Teaching on the Church of St. Cyprian of Carthage

Saint Cyprian of Carthage closely linked his name in history with the teachings about the Church. The historical circumstances of the life of the Carthaginian saint, his pastoral activity and his personal practical character - all this created from him a church writer, primarily concerned with revealing the doctrine of the Church. Before him, this doctrine had already been the subject of discussion by church writers; the formulation of the doctrine of the Church was already taking shape, as if maturing; but still there were few points that were revealed accurately and completely. We expounded the doctrine of Tradition before St. Irenaeus and Tertullian inclusive and their teaching about the Church as the custodian of the truth of Christ. But we have already seen that even St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, each individual church community is considered in relation to teaching as something independent and self-sufficient. Reference is made to the unity of faith in different Churches only in the logical proof of its truth and authenticity. And St. Irenaeus and Tertullian fought against Gnosticism, which distorted the dogmatic teaching of the Church, and it is understandable that they insist on the need to preserve the “rule of faith.” But discord and disagreement turned out to be very possible even with the equally unchanged preservation of the rule of faith. It was therefore necessary to indicate other signs of church unity. We have already seen how, even in the Epistles of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, the bishop was placed at the head of the church community, and everything was subordinate to him. But the idea of ​​the possibility of error, deviation from the truth and the bishop lay, as it were, beyond the conceivable horizon of church writers of the second century. The middle of the 3rd century first brought to the attention of church writers the fact of the persistent separation of the bishop and entire communities from the Church. The fight against Montanism made it necessary to clarify the doctrine of the holiness of the Church. But the fight against Montanism left too few monuments, and we know very little about the dogmatic formulas that were created by the church opponents of Montanism. We have already noted the lack of positive dogmatic teaching about the holiness of the Church. In our presentation of the disciplinary disputes of the first quarter of the 3rd century, we avoided, as far as possible, the precise formulation of the dogmatic teaching on the holiness of the Church among the ecclesiastical writers of that time; however, we still fear that we have not introduced something inspired by later dogmatic formulas, but still unknown to church thought at the beginning of the 3rd century. Callistus, Bishop of Rome, decisively announced the possibility of accepting into church communion those who had sinned against chastity. But it is quite clear that the question of acceptance of all mortal sinners in general had to be resolved sooner or later in a positive sense. Tertullian had reason to reproach Callistus for inconsistency, saying that his arguments would rather justify the acceptance into church communion of apostates than of adulterers. 1 At the beginning of the 3rd century, they began to resolve the issue of admitting mortal sinners into church communion, but this very issue had not yet been brought into proper connection with the idea of ​​the holiness of the Church. By the time of the life and work of St. Cyprian, thus, many questions arose regarding the doctrine of the Church, and new questions were added that arose already in his time and had the closest relation to the doctrine of the Church. St. Cyprian united all the results obtained by the early dogmatic thought of the Church, developed them in more detail, supplemented them with new dogmatic provisions, and his teaching about the Church appears in the form of a more integral system. Life and work of St. Cyprian - in particular his teaching about the Church - have already been the subject of detailed monographic works 2. When exploring the history of the dogma of the Church, we cannot, of course, strive for monographic completeness of the study. We need to turn our attention primarily to the meaning of the teachings of St. Cyprian on the Church in the general history of the dogma on the Church. A study of purely historical events in the life of St. would take us too far. Cyprian, therefore we will not dwell on historical details, but will focus our attention on those dogmatic provisions that partly guided events, and partly developed under the influence of the events that took place. In his presentation of the views of St. Cyprian, we will be guided by considerations not chronological, but systematic. From the very first times of his episcopal ministry, St. Cyprian encountered church discord. This church discord was for the Carthaginian bishop, by his own admission, like some new persecution 3 . To reconcile discord and preach church unity - such was the historical task of St. Cyprian 4. Cyprian already