as some Albigensians explained it: good souls return to God, evil ones move into lower creatures, and bodies turn into primeval matter. Other Gnostics add to this a whole independent cosmogony, which could not but have a direct influence on the history of later sectarianism.

In the era contemporary with the development of Gnosticism, as many other independent theories appeared as no century had produced either before or since. The number of heresies increased in a surprising way. Some church writers of the first centuries of Christianity are exclusively engaged in the study of heresies; they count a huge number of mystical and ritual Christian sects. Jerome knows at least forty-five of them, but Augustine already counts eighty-eight, Predestinus - ninety, and Philastrius, a writer of the late 4th century who lived in the Arian era, finds it possible to indicate more than one hundred and fifty. Isidore, Bishop of Seville, one of the authoritative witnesses, numbers in the 7th century about seventy sects, most of which date back to the first centuries, and notes that “there are others without founders and without names.”

In the era of the emergence of Christianity, there were the most diverse societies, sects, interpreting every church dogma in every possible way, following the most opposite rules of life. Many of them were distinguished by strangeness, ignorance, and superstition. The anthropomorphites gave the Supreme Being human members; Artotirits (i.e. “bread eaters”), following the example of the first people, ate exclusively bread and cheese, as “fruits of the earth and herds”; the Adamites, following the same instruction, went naked, both men and women; The Nicolaitans (one of the oldest sects, as can be seen from the Apocalypse of John; they taught their teachings from Deacon Nicholas - one of the deacons appointed by the apostles) indulged in extreme debauchery, following the example of the leader who offered his wife to every community, etc. some sects were distinguished by their bizarre mythology. Like, for example, the followers of a certain Cerinthus, who taught that the world was created not by the first god, but by a power that is far removed from this superior first principle and knows nothing about the supreme god. In relation to God, the heresy of the Ebionites is very close to this heresy. But most of these sects were dominated by teachings that contained the dualistic element of later Catharism.

A sect existed under this name back in the first century of Christianity, although its system has come down to us vaguely and fragmentarily. The Cathars (kataros - Greek “pure”; Latin - “Puritan”) of the time of St. Augustine called themselves this because of the purity of life that they preached . They rebelled against fornication, marriage, and denied the need for repentance. By the name of Novatus, who rebelled against rebaptism and the acceptance of apostates, whose teaching the first Cathars represented something similar, they were often called Novatians (representatives of the extreme wing of the Christian clergy who, after the persecution of Emperor Decius in 251, objected to the return to the church of people who had washed away their baptism) and mixed with these latter. But from the words of the sources it is not clear that the Cathars of that time followed the foundations of the system of Albigensian dualism. It is believed that these first Cathars either disappeared in the 4th century or merged with the Donatists (the Donatist movement (on behalf of the Carthaginian bishop Donatus) arose in 311 under slogans similar to those of the Novatians). However, scattered elements of later Albigensianism can be traced in a variety of Gnostic and other sects of an era contemporary both with the age of the pagan emperors and with the age of Isidore of Seville.

Beliefs in the struggle between good and evil principles, eastern cosmogony and at the same time abstinence were far from rare phenomena in the systems of that time.

We have already noted the general foundations of Gnosticism. They were held in all the branches of this vast system, in all the creations of its followers, who laid the foundation for their own theories. Each of them brought with him some new concept, which together served as material for later thought. The Menanderites, Basilides, Cerdonians, Marcionites and other Gnostics, as well as the Archons, did not recognize the world as the creation of God (they separated God the Creator and the Archon who ruled the created world). Valentine considered Christ to have passed through the Holy Virgin and undefiled - as water passes through a canal; while Carpocrates and Paul of Samosata, on the contrary, developed a theory about the humanity of Christ.

Christians of the first centuries were worried about the same idea that the dualists of the 12th and 13th centuries struggled to resolve and because of which they aroused so much self-loathing among their Catholic contemporaries. Thus, from the many fermenting ideas, under the direct influence of the Gnostics, the teachings of the Manichaeans, Priscillians, Arians, Paulicians and later the Bulgarian Bogomils were compiled successively - those sects that, with more or less probability, are recognized by various authoritative scientists as the direct ancestors of the later Albigensians of the dualistic or, as we call it, the eastern direction.

The root of the listed teachings lies in the steppes of Central Asia and Mani.

Manichaeism is still not sufficiently studied and assessed. It captivated the minds and hearts of people to a much greater extent than a superficial acquaintance with its exotic mythology suggests, and left a more significant sediment in the religious thinking of Christian humanity than is usually admitted. The founder of Manichaeism was the Persian Mani, born in the first quarter of the 3rd century. at Ctesiphon. He drew his ideas from the Mogtazila sect - baptizers, related to the Mangeans, and Elkesiasts and others, as well as from Marcionism, in the system of Basilides. Mani's heresy attracted people with its rationalism, manifested in radical dualism. Manichaeism impressed ordinary Christians with its asceticism and abstinence. However, this is precisely what did not allow the broad masses to be conquered. To a much greater extent, people were attracted by the anti-state nature of heresies, which allowed them to express their social protest.

Mani considered himself called upon to explain what had hitherto been interpreted so differently. He carefully studied the cabalist Scythian, who lived under the apostles and was inclined towards Gnosticism. The teachings of Zoroaster could not fully satisfy Mani, who preferred the beliefs of the more ancient magicians.

Mani's ideas were characterized by pantheism, which was also characteristic of all Gnostic sects. He said that not only is the cause and purpose of all existence in God, but in the same way God is present everywhere. All souls are equal to each other, and God is present in all of them, and such spirituality is characteristic not only of people, but also of animals, even plants are not without it. Everywhere on earth one cannot help but see the predominance of either good or evil; reconciliation is a fiction, it does not exist in reality. Good and evil beings are hostile from the very day of their creation. This hostility is eternal, just as the continuity of the creatures inhabiting the world is eternal. Since there is nothing in common in good and evil phenomena, physical and spiritual, they must come from two different roots, be the creation of two deities, two great spirits: good and evil, God himself and Satan, his enemy. Each of them has their own World, both of them are internally independent, eternal and enemies among themselves, enemies by their very nature.

For Mani, his Satan is the immediate state of matter. Everything is evil in it, and a person shackled by it, only through victory over it, feats of self-mortification, suppression of passions, feelings, love and hatred, receives hope of liberation from the kingdom of evil. In any case, the God of light must be higher than the God of darkness, and an innate ethical sense suggested to the creator of the system the victory of the former over the latter.

The Manichaeans paid great attention to the moral purity of man. The high calling of man is moral purity, which is why the Manichaeans sometimes called themselves Cathars, that is, pure. The earth, the visible world created by God through the life-giving spirit, was supposed to serve as an arena for the spiritual exploits of the first people, a witness to their struggle with the body. This interpretation was believed by the “uninitiated listeners,” as they were called in the community; the chosen ones rose to the ideal contemplation of objects. (The Albigensians also had a similar division.) The chosen or perfect were also offered a more severe practical code of morality, similar to the rules of the Syrian Gnostics and their harsh way of life. Purification, liberation from earthly attachments, purity and holiness are the goal of existence.

Mani also developed a wonderful doctrine about the soul. Mani did not accept the resurrection of the dead and adhered to the views of dualism. However, he introduced into his teaching much that directly belonged to Christianity. Twelve apostles and seventy-two bishops preached with him; he had elders and deacons for religious service in various places.

Thus were created Manichaean theology and the Church, or, better, the Manichaean philosophical system. The limits of its distribution were extensive; it appeared with amazing speed in the East and West. A new, Manichaean house of prayer was erected next to the Christian one, and this was at a time when the Christian religion itself had not yet received the right to be called a state religion. The ecclesiastical appearance and orthodox practices contributed to the spread of Manichaeism. Like the Albigensians, the Manichaeans skillfully knew how to take advantage of the character of the new adepts, their zeal for ritual, for the letter. At first, they made concessions, winning Catholics over to their side with gospel texts, which they then began to reinterpret allegorically. Being philosophers by conviction, they did not renounce Baptism, but brought it to a simple ritual and recalled the words of the Savior: “Whoever drinks this water will thirst again; And whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never thirst; but The water that I will give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into eternal life" (Gospel of John 4:13-14). By Communion they meant the Gospel concept of spiritual bread.

The founder of the sect died as a martyr in 274 at the hands of the Persian king, condemned by a council of Zoroastrian priests who opposed the spread of Manichaeism. For later generations, Mani became a legend. For his followers he was either Zoroaster or Buddha,

then Mithras, then finally Christ. As we shall see, it will be difficult to define limits to the influence of his thoughts. The power of his spirit is manifested all the more decisively, all the more remarkable, because his system was the fruit of only personal, and exclusively his, reflections. Dualism was modified and developed in different eras as a result of independent creativity, but in its first and most influential Manichaean form it was the work of one mind. The gnosis of the Syrian school gave Mani special authority in the East, establishing in the West in the next, fourth century, the dualism of his student, Priscillian.

The Montanist heresy, which arose in the second half of the 2nd century, became widespread. Its founders were Montanus, his closest successors were Priscilla and Maximilla (Phrygian women). Those Christian movements, among which the main line of historical development of the church was developed, waged a long and stubborn war with the Montanists, who were partly supported by such a significant figure as Tertullian. The heresy was also called kataphrigian because it originated in Phrygia. Like many heretics, Montanists in their views hardly deviate from the doctrines of the church. "They accept the prophet and the law, they confess the father and the son and the spirit, they expect the resurrection of the flesh, as the church preaches; but they also preach some of their prophets, that is, Montana, Priscilla and Maximilla." But the Catafrigians differed from the Orthodox Church in one position of faith: following Savely, they “squeezed” the Trinity into one person, and also did not observe traditional rituals and church hierarchy. However, even small differences were enough to cause the church to take up arms against Montanus's heresy.

Catholics complained against them for a parody of the holy sacrament at Baptism and Communion, where they uttered some incomprehensible, mystical words, like the Gnostics, and also that they allowed women to participate in the public education system, which was strictly prohibited by the councils. In general, the heretics in this age of decay of the Western Empire represented a more educated society, stronger in their moral strength. The best minds of the time often turned to them. Many rhetoricians, poets, scientists, very famous women and, finally, priests and bishops belonged to this sect, which shone with the talents and eloquence of its founders. This doctrine was widespread in Spain and Gaul; Aquitaine and the province of Narbonne soon became the center of the Priscillian heresy. Actually, the Manichaeans could not have retained such a number of followers because they did not represent the Christian Church in the strict sense of the word.

Emperor Maximus, yielding to the insistence of Saint Martin, himself executed the Priscillians and ordered that heretics be executed everywhere in case of resistance.

These were the first councils against heretics. For the dreamers and utopians in religion of that time, who looked at the theological dispute as an exclusively philosophical question, such administrative and ecclesiastical persecution was unexpected. But this news served as an example that began to be imitated too often. Due to persecution, heretics hastened to unite into stronger and more friendly societies. The sect accepted the mystery of the rituals and became inaccessible to the uninitiated, attracting the latter all the more temptingly. Until the middle of the 6th century it maintained itself as a separate and strong denomination, and only the Council of Braga dealt a decisive blow to its existence. But, nevertheless, the ideas of the Priscillians, so happily sown, found support in the skepticism of the Languedoc people's character. These ideas did not disappear, but, enriched with new material, grew the future, much stronger opposition of the Albigensians.

Around the same time, similar views of the Paulicians were brought from the East to the same Languedoc - a sect related to Syrian Gnosticism, of the same Greek origin, with the same Neoplatonic principles, but which lost much of the Manichaean traditions. To be specific, Paulicianism arose in Armenia in the middle of the 7th century. Apparently named after the Apostle Paul, it may have a genetic connection with the Paulist churches of the 1st-2nd centuries. The founder of the movement is the Armenian Konstantin Silvan.

The Provencal Paulicians even cursed the memory of the famous heresiarchs of antiquity; they anathematized Scythian, Buddha and Mani himself. In Gaul they were called publicans. They agreed with the Manichaeans only in the concept of dualism and the struggle of principles, rejecting, like the future Waldenses, any external cult, giving Baptism and Communion only a ritual meaning by uttering certain words. They had no hierarchy, no trace of church organization, just as the Waldensians would have none. Like the latter, they recognized marriage and did not reject meat. Actually, the Paulician system should be looked at as nothing other than the concession that Asian dualism made to European rationalism in Christianity, as a prototype of the future reformers of the 12th century, who vaguely wavered in matters of faith and balanced between rationalism and Christian theology.

Therefore, if the Paulicians occupy a place in the general history of the Albigensians, it would be a cruel mistake to produce from them dualists of the Albigensians (Cathars), although this is done even by such representative authorities as Bossuet, Riccini, Muratori, Mosheim, Gibbon, and finally, some historians of the heresies of modern times. time, such as Gan, the Russian Doukhobor researcher Novitsky and the Englishman Maitland.

In terms of dogmatics, the late Cathars had as much in common with the Paulicians as the Massilians (from Massilia, Marseilles), these “semi-Pelagians”, so named because they were the exclusive property of Provence, where they appeared at the end of the 4th century with dogma developed by Pelagius’s student Cassian and supported by the priests of Marseilles and several bishops of Aquitaine. Completely alien to dualism, the Massilians stood on Catholic soil and brought only their own view of grace, the necessity of which, if they did not completely reject it, then, in any case, gave it a secondary importance that assists the believer. Only the Pelagians themselves were reproached for Manichaean rituals. The councils of Arles and Lyon (475) armed themselves against the Massilians, and the Council of Arabia in 529 placed a curse on them.

But the most remarkable heretic who shook the church was Arius. He denied the identity, consubstantiality of God the Father and God the Son; the son did not exist before birth, cannot be original: the creation cannot be equal to the creator. Essentially, Arius stood on that monarchist position, which had already been recognized as a heresy and condemned. In a thin, barely noticeable stream, Manichaeism flows into Arianism, and Eastern philosophy, pursued by the founder of this most extensive of heresies, nevertheless often serves as material for the systematic constructions of Arius. In Arius, finally, the words “Logos”, “Sophia” are found; he has God the Son - almost a demiurge who created the first people together with the Spirit, who later assisted him in matters of creation. The subtleties and difficulties of the system, the lack of clarity and precision, especially in the definition of the substance of the Son, are the same signs of Gnosticism; these parties especially contributed to the fall of heresy.

Arius vigorously promoted his doctrine. As a result, the movement penetrated deep into society. This was also facilitated by the fact that at that time the confrontation between the Eastern and Western churches was clearly visible. The inability to clearly identify dogmatists was to the advantage of the Arians, their absolute triumph. “A difficult time came,” wrote Jerome, “when the whole world professed Arianism.”

The triumph of Arianism was put to an end by the Council in Constantinople in 381, which approved only the belief in the “consubstantial”. However, Arianism made itself felt for a long time. Having great influence on European states, it stubbornly held on there, largely due to the simplicity of its provisions. The Ostrogoths remained Arians until 553, the Visigoths of Spain until the Council of Toledo in 589; the Vandals until 533, when they were broken by Belisarius; The Burgundians were Arians before they joined the kingdom of the Franks in 534, the Lombards - until the middle of the 7th century.

When considering Arianism, its connection with the Albigensian Cathars becomes undeniable. To a contemporary of the Albigensian War, the English chronicler Roger Goveden, the Provençal heretics were directly presented as descendants of the Arians. This is how they seemed to the famous author of Arian church history, Christopher Sand.

But if a Gnostic element is hidden in the teachings of Arius, then it is not to such an extent that without much of a stretch he could create the absolute dualism that characterizes the main branch of the Cathars, and so that it would be possible to find any tradition other than an indirect one, that is, one that past events influence the formation of religious and philosophical systems. In this sense, Arianism noticeably influenced the Albigensian heretics, although the Arians, as individual sectarians, did not exist within the Languedoc in the 13th century.

Thus, Arianism cannot be considered a random outbreak. There were a lot of general conditions that prepared and supported it. The colossal energy that the church spent in the first centuries on the fight against the state was now released and went to internal self-organization. Everything unspoken, suppressed by the threat of external danger, broke free and required clarification and formulation. Nowhere does this revival reach such a high level as in the field of dogmatic activity.

The strengthening of the church in the West, especially after the adoption of Christianity according to the rite of the Roman church by King Clovis, strengthened the union of the altar and the throne and subordinated the masses to the ruling class.

The growth of the economic and political power of the church was accompanied by an increase in the moral laxity of the clergy, who justified themselves by the “weakness of human nature” before the irresistible force of sin. Thus, already in the 5th century, the monk Pelagius, outraged by the Roman clergy, denied the church’s teaching about original sin. He said that there is no “invincible sin”: if it is a matter of necessity, then it is not a sin; if the commission of a sin depends on the human will, it can be avoided: the person himself is saved, just as he himself sins." Pelagius is echoed by Celestius. In 412, their teaching was recognized as heretical.

In the East, the masses also experienced state oppression, only this time of an entire empire. This resulted in discontent taking religious forms. Christological heresies became widespread. Of these, Monophysitism stands out, a heresy founded by Archimandrite Eutyches or Eutychos, supported by the Alexandrian Patriarch Dioscorus and condemned by the church at the Council of Chalcedon (Fourth Ecumenical) Council in 451.

The essence of Monophysitism is the assertion that Christ, although born from two natures or natures, does not dwell in two, since in the act of incarnation, in an ineffable way, two became one, and human nature, perceived by God the Word, became only an accessory to His deity, lost any reality of its own and can only mentally differ from the divine. Monophysitism was defined historically as the opposite extreme of another, not long before condemned, view - Nestorianism, which strived for complete isolation or delimitation of two independent natures in Christ, allowing between them only an external or relative connection or the dwelling of one nature in another - which violated the personal or the hypostatic unity of the God-man.

Monophysitism caused great unrest in the Eastern Empire. Monophysitism itself did not remain united. It was divided into two main sects: the Severians (Theodosians) or perishable worshipers, the Julianists or imperishable ghosters, and fantasists. The latter (Julianne) in turn split into ktistites and actistites. Later, niovites and tetratheites also emerged.

None of the religious movements of the early Middle Ages brought Byzantium as many troubles as Monophysitism: it ended up on the banner of all separatists and morally, and therefore politically, tore a good half of it away from the empire. The passionate struggle, which more than once led to bloody clashes, shook the empire for a century and a half. The religious interests that gave rise to the movement were largely subject to the play of political forces. They created the crisis, but could not control the course of events. At the moment of intensification of religious disputes, the struggle for the dominance of the three main churches - Alexandria, Constantinople and Rome - appears on the scene and brings the tension to the extreme.

This once again clearly demonstrates to us that all disputes about “faith” were not only speculative, but also, as a rule, of a purely practical nature; used to achieve certain goals. The main goal at all times has been power. Those who were striving for power “needed concepts, dogmas, symbols with the help of which they could tyrannize the masses, drive people into herds. This “flock of Christ,” the mass of people oppressed not only by the state, but also by the church, created powerful heretical movements, Hiding behind religious slogans, they wanted to achieve the embodiment of the utopian ideals of a just world and the former simplicity of the church structure. As we see, “faith” was only a pretext, a masquerade, a curtain - instincts played behind. They talked about “faith” endlessly, but acted as instinct prompted.

In the 7th century The Monothelite movement arose, which was a modification and natural continuation of the Monophysites. Monophelites (one-willers) in their movement went through two stages: monoenergism and monophelinism in the proper sense of the word. By the middle of the 8th century. monothelitism is disappearing. Disputes about a single will were suppressed by disputes about icons. These disputes resulted in the 8th century. in Byzantium into the iconoclasm movement. Its essence was the refusal of many people to venerate icons, since these are material things, and, therefore, the creation of Satan. These ideas were especially disseminated by the Paulicians, who appeared in the 6th century. and demanding renunciation of earthly goods, the destruction of the church hierarchy and monasticism, and the abolition of the veneration of icons. This heresy influenced the subsequent heresies of the developed Middle Ages. Behind this outwardly ideological struggle was hidden the confrontation between church and state, the people's dissatisfaction with the growing oppression of church and state. Evidence of this is the uprising of Thomas the Slav, which took place under the slogans of restoring icon veneration. The rebels were immediately joined by the Paulicians, who preached, as we remember, the ideas of iconoclasm. This precisely shows us that heresies in their essence were an expression of social protest of the masses, but dressed in religious forms. It doesn’t matter that the ideas of the Paulicians and Thomas the Slav diverged, the main thing is that their desires coincided. After the suppression of the uprising in 825, the Paulicians still continued their struggle with the state.

It is also worth highlighting the original theologies of individual schismatic teachers. Already by the middle of the 3rd century. The Christian church was a powerful, ramified organization that possessed great property. The wealthy bishops at the head of the community, supported by the new provincial landowning and service nobility, led not only the religious and financial life of the church, but also policies directed against the dying senatorial, patrician Rome. At the same time, there is a fierce class struggle within the church; the poor, imbued with the Christian religion, exploited by their own co-religionists and the church, powerlessly dream of a return to the imaginary “purity” of original Christianity; the despair of the exploited erupts in heresies and schisms. During this tense period, Novatus, Novatian and others split. Bishop Cyprian of Carthage reports that Evaristus, a former bishop who was excommunicated from the see, “wanders through remote regions... and tries to entice others of his own kind. And Nicostratus, having lost the holy diaconate and fled from Rome... poses as a preacher.” Cyprian does not mince words when describing Novatus - “the ever-present heretic and treacherous” who was the first to ignite “the flame of dissent and schism.” Cyprian also informs about “the insidious plans of Felicissimo... who attempted to separate part of the people from the bishop and became the leader of sedition and the chief of indignation.”

Thus, heresies appear already in the early period of Christianity. For this period, it is quite difficult to paint a picture of the movement of religious sects, which most often represented a transition to Christianity from Judaism and other religious movements. The establishment of the basic tenets of Christianity took quite a long time, which gave rise to multiple interpretations of its main provisions and thereby determined the ideological richness of the heresies that arose. However, even then, heresy (sectarianism) “represented ... a huge camp, where everyone who had lost heart, broken in their energy, and disappointed in the possibility of resistance with weapons fled. That is, in other words, heresies initially took the form of social protest and were of a political nature. Religious debates became a way of expressing the discontent of certain social groups, the struggle against existing orders. All this is clearly manifested in the heretical movements of the early Middle Ages. It was in this type of heresy that would acquire the greatest scope and significance in the era of the developed Middle Ages.

When we hear the word “heresy,” we involuntarily imagine a picture inspired by secular cinema: an evil and bloodthirsty inquisitor torments a freethinker, romantic and passionate “heretic.” How appropriate is this “distribution of roles”? What is heresy and why is it harmful - we asked the theologian, rector of the Kyiv Theological Academy and Seminary, Archbishop of Boryspil ANTHONY (Pakanich), chairman of the Theological and Canonical Commission at the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Archbishop of Boryspil ANTONY (Pakanich) – theologian, rector of the Kyiv Theological Academy and Seminary, chairman of the Theological and Canonical Commission at the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church

Why is dogma needed?

- What is heresy - “freedom” of theological, philosophical creativity or just a mistake?

True freedom is freedom from sin and abiding in the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, which preserves a person from error. If heresy is a manifestation of creative freedom, then the theology of the Church Fathers is a manifestation of what? However, freedom can become the basis for a variety of actions, both good and evil.

Heresy is not just a mistake or delusion into which a person falls due to ignorance or an incorrect conclusion. Heresy is a conscious and stubborn distortion of the Holy Tradition, an undermining of the fundamental truths of the Orthodox faith, such a harmful distortion of them that it impedes salvation.

How can dogmatic formulations be connected with salvation, since in essence they are just forms of thought? How and why does the form of thought affect salvation?

We must not forget that we are talking about God. Dogmatic formulations are not just forms of thought, but a kind of verbal image that directs us to the Prototype and warns us against distorting the truth. I recall the Gospel expression “for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matthew 12:37), which is often understood as a warning against vanity and intemperance of the tongue. But if we remember the context of these words of the Savior, we will see that they were spoken as a continuation of the warning against “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” and, thus, relate not to simple everyday situations when one can really say too much, but specifically to theology! Dogmatic formulations warn and direct us - our mind, our will, our feelings - towards God, serving as a guide for us on this path. So it turns out that - yes, our condemnation or salvation depends on the words about God, with which our hearts agree.

Of course, dogmatic theology is also a form of thought, something that belongs to intellectual culture, but its main goal is to lead a person to salvation. Wrong faith leads to wrong spiritual experience and, as a consequence, delusion and delusion. Dogmatics is not abstract reasoning, not theoretical abstractions, it is the path to salvation. Mental theological error is always reflected in practice, which is why heresy is dangerous! There have been cases in the history of the Church when theological disputes flared up directly around some practical issue: for example, if we remember the history of the Byzantine Palamist disputes of the 14th century, then these seemingly exclusively theoretical discussions around the nature of the “divine light” flared up primarily around Athonite practice “smart prayer” and ultimately allowed theologians to substantiate and defend the Athonite monastic tradition of hesychasm and contemplation of the uncreated divine light.

If a person goes in the wrong direction, after a while he will inevitably end up in a dead end. This is an objective reality, a person, in principle, may not propagate some kind of heresy, but being a heretic, his delusions will still sooner or later bear fruit and reveal themselves with sad consequences.

Is heresy primarily a “mental” error? Is a seminarian with a bad mark in dogmatic theology a heretic?

Well, such a person, as a rule, is no longer a seminarian... (Laughs.) Here the question is not whether a person can express his faith, but whether he consciously rejects church teaching, does he contrast his understanding with the church? Most of the heretics were very intelligent people and strict ascetics, but they denied church teaching. Moreover, they denied it at a very high intellectual level: Apolinarius, Nestorius... That is why we explain to our students that it is not so much theoretical knowledge in the field of theology, but the experience of church life, the experience of life in the Holy Spirit that protects against mistakes.

Freedom of theological opinion

If we study the history of church writing, we will quickly notice that the holy fathers themselves are not always unanimous; earlier ones sometimes contradict later ones...

Later dogmatic formulations do not express some “new” teachings, but the same church teaching that was originally in the Church. In the Orthodox understanding, the content of church teaching is unchanged, and only its verbal form can change over time. We are convinced that the Holy Fathers who lived before the appearance of later dogmatic formulations believed in the same way as we do. Despite the fact that many Ante-Nicene Fathers, in explaining the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, used terminology other than the Creed (adopted in 325), we are confident that they understood their formulations within the framework of Church Tradition.

It is interesting that the Church defines only those doctrinal truths as dogmas that are directly important for the salvation of man. Orthodox dogmas are always a kind of corridor where a theologian can think one way or another, the main thing is not to go beyond the designated framework. The most striking example of which is the Oros of the Council of Chalcedon with its definition of the union of natures in Christ: unfused, unchangeable, indivisible, inseparable.

Moreover, there are a significant number of doctrinal truths that are very essentially significant for us, which do not have strict dogmatic formulations at all. For example, about the corporeality or incorporeality of angels. And that's okay. Therefore, we distinguish between dogmas and theological opinions in the Church.

What is the difference between a private “theological opinion” and heresy? Where is the line of acceptable difference of opinion? What are the criteria?

Private theological opinions may disagree with each other, but at the same time they should not directly or indirectly contradict dogma. If this happens, then “private theological opinion” becomes heresy. In addition, as already mentioned, heresy undermines fundamental truths, and theologumena and private theological opinions concern doctrinal issues of a private nature that are not as important for salvation as the truths that we profess in the Creed. (For example, the question is about the three-part (spirit-soul-body) and two-part (body-soul) of human nature. - Ed.) And of course, it should be clearly understood that heresy has two important aspects: the actual erroneous view on what then the doctrinal question and the heretic’s attitude towards his own false teaching. He who accepts heresy as truth does not just disagree with someone on something, he opposes himself and his faith to the faith of the Church. Hence the well-known pattern: heresy is always a violation of unity. A heretic is not just a person who is mistaken, but also one who, for the sake of his own error, falls away from church unity, leaves the unity of faith, love and, ultimately, the unity of Eucharistic communion.

On some issues, differences of opinion are certainly possible; and in this regard, we recall the famous expression of St. Augustine, who commanded to preserve “unanimity in the main, diversity in the secondary, love in everything.” The criterion that determines where difference of opinion ends and where heresy begins is clearly visible from these words of the holy father: difference of opinion should not serve discord and violation of love.

Who remembers the words of the Holy Apostle Paul “Have the same thoughts, have the same love, be of one mind and of the same mind; do nothing out of selfish ambition or vanity” (Phil. 2:3), which has a clear criterion for distinguishing dissent that is acceptable in the Church from heresy itself.

- Where then does the fact of the difference of opinion of the holy fathers come from, if God is one?

Let's ask: what comes first, experience or its subsequent expression? Obviously experience. And only then his expression. At the same time, we should not forget that even quite simple experiences are sometimes difficult to put into verbal form. You have to look for words, concepts, correct and clarify them. The same thing can be expressed in different words: more or less successful, meaningful, beautiful, in the end. Sometimes it takes time to express your experience. I think everyone has experienced this. So it is in the case of the Church: she had the experience of Communion with God - the Lord revealed himself to her. And no one doubted that this experience existed, but it took time to express it, to search for verbal formulations. Yes, the terms “Trinity”, “God-man”, “Mother of God” did not appear immediately, but this does not mean that the Church did not have faith in this, that there was some other experience.

Be careful

It is often said that heresy is only that which is condemned by an ecumenical council. But if heresy is harmful in itself, and there has been no council (for more than 1000 years), then false teaching cannot be called heresy?

The point is not only that there has been no ecumenical council for more than 1000 years. Were there not those who professed some heresy, but died before the condemnation of this heresy by the ecumenical council? Of course they were. Doesn’t this mean that they are not heretics or that they cannot be called heretics?

And after the era of ecumenical councils, new false teachings and heresies appeared. Obviously, they were no less harmful or destructive. Some of them were condemned at local church councils. But as long as the world and the Church exist, the enemy of the human race will continue to plot intrigues, including in the form of heresies. So we must always be attentive to what is said, what is preached and what is called for. It is not for nothing that the holy Apostle warns us so that “no one deceives with insinuating words” (Col. 2:4).

- Where is the line between “misunderstanding”, “stupidity”, on the one hand, and “heresy”, on the other? Grandmothers in churches often have very exotic ideas about Orthodoxy, the nature of Christ, etc. Are all these grandmothers heretics?

Many of them were born and raised in Orthodoxy, and by default, belonging to the Church is taken for granted by them. With this attitude, they don’t delve into the “subtleties”. All these “exotic” ideas are more likely a consequence of ignorance of the true tradition, and not of conscious opposition to the teachings of the Church. The Church must first of all instruct and enlighten such people. It often happens that ordinary parishioners have a misconception, but after an explanation they calmly realize that they are wrong and accept church teaching. We understand well that not all of our parishioners are fluent in dogmatic terminology, but I think that, in principle, you can, even if you are not able to explain the essence of your own faith, still believe Orthodoxy. Having the right spiritual experience. A person can have a correct spiritual life, but not master any theological, philosophical terms, and our parishioners - the majority, in principle, believe as the Church believes, they all know by heart the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which is sung at every liturgy, and for that's enough for them. Yes, someone comes to church and does not understand, but over time the degree of awareness of the theological definitions of their faith also grows.

There is such an expression as “simple theology”; why does church teaching even need a “theoretical”, theological dimension? Maybe, in order not to fall into heresies, “out of harm’s way” it’s better not to delve into these subtleties at all?

This is a false path, the Apostle Paul says that serving God should be reasonable (Rom. 12:1), although everything does not come down to reason alone.

- Violation of traditions, for example liturgical ones: language or way of reading certain texts - is this heresy?

Violation of liturgical traditions can occur for various reasons: from trivial negligence to renovationist pathos.

In special cases, such a violation may be a liturgical consequence of heresy, as is the case, for example, in Protestant denominations.

There is an opinion that there is a need to translate Orthodox dogma into a more modern philosophical language. The Holy Fathers spoke the language of ancient philosophy, modern for that time, but today this language has changed greatly. Or is the language of dogma unchanged?

The language of theology is a human language, and it has its limitations, but I still am not a supporter of such a translation. After all, in theology we always talk about mystery, we have mysterious things as the subject of our discussion, and I don’t think that we now have such spiritual forces to subject this language to revision. This will not bring clarity, but only new divisions.

Dmitry REBROV

St. John of Damascus: about one hundred heresies in brief; where they started and what they came from.

There are four mother and prototype heresies, namely: (1) barbarism, (2) Scythianism, (3) Hellenism, (4) Judaism. From them came all other heresies.

1. Barbarism: a heresy which itself lasted from the days of Adam until the tenth generation, [until the time of] Noah. It was called barbarism because the people of that time did not have any leader or one consent, but what everyone established for himself in preference to his own will became law for him.

2. Scythianism: from the days of Noah and subsequently until the construction of the pillar of Babylon and after the pandemonium for a few years, i.e. to Peleg and Raghav, who, escaping to the country of Europe, settled in the Scythian region and joined the local tribes from the time of Terah, from whom the Thracians descended, and later.

3. Hellenism: It began from the time of Serug with idolatry; and since at that time everyone lived by some kind of superstition, the human tribes, moving to a more civil structure, customs and laws, began to establish idols for themselves and deified those they followed. At first they painted and depicted likenesses of people they then revered, or sorcerers, or who had done something in life that seemed worthy of memory because of their strength and bodily strength. Then, from the time of Terah, the father of Abraham, they introduced idolatry through statues, honoring their forefathers with images and sculpting those who died before them, first with the help of pottery, and then making imitations of all kinds of art: house builders - cutting stones, silver and goldsmiths craftsmen - making from their own materials, so do carpenters, and so on. The Egyptians, and together the Babylonians, Phrygians and Phoenicians, were the first founders of this religion, the making of statues and the performance of sacraments. From them it was transferred to the Hellenes during the time of Kekrops and after him. Subsequently, and much later, Crones and Rhea, Zeus and Apollo and others were proclaimed gods. The Hellenes are named so from a certain Elena, one of the inhabitants of Hellas, and as others say - from an olive tree that grew in Athens. Their ancestors, as accurate history shows, were the Ionians, descended from Job (Gen. 10:2), one of those who built the pillar, when the languages ​​of all were divided. For this reason, from the divided speech, everyone is named. Subsequently, in later times, Hellenism turned into heresies - I mean the heresies of the Pythagoreans, Stoics, Platonists and Epicureans. And from then on, the image of piety, and together the natural law of life, having moved away from these peoples, from the creation of the world, existed until now among barbarism, Scythianism and Hellenism, until they united with the piety of Abraham.

4. And then Judaism from the time of Abraham received the sign of circumcision, and was written down by Moses, the seventh after Abraham, through the law given by God; and from Judah, the fourth son of Jacob, called Israel, through David, the first king from the tribe of this Judah, finally inherited the name of Judaism. The apostle spoke clearly about these four heresies, saying: in Christ Jesus there is neither barbarian nor Scythian, neither Greek nor Jew (Col. 3:11), but a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17).

Various heresies among the Hellenes.

5. Pythagoreans and Peripatetics. Pythagoras taught about the monad and providence, taught to prevent making sacrifices to supposed gods, not to eat animate beings, and to abstain from wine. He introduced division, saying that on the moon and above everything is immortal, and below everything is mortal, he allowed the transmigration of souls from one body to another, even into the bodies of animals and wild animals. At the same time, he taught to practice silence for five years. Finally, he called himself God.

6. The Platonists believed that there is God, matter, form and the world, originated and corporeal, and that the soul is not originated, immortal and divine, that it has three parts: rational, irritable and concupiscible. Plato taught that everyone should have common wives and no one should have his own wife, but those who wish would live with those who wish. He also allowed the transmigration of souls into bodies even of animals. At the same time, he taught about many gods descending from one.

7. Stoics: they teach that everything is a body, and recognize this sensory world as God. Some argued that God has his nature from a fiery essence. They determine that God is the mind and, as it were, the soul of everything that exists in heaven and on earth; the universe is His body, as I said, and the lights are His eyes. The flesh dies, and the soul of everyone moves from body to body.

8. The Epicureans: They maintained that atoms and indivisible bodies, composed of like parts and infinite in number, are the beginning of all things, and taught that the goal of blessedness is pleasure and that neither God nor Providence governs things.

9. Samaritanism, and from it the Samaritans. It came from the Jews before heresies appeared among the Hellenes, and before their teachings were compiled; but after the advent of the Hellenic religion, it received a foundation among Judaism from the time of Nebuchadnezzar and the captivity of the Jews. The Assyrians resettled in Judea, having received the Pentateuch of Moses, since the king sent it to them from Babylon with a priest named Ezra, were in everything like the Jews, except that they abhorred the pagans and did not touch them, and besides that they denied the resurrection of the dead and other prophecies that came after Moses.

There are four interpretations of the Samaritans.

10. Gorphins: celebrate holidays at different times compared to the Jebusites.

11. The Jebusites: in regard to the holidays they differ from the Gorphins.

12. Essins: they do not oppose either one or the other, but celebrate indifferently with whomever they have to.

13. Dosphini: guided by the same customs as the Samaritans, they use circumcision, and the Sabbath, and other statutes, and the Pentateuch; they observe more strictly than others the rule of abstaining [from eating] animate things, like in other things, and spend their lives in constant posts. They also have virginity, some of them abstain; and others believe in the resurrection of the dead, which is alien to the Samaritans.

The Jews have seven heresies.

14. Scribes: they were lawyers and interpreters of the traditions of their elders, with excessive zeal they observed rituals that they did not learn from the law, but for themselves recognized as objects of respect and deeds of justification under the law.

15. Pharisees, by the meaning of the word, are renegades: they lead the highest life and are supposedly more experienced than others. They, like the scribes, recognize the resurrection of the dead, the existence of angels and the Holy Spirit, but their lives are different; [they observe] abstinence and virginity for a time, fasting through the Sabbath, cleansing of jars, dishes and bowls, like the scribes, tithes, first fruits, continuous prayers, zealous types of clothing, consisting of a robe and dalmatics, or sleeveless clothing, with an extension storages, i.e. stripes of scarlet, votives and buttons on the votives of the robe, which served as a sign of the abstinence they observed until the time. They introduced the doctrine of birth and fate.

16. Sadducees, by the meaning of the name, are the most righteous: they descended from the Samaritans, and also from a priest named Zadok; denied the resurrection of the dead, did not accept either an angel or the Spirit; in all [the rest] there were Jews.

17. Imerovaptists: they were Jews throughout, but they argued that no one will achieve eternal life unless he is baptized every day.

18. Ossins, which means “the most daring”: they fulfilled everything according to the law, but after the law they also used other scriptures, and rejected most of the later prophets.

19. Nassarites, by the meaning of the word, are unbridled: they prohibit all eating of meat, and do not eat animate things at all. The holy names of the patriarchs in the Pentateuch before Moses and Joshua are used and believed in, I mean Abraham. Isaac, Jacob and the elders, and Moses himself, Aaron and Jesus. They teach that the books of the Pentateuch are not the Mosaic writings, and they claim that there are others besides them.

20. The Herodians were Jews in everything, but they expected Christ in the person of Herod and gave him honor and the name of Christ.

Here is the first section, containing all these twenty heresies; it also contains a discussion about the coming of Christ and a confession of truth.

This is what is contained in the second part of the first book, which talks about the thirteen heresies that existed among Christians.

21. Simonians: they got their name from Simon the Magus, contemporary to the Apostle Peter, from the village of Gitthon in Samaria. He was a Samaritan, taking only the name of Christian. He taught shameful and nasty mixing, non-distinction of bodies. He rejected the resurrection and claimed that the world was not from God, and handed over his image, in the form of Zeus, and his companion, a harlot named Helen, in the form of Athena, to his disciples for worship. He called himself Father for the Samaritans, and Christ for the Jews.

22. Menandrians: received their origin from Simon through a certain Menander and in some ways differed from the Simonians. They said that the world was created by angels.

23. Sartornilians: they supported the shamelessness of the Simonians in Syria, but in order to amaze more, they preach something different from the Simonians. They received their origin from Saturnilus and, like Menander, they said that the world was created by angels, but only seven, according to the thought of the father.

24. Basilidians: they celebrate the same shameless rites, from Basilides, who, together with Saturnil, learns from the Simonians and Menandrians, adheres to the same way of thinking with them, but in some ways differs from them. He claims that there are three hundred and sixty-five heavens, and gives them angelic names. Therefore, the year consists of so many days, and the word “avrasax” means the number 365 and is, says Basilides, a holy name.

25. Nicolaitans: from Nicholas, assigned by the apostles to the services, who, out of jealousy for his wife, taught his disciples, together with others, to commit shameless deeds and spoke about Kavlakakh, Prunik and other barbaric names, introducing them into the world.

26. Gnostics: they accepted the same heresies, but more than all these heresies they furiously commit shameless deeds. In Egypt they are called Stratiotics and Thebionites, in the upper parts of Egypt - Socrates, in others - Zacchaeus. Some call them Koddians, others call them Worvorites. They boast about Varvelo and Vero.

27. Carpocrats: from a certain Carpocrates from Asia. He taught to commit every shamelessness and every sinful deed. If someone, he said, does not go through everything and does not fulfill the will of all the demons and angels, then he cannot ascend to the highest heaven and pass through the Principles and Powers. He said that Jesus took on a thinking soul, but, knowing what was above, he proclaimed it here; and if anyone does the like of Jesus, he is not inferior to Him. Carpocrates denied the law together with the resurrection of the dead, like the Simonians and other heresies that had been discussed hitherto. His follower was Marcellina in Rome. Having secretly made images of Jesus, Paul, Homer and Pythagoras, Carpocrates burned incense and worshiped them.

28. Cyrinthians, also known as Myrinthians: these are the disciples of Cyrinthus and Myrinthus, certain Jews who boasted of circumcision. They said that the world was created by angels and that Jesus was called Christ by his success.

29. Nazarenes: they confess Jesus Christ, the Son of God, but in everything they live according to the law.

30. Ebionites: close to the previously named Cyrinthians and Nazirites; The heresy of the Sampseites and Elkeseites also comes into contact with them in some ways. They say that Christ and the Holy Spirit were created in heaven, that Christ dwelt in Adam and at times took off this Adam and put on him again. This is what Christ did, they say, when He came in the flesh. Being Jews, they use the gospels and disdain eating meat. They have water instead of God. About Christ, as I said, they say that in His fleshly coming He put on man. They are constantly baptized in the waters: both in summer and winter, as if for purification, like the Samaritans.

31. Valentinians: they deny the resurrection of the flesh, reject the Old Testament, but they read the prophets and accept everything else that can be interpreted similarly to their heresy. They bring in some other fables, the names of thirty aeons, saying that they came together as male and female from the Father of all, and they are called gods and zones. They say about Christ that He brought a body from heaven and passed through Mary as through a pipe.

32. Secundians: Epiphanes and Isidore are in connection with them, and they use the same syzygies, they philosophize like Valentinus, but they tell something somewhat different from them. They also deny the flesh [of Christ].

33. Ptolemies: they are also the disciples of Valentinus; Flora stands in connection with them. And they say about the syzygies the same as Valentinus and the Secundians; but in some ways they differ from them.

In this third compartment, which contains thirteen heresies, the order is as follows.

34. Mapkosei. A certain Mark was a fellow student of Kolorvas. He also introduces two principles. He rejects the resurrection of the dead, and by changing the color of some visions in the bowls with the help of spells into blue and crimson, he secretly guides deceived women. Like Valentine, he desires to produce everything from the twenty-four elements.

35. Colorvasea. And this Kolorvas, in the same way expounding the same thing, differs in some ways from other heresies - I mean the heresies of Mark and Valentinus: he taught differently about generations and octagons.

36. Irakleonites. And they seem to talk fabulously about the eights, but in a different way, in comparison with Mark, Ptolemy, Valentine and others. In addition, when they die, like Mark, they redeem those who are dying with oil, fragrant oil and water, pronouncing over the head of the person being redeemed some invocations consisting of Jewish sayings.

37. Ophites. They glorify the serpent and consider it to be Christ, but they keep the natural snake, the reptile, in some kind of box.

38. Kayans (Cainites). Together with other heresies that reject the law and Him who spoke in the law, they also think the same thing: they deny the resurrection of the flesh, glorify Cain, saying that he is from a more powerful power; at the same time, Judas is deified, as well as those who were with Korah, Dathan and Abiron, and even the Sodomites.

39. Sethians. These, on the contrary, glorify Seth, claiming that he is descended from the supreme Mother, who repented of having produced Cain. After Cain was rejected and Abel was killed, she came into contact with the Highest Father and produced a pure seed - Seth, from whom the entire human race later descended. And they also teach about principles and powers and other similar things.

40. Archons: these again attribute everything to many princes and say that the being that arose received from them. They are also accused of some kind of shamelessness. They deny the resurrection of the flesh and reject the Old Testament. But they use both the Old and New Testaments, adapting each saying to their own views.

41. Kerdonians: they come from Kerdon, who adopted the error of Herakleon and added to his deception. Having moved from Syria to Rome, he expounded his teaching during the time of Bishop Igin. He preaches two principles hostile to each other, and that Christ is not born. Likewise, he rejects the resurrection of the dead and the Old Testament.

42. Marcionites. Marcion, a native of Pontus, was the son of a bishop, but, having molested a girl, he fled because he was excommunicated by his father. Arriving in Rome, he then asked for repentance from those in charge of the church at that time, but, not having time to do this, he became exalted against the faith and began to teach about three principles: good, just and evil, and that the New Testament is alien to the Old and Who spoke in him. He and his Marcionites reject the resurrection of the flesh, allowing not only one baptism, but two and three, after the falls. Others are baptized for their deceased catechumens. They also allow women to teach baptism without hindrance.

43. Lucianists. A certain Lucian, not the one who now lived in the time of Constantine, but more ancient, taught about everything in accordance with Marcion. In addition, of course, he taught something else besides Marcion.

44. Appellians. And this Apellis teaches, like Marcion and Lucian: they condemn the whole creation and the Creator. But he did not introduce three principles, like those, but one, and recognized one God, the highest and ineffable, and that this One created another. And this one, he says, brought into being, turned out to be evil and, out of his malice, created the world.

45. Sevirians. A certain Sevier, following Apellis, again rejects wine and grapes, saying that they came from the dragon-like Satan and the earth, who copulated with each other. And he renounces the woman, saying that she originates from an evil force. Introduces some names of princes and secret books. Like other heretics, he rejects the resurrection of the flesh and the Old Testament.

46. ​​Tatiana. Tatian was a contemporary of the most holy martyr and philosopher Justin. After the death of Saint Justin, he was corrupted by the dogmas of Marcion and taught in the same way as him, adding other things besides Marcion. They said that he came from Mesopotamia.

These are the thirteen heresies of the first section of the second book.

This third section of the second book contains the following eighteen heresies.

47. Encratites: being a fragment of the heresy of Tatian, they also reject marriage, claiming that it is the work of Satan. They prohibit all consumption of animate food.

48. Catafrigasts, they are also Montanists and Ascodrugits. They accept the Old and New Testaments; but they introduce other prophets: they boast of a certain Montanus and Priscilla.

49. The Pepusians, who are also the Quintillians, with whom the Artothirites stand in connection: these are two heresies. Some of them are catafrighasts, but teach something different compared to them. They deify some deserted city of Pepuza, between Galatia, Cappadocia and Phrygia, and consider it Jerusalem. There is, however, another Pepuza. Women are given leadership and priesthood. When dedicating someone, they pierce a small child with copper needles, like the catafrigasts, and, having kneaded his blood into flour and made bread, they eat it as an offering. They say that there, in Pepusa, Christ revealed himself to Quintilla or Priscilla in the form of a woman. They also use the Old and New Testaments, altering them according to their own understanding.

50. Fourteeners. These celebrate Easter on the same day of the year, and on whatever day the fourteenth day of the moon falls, i.e. Whether on Saturday or Sunday, that day is celebrated by fasting and also holding a vigil.

51. Alogs: so called by us, they reject the Gospel of John and his Apocalypse, because they do not accept the Word that came from the Father, God, who exists eternally.

52. Adamians: by the name of a certain Adam, called living. Their teaching is more worthy of ridicule than the true one. Something like this happens to them: naked, as if from a mother’s womb, men and women come together in one place and so perform readings, prayers and all that, as if they were monastics and abstaining and not accepting marriage; They consider their church to be heaven.

53. Sampsei and Elkesei: they still live in Arabia, which lies above the Dead Sea. They are deceived by a certain false prophet Elxai; From his family to this day there were still women Marfus and Marfina, whom this heresy worships as goddesses. They are close to the Ebionites in everything.

54. Theodotians, followers of Theodotus, a Byzantine tanner. He stood high in Hellenic education, but, being captured along with others during the days of the then persecution, only one fell away, while the rest accepted torment for God. Therefore, since he was reproached for fleeing, he, because of the accusation that he had renounced God, came up with the idea of ​​​​saying about Christ that He is a simple man.

55. Melchizedekians: these revere Melchizedek, claiming that he is a certain power, and not a simple person, and they dared to trace everything to his name.

56. Vardesianists. This Bardesian came from Mesopotamia; at first he adhered to the true faith and distinguished himself in philosophy, but, deviating from the truth, he taught close to Valentinus, with the exception of some provisions in which he differed from Valentinus.

57. Noitians. This Noit was from Smyrna in Asia. Having ascended on the chariot [of pride], he began to say that Christ is the Son-Father, and taught that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same. He called himself Moses, and his brother Aaron.

58. Valicia. These, as we have heard, inhabit Waqafa, a large settlement in Arab Philadelphia. They emasculate those who come to them and enjoy their hospitality. Very many, and among them eunuchs, circumcised. They also teach something else that is full of heresy: they reject the law and the prophets and introduce some other shamelessness.

59. Kafars. These, being in a relationship with Novatus the Roman, completely reject second marriages and do not accept repentance.

60. Angels. These have completely disappeared. They were named this way either because they boasted that they had the rank of angels, or because they were called angels.

61. Apostolics, they are also apotactics: they are also in Pisidia; They take only apotactics. They are very close to the Encratites; but they think differently in comparison with them.

62. Sabellians. They think similar to the Burden, except that they do not say that the Father suffered; They teach about the Word that it is pronounced and again scattered.

63. Origenists: from a certain Origen. These are shameless people who do unspeakable things and submit their bodies to corruption.

64. Other Origenists: from the writer Origen, who is also called Adamantius. They reject the resurrection of the dead; they teach that Christ and the Holy Spirit are creatures; paradise, heaven and everything else are interpreted allegorically; they talk idle talk that the Kingdom of Christ will one day cease, and will cease along with the Angels; it is also as if Christ and the devil will be under the same authority, and they come up with the idea that Christ was crucified by demons.

These are the eighteen heresies of the fourth section of the second book.

The fifth section of the second book contains the following five heresies.

65. Paulineists: from Paul of Samosata. This Paul asserts that Christ almost does not exist, imagining that He is the spoken word, but from Mary and here He exists. What was prophesied about Him in the divine Scriptures belonged to Him, but He was not it; and from Mary and here, from the time of His coming in the flesh, He has existence.

66. Manichaeans, they are also aconites: these are the disciples of the Persian Mani. They call Christ a ghost, worship the sun and the moon, pray to the stars, powers and demons: they introduce two principles - evil and good, eternally existing. They say that Christ appeared ghostly and suffered. The Old Testament and the God who spoke in it are blasphemed. They say that not the whole world, but only part of it, came from God.

67. Hierakites: these are from Hierak, a certain interpreter from Leontopolis in Egypt. They reject the resurrection of the flesh, but use the Old and New Testaments; They completely reject marriage, but they accept monastics and virgins, abstinents and widowers. They say that children who have not yet reached adulthood do not participate in the Kingdom because they have not labored.

68. Meletians (Melitians): in Egypt they constitute a schism, not a heresy. They did not pray with the fallen during persecution; now they united with the Arians.

69. Arians, they are also Ariomanites and Diatomites. They call the Son of God a creature, and the Holy Spirit a creature of a creature; claim that Christ received from Mary only flesh, and not soul.

These are the five heresies of the fifth section of the second book.

The first section of the third book contains the following seven heresies.

70. Obedians: schism and renegade, but not heresy. They have a well-ordered lifestyle and behavior, and in everything they adhere to the same faith as the Catholic Church. Most of them live in monasteries and do not pray with everyone. Most of all they use apocrypha, they excessively blame our rich bishops, and others for something else. Easter is celebrated especially, together with the Jews. They have something peculiar and love to argue, very roughly explaining the expression: according to the image.

71. Photinians. This Fotin, being from Sirmium, thought like Paul of Samosata, and in some ways differed from him. He also claims that Christ received his beginning from Mary here too.

72. Marcellians: from Marcellus of Ancyra of Galatia. It is known that at first he philosophized close to Savely. Although he often defended himself, and defended himself in writing, others nevertheless accused him of remaining of the same opinions. It is possible that, having changed his opinions, either he himself or his students corrected themselves. Some Orthodox Christians spoke out in defense of his books.

73. Semi-Arians: they recognize Christ as a creature, but they do not call Him that in the exact sense and not as one of the creatures. They say we call Him Son; but so as not to attribute suffering to the Father through the birth of the Son, we call Him created. In the same way, it is taught quite definitely about the Holy Spirit that He is a creature. Rejecting those who are consubstantial with the Son, they want to call Him co-existent. Some of them were rejected by the cultish ones.

74. Doukhobors. They speak well of Christ, except for one thing; but they blaspheme the Holy Spirit, calling Him a creature, and teach that He, not being from the Divine, but rather in a figurative sense, according to His action, was created as such. They claim that He is only a sanctifying power.

75. Aerians. This Aerius came from Pontus; it is still a temptation in life. He was a presbyter under Bishop Eustathius, slandered by the Arians. And since this Aerius was not installed as a bishop, he began to teach many things contrary to the Church. By faith, he is the most perfect Arian, but he also teaches what is unnecessary in comparison with the Arians: one should not make offerings for the dead, forbids fasting on Wednesdays, Fridays and Pentecost, celebrating Easter, rejects renunciation of the world, fearlessly enjoys all kinds of meat-eating and dishes. If any of his followers wants to fast, he says, let him fast not on set days, but when he wants, for you, he says, are not under the law. He also asserts that the presbyters are no different from the bishop.

76. Aetians: from Aetius, a Cilician who was a deacon under George, the Arian bishop of Alexandria. They are also called Anomeans, and some call them Eunomians, because of a certain Eunomius, who was a student of Aetius. Eudoxius was also with them, but out of fear, allegedly before Tsar Constantine, he separated from them and excommunicated only Aetius. Nevertheless, Eudoxius remained an Arian, although not according to the teachings of Aetius. These Anomeans and Aetians completely alienate Christ and the Holy Spirit from God the Father, claiming that [Christ] is a creature and does not even have any likeness. They want to explain the Divinity with the help of Aristotelian and geometrical syllogisms and thus prove that Christ could not have come from God. The Eunomians who descended from them rebaptize all those who come to them, not only [Orthodox], but also Arians, turning the legs of those being baptized upward above their heads, as the widespread rumor says. To sin something: fornication or another sin - they say there is nothing terrible, for God does not require anything except that someone should remain in this faith they recognize.

These are the seven heresies of the sixth section of the third book.

The seventh section of the third book contains four heresies.

77. Dimirites, they are also Apollinarians: they profess an imperfect coming, i.e. incarnation of Christ. Some of them dared to say that the body is consubstantial with the Divine; others even denied that Christ took on a soul; still others, relying on the saying: the Word became flesh (John 1:14), denied that He took flesh from created flesh, i.e. from Mary, but they stubbornly said one thing, that the Word became flesh. Then, I can’t say for what reasons, they began to say that He did not perceive the mind.

78. Anti-Dicomarianites: they say that Holy Mary Ever-Virgin after the birth of the Savior cohabited with Joseph.

79. Kolliridians, in the name of the same Mary, bringing some kind of bread on one specific day of the year, from which we gave the name Kolliridians.

80. Massalian, which means “those who pray.” Adjacent to them are the so-called Euthymites, Martyrians and Satanians from the former Hellenic heresies.

These are heresies before Marcian.

From Marcian and then a little later, to Leo, such heresies appeared.

81. Nestorians: they teach that God the Word and His man exist separately and separately, and the lower things done by the Lord during His stay among us are attributed to His man alone, but the more sublime and godly things are attributed to God the Word alone and are not attributed to that. and another to the same person.

82. Eutychianists, who received the name of this heresy from Eutychus. They say that our Lord Jesus Christ did not receive flesh from the holy Virgin Mary, but they claim that He was incarnated in some more divine way, not realizing that the man guilty of the sin of their forefather Adam was the one God the Word united to Himself from the Virgin Mary, who, having taken away the strength of the principalities and powers, powerfully subjected them to shame, having triumphed over them with Himself (Col. 2:15), as it is written, having triumphed over the principalities and powers that entered the world through the crime of the primordial.

83. Egyptians, they are also schismatics and Monophysites. Under the pretext of the Chalcedonian definition, they separated from the Orthodox Church. They are called Egyptians because the Egyptians were the first to start this type of heresy under the kings Marcian and Valentinian. In all other respects they are Orthodox. Out of affection for Dioscorus of Alexandria, who was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon as a defender of the teachings of Eutyches, they opposed the council and composed thousands of censures against him, which we have sufficiently refuted earlier in this book, showing them to be ignorant and superstitious. Their leaders: Theodosius the Alexandrian, from whom the Theodosians, Jacob the Syrian, from whom the Jacobites. Their accomplices, guarantors and defenders: Sevirus, the corrupter of the Aptiochians, and John the Tritheist, who labored in vain, rejecting the mystery of common salvation. They wrote a lot against the Chalcedonian inspired teaching of the six hundred and thirty fathers and set up many temptations for the perishing, leading them along their destructive path. And also, by introducing a dogma about private entities, they introduce confusion into the mystery of the economy.

84. Aphtartodocites: descended from Julian of Halicarnassus and Guyanus of Alexandria; are also called Guyanites. In all other respects they agree with the Sevirians; They differ from them in that they say that the difference of natures when they were united in Christ was illusory; and these teach that the body of Christ from its very formation was incorruptible. And that the Lord endured suffering, they confess, I mean hunger, and thirst, and fatigue; but they assert that He did not endure them in the same way as we do. For we endure suffering out of natural necessity, but Christ, according to them, endured it voluntarily and was not a slave to the laws of nature.

85. Agnoites, they are also Themists: they godlessly claim that Christ did not know the day of judgment, and attribute fear to Him. They constitute the Theodosian sect, for Themistius, who was their heresiarch, recognized in Christ a single complex nature.

86. Barsanufites, they are also Semidalites: they agree with the Gayanites and Theodosians, but they have something more than that. They mix wheat flour with the gifts allegedly brought by Dioscorus, and, touching it with the tip of their finger, taste the flour and accept it instead of the mysteries, since they do not celebrate the Eucharist at all. Having taken, as said, the communion of Dioscorus, they mix wheat flour into it until it is little by little used up, and this serves them instead of communion.

87. Ikets: these are monks; Orthodox in all other respects, but when they gather in monasteries with women, they offer hymns to God with some round dances and dances, as if imitating the choir that was formed in the time of Moses, during the death of the Egyptians that happened in the Red Sea.

88. Gnosimachi: they reject the necessity for Christianity of all knowledge. They say that those who seek any knowledge in the divine Scriptures do in vain, for God does not require anything else from a Christian except good deeds. So, it is better to live rather more simply and not be curious about any dogma related to knowledge.

89. Iliotropites: they say that the so-called heliotropic plants, turning towards the rays of the sun, contain a certain divine force that makes such rotations in them, therefore they want to honor them, not realizing that the movement noticed in them is natural.

90. Phnitopsychites: they recognize the human soul as similar to the soul of livestock and claim that it perishes along with the body.

91. Agoniklites: at any time of prayer they do not want to kneel, but they always pray standing.

92. Theocatagnosts, they are also blasphemers. They, being impudent and blasphemous people, try to find condemnation in some words and deeds of our Master God and the holy persons devoted to Him and in the Divine Scriptures.

93. Christolites: they say that our Lord Jesus Christ, after resurrecting from the dead, left His animated body on earth and ascended to heaven with only one Divinity.

94. Ephnophrons: follow the customs of the pagans, being otherwise Christians. They introduce birth, luck and destiny, accept all astronomy and astrology, all mantles and bird fortune-telling, are committed to auspices, predictions, signs, spells and other fables of the wicked, they also adhere to other pagan customs, honoring some pagan holidays, observing the days and months, times and summers.

95. Donatists: descended from a certain Donatus in Africa, who taught them to first kiss a certain bone, taking it in their hands, and then begin to offer the holy mysteries, if they are to be offered.

96. Iphycoproscoptes: in morals, i.e. in active life, they sin and condemn some teachings worthy of praise; some who are blameworthy are followed as useful.

97. Parerminevts: they reinterpret some chapters of the divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and understand them in their own way. But, being hostile to many of the precise and impeccable interpretations, they tolerate it due to some simplicity and illegibility, not knowing that some of the heretical dogmas are reinforced from this.

98. Lampetians: so named from a certain Lampetius. They allow everyone who wishes to live alone or spend their life in communal monasteries, to choose the way of life that he wishes, and to dress in the clothes that he wants, for, they say, a Christian should not do anything under compulsion, as it is written: I will devour you with my will (Ps. 53:8). And one more thing: I will confess my will to him (Ps. 27:7). They allow, as some report, to give place to natural passions and not resist them, since nature requires it. They say that they also recognize something else that is close to those who are called Arians.

99. Monothelites: received their origin from Cyrus of Alexandria, but thanks to Sergius of Constantinople they established themselves. They recognize two natures in Christ and one hypostasis, but teach about one will and one action, thereby rejecting the duality of natures and coming very close to the teaching of Apollinaris.

100. There is also the religion of the Ishmaelites, the forerunner of the Antichrist, which still has power to mislead the people. She comes from Ishmael, who was born of Hagar by Abraham, which is why they are called Hagarites and Ishmaelites. They are called Saracens because Hagar said to the angel: Sarah sent me away empty.

The legalization of the Christian Church was beneficial to the church no less than to the state. In addition to the immediate benefit of legality, recognition by the state gave the church a weapon for internal struggle. The strengthening of private property elements, the strengthening of the church apparatus, and the aristocratization of the entire ideology of Christianity were inevitably bound to provoke sharp opposition from the lower ranks of the church.

In addition, while developing the general features of the doctrine written by Christ, theologians were forced to answer numerous questions that certainly arose in connection with a deepening of the understanding of dogmas and clarification of their content. Moreover, different opinions were expressed, due to historical, economic, political, philosophical and, possibly, individual factors. Some of them were sufficiently proven and recognized as orthodox; they entered the teachings of the church and were expressed in the works of the Fathers of the Church. Others became the object of stubborn disputes, theological discussions, many of them were rejected and declared heresy(Greek Hairesis - sect). In theology, heresy is a conscious and deliberate deviation from the tenets of faith.

The fight against heresies in the first centuries of Christianity was stubborn and sometimes dramatic. Early heresies contributed to the establishment of irrationalism in Christianity. As paradoxical as it may sound, heresies did a great job in Christianity - they helped the general Pauline direction, became orthodox, and polished into a logical, constant, comprehensively oriented religious system. Early heresies in Christianity are usually classified as Montanism And Gnosticism

Montanism (on behalf of the founder of the movement Montana) originated in Phrygia around 156 AD. E Montanists opposed reconciliation with the pagan state, church property and the power of bishops. They expected the immediate coming of Christ and the Last Judgment, and therefore denied earthly goods and led an ascetic lifestyle. They supported celibacy, but did not adhere to it. The heresy especially spread during the persecution, when it united all the irreconcilables, and flourished in North Africa. An outstanding Christian apologist also joined the Montanists Tertullian, although he glossed over the revolutionary side of the teaching. their communities were led NOT by bishops, but by prophets. Monwa preached accompanied by two prophetesses Priscilla And Maximilla, who had visions and brought holiness to Montanus. Montanists widely practiced ecstatic prayers, prophetism (prophecies), and speaking in unknown tongues. We can say that they were supporters of Christianity as set out in the Apocalypse. The complete defeat of Montanism ended the earliest period of the formation of Christianity, although remnants of heresy in the east of the Roman Empire lasted until the 8th century.

Gnosticism showed steadfast and stubborn opposition to Christianity during its formation. The Gnostics taught that there are three principles: the Supreme God, God the Creator and primordial matter. The Supreme God is an absolute who shows mercy, love, goodness. God the Creator is the Old Testament Yahweh, he is in the power of Evil. Matter forms the material world. Between her and God act the intermediate forces of Sona, personifying the Logos. Among the aeons is Jesus. The world has a double structure: good corresponds to evil, light - darkness, spirit - matter, soul - body, life - death, fighting. We must choose the truth in this struggle. Humanity, according to the teachings of the Gnostics, consists of pneumatics(chosen people who have gnosis), psyche(people who are under the power of the Demiurge fulfill the Law, but do not understand it) and Hawick(people who are under the power of the flesh, material instincts, they are doomed to perish along with Satan). So, the following ideas are characteristic of Gnostics:

Contrasting the material world with the spirit, recognizing the material world as a consequence of the actions of evil forces or the mistakes of the Creator, but in no case the creativity of God

Salvation of the worldly, bodily, material is impossible under any circumstances; Only the one who is chosen by God, in whose soul there is a piece of the divine spirit, will be saved; the revelation of this spirit should take place not by the mind, but by intuitive knowledge, insight; this insight will be carried out by the mediator between God and people - Christ.

Radical preachers of Gnosticism went to extremes, demanding a complete change in all accepted concepts and a radical revaluation of all values. “If you do not make the right left and the left right,” says the apocryphal Gospels (Egyptian Gospel), “the upper is lower and the lower is upper, the front is back and the back is front, then you cannot understand the kingdom of God...” “The dual must become unique, the external must merge with the internal, man with the feminine, there should not be a man and a woman.”

In the social views of the Gnostics, extreme individualism was intertwined with extreme collectivism. Denying any organization and any dogma, the Gnostics preached Platonic communism, in particular joint property and common wives (sect Carpocrates). Some Gnostic sects preach complete indifference, poverty and asceticism. Of the Gnostic leaders, the most influential were Carpocrates, Marcion, Vasiliev And Valentin.

Gnosticism has moved so far away from purely Christian ideas that some consider it a Christian heresy, but a separate religious and philosophical direction, a certain fusion of Pythagoreanism and Eastern religious wisdom. The social platform of the Gnostics was social passivity, conservatism, reconciliation with existing reality. Evil is lifelong, it is a property of matter. Restructuring the world is impossible, the revolutionary democracy of Jesus Christianity is superfluous. But, following the doctrine of the Logos as a mediator between God and people, they highly valued Jesus’ activities, especially anti-Jewish directions. However, in order to establish the new church, Gnosticism had to be destroyed. And it was done.

Heretical thoughts were expressed by the theologian of the 3rd century. Origen, who stated that poverty is the result of the weakness of human nature and variability. “No one,” he said, “will indiscriminately praise the poor, most of whom are discarded in their lives.”

The opposition to the Pauline movement was antitrinitarianism, which will drown out the inability to understand the essence of monotheism, the dialectical nature of the doctrine of the Trinity. There were two currents in anti-trinitarianism: Patrigasianism, who denied the independent existence of Jesus (God the Father and Jesus Christ are one person), and Ebionism(or monarchianism), which recognized the existence of Christ, but denied his divinity.

In its emergence as a religion of the Greco-Roman world, Christianity had to endure a struggle with yet another religious teaching - Manichaeism, which arose in the 2nd century. AD as a mixture of Chaldean-Babylonian, Persian and Christian myths and rituals. Its author is considered Mani(c. 216 - c. 277 pp.), Homeland - the territory of modern Iran. He recognized the duality of the world and man. This dualistic concept denied Christianity. Therefore, the church fought against heresy. And the first execution by throat, which was carried out at the request of Christians, was carried out by the ruler of the city of Tire Maxim in 385 Nad Priscilian based on his accusation of Gnosticism and Manichaeism

The emergence of heresy Novatianism associated with the intra-church struggle for the main episcopal see in Africa in Carthage between Cyprian And Novat, and then - Felicissimo. Cyprian (died 258) Received the see within 2 years after returning to Christianity. He defended the unity of the church, strong episcopal authority and the right of the bishop alone to show "mercy to those who have fallen" (a concession to paganism, Roman authority), while allowing for great liberalism. His opponents believed that only those who themselves suffered for the faith (martyrs and confessors) could show mercy. This undermined the authority of the bishop. A similar movement arose in Rome, led by a presbyter Novatian(died 268), from whose name the heresy received its name. Although the external reason for the emergence of this movement was competition for positions, it was based on the desire to preserve the remnants of the revolutionary democratic movement in Christianity, to prevent wealthy individuals from penetrating Christian communities, etc. The Novatians resisted the social reorientation of Christianity. However, this movement was doomed.

In the New Testament texts, Christ appears as the God-man, who simultaneously has a human and divine nature. Included in this Christological view is the doctrine of the trinity of the deity. Returning to the question of the relationship between God the Father and God the Son, Arius from Alexandria (apparently 256 or 280 - 336 pp.) expressed the opinion that Jesus was not born of God, but created by him.

Consequently, he is not consubstantial with God the Father, but similar to him. In Greek, the difference in these words is only in one letter “and” ( Goluusius or Homoiusios). But this difference had a very great semantic meaning: is Jesus Christ God? After all, he was only like God. It was about the fate of Christianity. Arius immediately found accomplices: seven presbyters and twelve deacons were his first followers. Over time, the masses of the Egyptian population, dissatisfied with the church order, as well as supporters of pagan ideology, gathered under the flag of Arius. Arianism penetrated the barbarian tribes, and under its flag the fight against the Empire was waged.

Emperor Constantine, who at that time had decided on Christianity as the future state religion, rushed to save him. To overcome Arianism, he had to convene an Ecumenical Council. Arianism was condemned by the council, but not as consistently and decisively as other heresies were condemned. The decision was made on the equality of the essences of the two first persons of the Trinity, which became a great concession to Arianism. True, the Arians did not sign the decision, and their oppression began by both the church and the state.

However, the son of Constantine (337 - 361 pp.) Rehabilitated Arianism. And only 381 rubles. The Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople under Emperor Theodosius I the Great (379 - 395 pp.) finally condemned Arianism and formed the theological position of “one single divine substance in three persons.” However, Arianism existed for a long time among barbarian peoples (Goths, Vandals, Lombards).

Part of the irreconcilable Montanists in North Africa, led by a bishop Donat started a new heresy - Donatism. Associated with it is the performance of North African slaves and colons - the agonistic movement or circumcelioniv(tramps). The agonists called themselves fighters for the right faith. The movement reached a particularly strong scale in the 40s of the 4th century. The rebels burned and plundered the estates of the rich, tortured the rich, and freed slaves and colones. The movement became so radical that the Donatist leadership split from it. The Roman army defeated the Agonists twice. However, individual Donatist communities continued to exist until Vin Art. (before the Muslim conquest).

The power of Christian ideas and organizations was also evidenced by the unsuccessful attempt Julian the Apostate(361 -363 pp.) Push Christianity out of public life and government affairs. his successor

Jovian(363 - 364 pp.) He again banned paganism and returned to Christianity. All other emperors supported Christianity.

However, this did not protect the Christian religion from new heresies. In the 4th century. arose Nestorianism led by the Patriarch of Constantinople Nestorius(died c. 450). He taught that Jesus is a man who is only externally united with the second person of the Trinity, with God the Son, therefore the Virgin Mary is not the Mother of God at all, but only the Mother of Christ, an outstanding woman who gave birth to an outstanding man. This statement provoked fierce resistance from monks and priests. Theodosius II convened the Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus, where at the first session 153 bishops condemned Nestorianism.

However, with the arrival of other bishops at the council, the situation began to develop in favor of Nestorius. His opponent the Bishop of Alexandria Kirill with a monk Eutychios laid out the Christological doctrine in a new way: in Jesus there is only one divine nature. This marked the beginning monophysitism. Now Eutyches was already condemned. A council was again convened in Ephesus, and with the support of the imperial authorities, Eutyches was acquitted. But the Bishop of Rome did not recognize such a decision. The religious struggle continued.

Emperor Markian(450 - 457 pp.) Was against heresies and convened the IV Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon in 451, at which 450 eastern bishops condemned both Nestorianism and Monophysitism. Jesus said: “Two different and indivisible natures in one person.” The heretics did not recognize this definition and formed their own churches. There are still followers of Nestorianism in Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Monophysitism found fertile ground in the East as a reason for the separation of some churches.

Thus, Christianity and the Christian Church in the 4th century. formed organizationally, won the internal struggle against heresies and were recognized as dominant in the Roman Empire, that is, Christianity became the state and dominant religion.

The first three centuries of Christian history are characterized by an unprecedented fermentation of religious ideas. Never after this have so many diverse sects appeared in Christianity, and never again have disputes between sectarians and the Christian Church touched upon such important and significant issues as at this time.

The heretical sects of the first three centuries of Christianity differed from later heresies in that they, as a rule, distorted not just one dogma, but entire systems of worldviews were opposed to Christianity. Many of these systems, despite the obvious strangeness of the formulation of their views, were distinguished by both the depth of philosophical thought and the creativity of poetic imagination. Of course, the very appearance of various sects in the Christian world did not pass without leaving a mark on church life. From the very beginning of its existence, the Church developed its strength in the fight against heresies and schisms. In this struggle, church theology, church discipline, and church ritual itself took shape. It is not without reason that in almost all monuments of ancient Christian life and writing - theological works, rules and regulations of ancient councils, in prayers and chants, even in church rituals - there are many direct and indirect references to the heretical sects of that time.

The earliest heretics in the Christian church were the Ebionites and the Ebionite Gnostics. This heresy arose from significant, at first, contact with Judaism. At the Apostolic Council in 51, it was decided that the Old Testament law (temporary and representative) had lost its force in Christianity. Some Jewish Christians did not agree with this, and through this the sect of Judaizing Christians appeared. They denied the dogma of the Trinity, the deity of Jesus Christ, His supernatural birth, recognizing in Him only a great prophet like Moses. All his activities were reduced to explaining and supplementing the Old Testament law with new rules. They celebrated the Eucharist on unleavened bread, drinking only water in a cup. The Kingdom of Christ was understood as a 1000-year visible earthly kingdom, for the foundation of which Christ would rise again, conquer all nations and provide the Jewish people with dominion over the whole world. At the same time, the Ebionites did not recognize the Savior’s atoning Sacrifice, that is, they denied the most important dogma that forms the basis of Christianity.

The Gnostic Ebionites mixed many pagan views into the Jewish views. Thus, they even denied the Old Testament religion of the Jewish people, as set out in the holy books of the Jews. According to their teaching, the primitive true religion was given to the first man, but was lost by him after the Fall, and it was repeatedly restored by the Divine Spirit, who appeared on earth in the person of the Old Testament righteous. From Moses this religion was preserved among a small circle of Israelites.

To restore and spread it among the entire human race, the Divine Spirit appeared in the person of Jesus Christ. Thus, according to the teachings of the Ebionite Gnostics, Christ is not a Redeemer, but only a teacher, and His teaching is not a new revelation, but only a renewal of what was known to a small circle of chosen people. It must be said that with all this, the Gnostic Ebionites adhered to strict asceticism: they did not eat meat, milk, or eggs at all - to elevate the spiritual over the sensual.

At the same time, we must remember that not only Jews, but also pagans converted to Christianity. Some of them tried to combine Christian teachings with the philosophical and religious views of pagans, and in such compilations there was even more paganism than Christianity. The heresies of pagan Christians were called Gnosticism. In all religions, the Gnostics saw an element of the divine and tried to use various religious and philosophical teachings to create a religious and philosophical system that stood above other religions.

At this time, two centers of Gnosticism were formed: in Alexandria and in Syria. The Gnostics considered matter the source of evil, recognized Jesus Christ as a simple man, with whom the highest eon (i.e., spiritual essence) after the Supreme God-Christ united during Baptism. The Gnostics also denied the dogma of atonement, believing that either a simple person suffered on the Cross, or that the sufferings of Jesus Christ themselves were invalid, illusory.

There were two currents of Gnosticism: extreme ascetics, who tried to obtain spiritual liberation by exhausting the body, and antinomians, who destroyed the bodily shell (matter) through revelry, drunkenness, and generally denial of moral laws. The names of Simon Magus and Cerinthos, who were famous apologists of Gnosticism of the apostolic age, have come down to us.

The connection between the Old and New Testaments was distorted and misunderstood by some Christians. One of them was Marcion, the son of a bishop, who was later excommunicated from the Church by his father himself. Marcion recognized Christianity as a completely new teaching that had no connection with the Old Testament revelation. Moreover, he declared the Old Testament revelation and New Testament teaching to be contradictory, just as the punishing Judge and the God of goodness and love are contradictory. He attributed the Old Testament revelation to the demiurge, the Old Testament God of truth, and the New Testament teaching to the God of Goodness and love. He again attributed the creation of the visible world to the demiurge, but he recognized matter with its ruler, Satan, as the source of sensory existence.

According to the teachings of Marcion, in order to maintain moral order in the world, the demiurge gave people a law, but did not impart the power to carry it out. The strict requirements of this law created only torment both in this world and in hell, beyond the grave.

To liberate people from the power of the demiurge and the complete victory of spirit over matter, God in the form of the Son descended to earth and took on a ghostly body, not being born from the Virgin Mary, but descending directly into the Capernaum synagogue. He revealed to people the true God of goodness and love and indicated the means for liberation from the power of the demiurge. Marcion believed that the suffering of the Savior on the Cross was illusory, just as for Him on the Cross only death without suffering was necessary, since access to hell was only for the dead. It should be noted that, despite all his errors, Marcion does not make reference to any secret tradition, but uses only the canonical books of the Church itself, but he changes some of the sacred books and excludes others.

At the beginning of the first half of the 2nd century, a new trend appeared in the life of some Christian communities, which was a counterweight to Gnosticism. The founder of this doctrine was Montanus, who was a pagan priest before converting to Christianity. The life of the then Christian society seemed to him not strict enough. He considered discipline and regulations on the outward behavior of a Christian to be essential in Christianity. Montanus created a whole unique doctrine of church discipline, which misled his followers. Such false teaching regarding the external orders of church life (worship, church government and discipline) is called schism. But Montanism took a middle position between schism and heresy.

Montanus was convinced of the imminent advent of the 100-year kingdom of Christ on earth, and by strengthening church discipline he wanted to prepare Christians for a worthy entry into this kingdom. Moreover, he began to pose as a prophet, the organ of the Comforter Spirit, whom Jesus Christ promised to send. It must be said that Montand was a morbidly nervous man with a developed imagination. As a rule, his prophecies appeared in a state of ecstasy, euphoria, and sleep. The very content of these prophecies did not concern church teaching, but only the rules of external behavior of Christians. Based on these revelations, the Montanists introduced new fasts, increased their severity, began to consider second marriages as adultery, prohibited military service, rejected secular learning, luxury in clothing and all amusements. A follower of their false teaching who sinned gravely after receiving baptism was forever excommunicated from the church, even if he had sincere repentance.

It must be said that during the persecution the Montanists strived in every possible way for the crown of martyrdom. The followers of Montanus believed that the Holy Spirit spoke more in Montana than in all the prophets and apostles, and in the prophecies of the Montanists higher mysteries were revealed than in the Gospel. It is also worthy of attention that in hierarchical terms the Montanists created an intermediate level between the patriarch and the bishop-canon.

Let us now remember that we classified Montanism as something between schism and heresy. At the same time, such views arose among Christians, in which quick hopes for the coming of the Lord were revealed, and a sharply negative attitude towards the world was expressed. There was a basis for the emergence of such views and opinions, because it was a time of constant persecution of Christians. Such views and opinions were called chiliasm, which was characterized by the interpretation of Old Testament and New Testament prophecies in a strictly literal sense. At its core, chiliasm is an erroneous theological opinion, and not a heresy, since not a single Christian dogma is changed in it. Well, these expectations of the very soon coming of the Savior and the visible kingdom of Christ were brought to the Christian church by Jews who converted to Christianity. Since the 4th century, persecution of Christians stopped; they began to enjoy the protection of the authorities and laws. After this, chiliastic expectations ceased on their own.

It must be said that from the second half of the 3rd century, Jewish and pagan traditions began to disappear. The attention of Christians began to focus more and more on clarifying individual issues of their faith. Accordingly, misconceptions and false teachings began to arise on the doctrinal issues under study. This happened because the incomprehensible mysteries of revelation began to be subjected to rational analysis. For example, the dogma of the Holy Trinity became a stumbling block for such researchers.

Having abandoned pagan polytheism, some Christians accepted the dogma of the Holy Trinity as tritheism, that is, instead of polytheism, tritheism arose. But the New Testament revelation gives such clear and definite indications of the trinity of persons in the Godhead that it is simply impossible to deny them. However, some Christians, without denying the dogma of the Holy Trinity, gave it an interpretation that led to the denial of the second and third persons of the Holy Trinity as independent living entities, and to the recognition of only one person in God. Therefore they received the name anti-trinitarians and monarchians.

One part of the anti-Trinitarians saw in the faces of the Holy Trinity only divine powers - these are the dynamists, and the other part believed that the faces of the Holy Trinity are only forms and images of the Revelation of the Divine; they received the name modalists.

The teaching of the anti-Trinitarian dynamists was that God is absolute unity, there is no second or third person. What are called the persons of the Holy Trinity are not living entities, but Divine powers that manifest themselves in the world. Thus, the second person of the Holy Trinity is Divine wisdom, and the Holy Spirit, according to their interpretation, is Divine power, manifested in the sanctification of people and the imparting of grace-filled gifts to them.

A typical representative of this anti-Trinitarian movement is the Antiochian Bishop Paul of Samosata. According to his teaching, Christ was only a simple man to whom Divine wisdom was communicated to the highest degree.

The exponent of the teachings of the anti-Trinitarian modalists was Savelius, presbyter of Ptolemais. According to their teaching, God Himself, outside of His activity and relationship to the world, is an indifferent unity. But in relation to the world, God takes on different images: in the Old Testament period, God the Father appears, in the New Testament time, God took on the image of the Son and suffered on the Cross, and from the moment of the descent of the Holy Spirit, the third image of the Divine appeared - the Holy Spirit.

While illuminating the internal life of Christian communities and the Christian Church, let us not forget about the external circumstances that were created at that time, the time of the greatest persecution of Christians. During the reign of Emperor Decius, the persecution of the Christian Church was great, and the number of Christians who could not resist in their confession of faith and who fell away from the Church was great. The question of accepting into the Church those who fell away from it during persecution became the cause of a schism in some churches. Thus, Montanistic views were strong in the Carthaginian church, thanks to the activities of the presbyter Tertulian. Bishop Cyprian shared their attitude towards those who had fallen away from the Church and spoke out for lifelong repentance for those who had committed grave sins, and even after the death of a repentant sinner, the Church should not give him forgiveness. But the confessors of Christ interceded with the bishop for the fallen. As a result of this, Bishop Cyprian changed his mind and was going to change the procedure for admitting the fallen into the Church. The persecution of Decius prevented this and Cyprian was forced to flee. After the removal of the bishop, a schism arose in the Carthaginian church, led by Presbyter Novatus and Deacon Felicissimus, who claimed leadership in the church. Presbyter Novatus had a personal dissatisfaction with Bishop Cyprian, therefore, to achieve his goal, he deliberately used the other extreme, namely, he developed the most lenient discipline in the matter of receiving the fallen. This led to the complete collapse of discipline in the Carthaginian church and the neglect of Bishop Cyprian. But the persecution of Decius began to subside, Bishop Cyprian returned to Carthage. At his insistence, in 251, a council of bishops was convened to resolve the issue of the fallen, at which Presbyter Novatus and Deacon Felicissimus were excommunicated from the Church. But they could no longer stop and repent, so they tried to find accomplices. However, they failed to find widespread support, and by the 4th century the schism ceased to exist.

The issue of admitting the fallen into the Church, which caused a split in the Carthaginian community, also worried the Christians of Rome, because during the persecution of Decius, the Roman Church was ruled for more than a year by presbyters, of whom Novatian stood out for his learning and eloquence.

After the election of Cornelius to the episcopal see, Novatian considered himself offended and illegally achieved the episcopal rank, advocating lifelong excommunication of the fallen from church communion. This caused a split in the Roman community, but Novatian did not find widespread support for himself.

However, in places where the Montanist movement took place, Novatian’s supporters received some support and existed until the 7th century. This was due to the fact that in dogmatic teaching they did not allow errors, but they were distinguished by more severe discipline and the erroneous opinion that the holiness of the Church depended on the holiness and behavior of its members.

It must be said that in the 2nd century, Christianity spread so much, it was so well known in the world that even people appeared who wanted to use the Christian doctrine as a kind of screen or cover in order to use the emerging trust and interest of people for their own selfish purposes. One of these adventurers was a certain Manes, a learned man who posed as a messenger of God, who wanted to reform the Persian religion of Zoroaster in the second half of the 3rd century. Having been rebuffed, he fled Persia in 270 and traveled to India and China, becoming acquainted with the teachings of Buddhists. As a result of his wanderings, Manes created a poetic book, illustrated with paintings, which received the meaning of the gospel from the Manichaeans, his followers. In 277, Manes returned to Persia, where he was executed for distorting religion. His teaching in the initial stage of its development had nothing in common with Christianity. It was a completely new religion with a claim to world domination. Christian concepts in Manichaeism were given a meaning that has nothing in common with the original one. Manichaeism has great similarities with Gnosticism, differing in its pronounced dualism.

According to the teachings of Manes, from eternity there have been two principles: good and evil. Good is God with twelve pure eons flowing from him, standing at the head of the kingdom of light. The evil one is Satan with twelve evil spirits, who is at the head of the kingdom of darkness. In the kingdom of light there is order and harmony, and in the kingdom of darkness there is disorder, chaos, constant internal struggle. A struggle began between these kingdoms. One of the eons of the kingdom of light - Christ, armed with the five pure elements, descends into the kingdom of darkness and enters into a fight with demons. In the struggle he becomes exhausted: the demons capture both part of himself and part of his light weapon. The new eon of the kingdom of light—the Life-giving Spirit—plucks half of Christ from danger and transfers it to the sun. The other half of the first man Jesus remains in the kingdom of darkness. From the mixing of the elements of darkness and light, the third, middle kingdom is formed - the visible world.

Jesus, who is in matter within him, has become the world soul, but He seeks to get rid of his mother. A global struggle between opposing forces begins. The liberation of spiritual elements from matter is helped by Jesus and the Life-Giving Spirit being in the sun. To counteract this liberation, Satan creates man in the image of the first man Christ, and his rational soul is made up of the elements of light. But in order to keep the spirit of this person in slavery, Satan also gives him another, lower soul, consisting of substances of matter and full of sensuality and flesh. There is a constant struggle between these two souls. To nourish the sensitive soul, Satan allowed man to eat from all the fruits of the tree, with the exception of the fruits from the tree of knowledge, because these fruits could reveal to man his heavenly origin. But Jesus, who is in the sun in the form of a serpent, inclines a person to violate this commandment. In order to darken the cleared consciousness of a person, Satan creates a wife and incites him to carnal cohabitation with her. With the multiplication of the human race, using false religions - Judaism and paganism - the consciousness of the rational soul of people was so suppressed by Satan that he became the complete owner of the human race. To liberate spirit and light from matter and darkness, Jesus descends from the sun to earth and takes on a ghostly body, ghostly suffering on the Cross. These sufferings symbolically represent the suffering of Jesus trapped in matter, without any redemptive meaning. Only the teaching of Christ mattered, but not that which was set forth in the Gospel and Apostolic Epistles.

According to the teachings of Manes, the apostles did not understand the teachings of Christ and subsequently distorted them. This teaching was later restored by Manes himself, in whose person the Paraclete-Spirit Comforter appeared. Manes is the last and most perfect of all the messengers of God. With his appearance, the world soul learned about its origin and is gradually freed from the bonds of matter. The followers of Manes were offered a means to liberate the spirit - the strictest asceticism, in which marriage, wine, meat, hunting, plant gathering, and agriculture were prohibited. If the soul has not been purified during one life, then the purification process will begin in a new life, in a new body. Through the burning of the world, the final purification will be accomplished and the restoration of primitive dualism will occur: matter will again plunge into insignificance, Satan will be defeated and, together with his kingdom, will become completely powerless.

Manichean society was divided into two classes:
chosen or perfect;
ordinary listeners (people);

The perfect were subjected to strict discipline, all kinds of deprivations, which were required by the Manichaean system. They alone were awarded baptism and were revered as people in close communion with God. They were entrusted with the task of mediation between God and imperfect members of the sect. The Perfect gave forgiveness to those who, due to the nature of their occupation, came into contact with matter and thereby became defiled and sinned (farming, etc.).

Church hierarchy of the Manichaeans: head, twelve teachers, seventy-two bishops with priests and deacons. The divine service, the simplest, was deliberately opposed to the divine service of the Orthodox Church. Thus, the Manichaeans rejected holidays and Sundays, turned to the sun in prayer, and performed baptism with oil.

The Manichean heresy was widespread and had echoes in the heresies of later times. This happened thanks to views that easily and clearly explained both the problems of evil in the world and the dualism that every person feels in his soul.

In conclusion, it should be noted that the sects existing in our time widely use the errors of ancient sects and teachings in their teachings. Of course, this is not always given out openly, like, say, some club for the study of Slavic paganism. In most cases, the true purpose of the sect’s teachings is not disclosed, known only to a narrow circle of initiates.

Priest Vladimir Goridovets

Bibliography
Harnak A. From the history of early Christianity. Moscow, 1907
Dobschutz von Ernst. The most ancient Christian communities. Cultural and historical paintings. St. Petersburg, ed. Brockhaus and Efron
Life of ancient Christians. No author. Moscow, 1892
Ivantsov-Platonov A. M., prot. Heresies and schisms of the first three centuries of Christianity. Moscow, 1877
Malitsky P.I. History of the Christian Church. Tula, 1912
The first four centuries of Christianity. No author. St. Petersburg, 1840
Smirnov E. History of the Christian Church. Petrograd, 1915