had a large inheritance from past centuries, which he could use in the fight against church division. Also St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, who said of himself that he was destined for unity, persistently spoke of the need for church peace and the preservation of the true faith of submission to the bishop. At St. Ignatius also provides some basis for this particular central position of the bishop in the Church. At St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, and even earlier by St. We have already seen the doctrine of Clement of Rome about the divine establishment of the hierarchy and the continuity of the apostolic succession of bishops. And so we see how all these thoughts were internalized by St. Cyprian 5. Cyprian only expounds and argues them in more detail; but at the same time, it most highlights the other side in the position of the bishop. The earliest writers viewed the bishop primarily as the guardian of the truth entrusted to the Church of Christ. The schismatics with whom St. had to deal. Cyprian, they did not distort the teachings, but introduced discord and disagreement. For Cyprian, therefore, agreement with the bishop is necessary, first of all, to preserve church peace. St. Cyprian speaks clearly and decisively about the divinely established hierarchy in the Church. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself said that nothing, even the smallest, happens without the knowledge and permission of God (see: Matthew 10:29); Is it really possible to believe that priests are appointed (ordinari) in the Church without His knowledge! To decide that those who are appointed (qui ordinantur) are unworthy and criminal, is this not to believe that “His priests are appointed (constituantur) not from God and not through God in the Church”? 6 God provides priests. Christ personally, at His discretion and wave (arbitrio et nutu ac praesentia), governs both the leaders themselves and the Church with the leaders 7. The Lord is pleased to choose and appoint priests for Himself in His Church; He preserves those chosen and appointed by His will and help, encouraging those in power and giving them courage to curb the arrogance of the wicked 8 . The Apostles, that is, bishops and primates, were chosen by the Lord Himself... Who appoints bishops 9 . Not only is the appointment of each bishop by a special will, but the very principle of hierarchy is established by God. The dignity of a bishop is an apostolic dignity, continuously preserved in the Church. “Our Lord, whose commandments and admonitions we must keep, determining the dignity of the bishop and the government of His Church (episcopi honorem et ecclesiae suae rationem), says to Peter in the Gospel: I say to you, because you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and even if he is bound on earth, he will be bound in Heaven; and even if you have loosed it on earth, it will be loosed in Heaven (Matthew 16:18–19). From here successively and successively (per temporum et successionum vices) flows (decurrit) the installation (ordinatio) of bishops and the government (ratio) of the Church, so that the Church is established on bishops (ecclesia super episcopos constituatur) and every action of the Church is controlled by the same rulers (praepositos). This is based on Divine law" 10. Bishops, as successors of the apostles, placed by God in the place of the apostles 11, are sometimes called apostles by Cyprian 12. Bishops, as the successors of the apostles, have the authority to teach in the Church. Bishops must hold fast the faith and truth of the Catholic Church themselves and teach it to others, proving by all the Gospel and Apostolic rules the solidity of the Divine structure of unity 13 . Bishops are the main guardians of faith and truth 14. The priests of God keep the Divine commandments. If the truth begins to waver and weaken in anyone, then they should immediately turn to its Lord's beginning - the Evangelical and Apostolic Tradition (ad originem dominicam et ad evangelicam atque apostolicam traditionem revertamur) 15. There is nothing essentially new in this teaching about the succession of the power of bishops in the Church from the apostles, but one cannot help but notice that Cyprian in this case has a slightly different point of view on the subject. At St. Irenaeus, for example, the succession of bishops is a historical argument in favor of the truth of Church Tradition. Thought of St. Cyprian already revolves in the purely dogmatic sphere: he speaks generally about the divine establishment of a successive hierarchy in the Church. A divinely appointed bishop is, according to the teachings of St. Cyprian, the body that unites around itself, first of all, a separate community 16. “The Church consists of a people united by a priest and a flock committed to its shepherd. The bishop is in the Church, and the Church is in the bishop (episcopum in ecclesia esse et ecclesiam in episcopo), and whoever is not with the bishop is not in the Church” 17. The bishop is the one shepherd of the one flock (see: John 10:16) 18. The bishop in the local Church has full power, “he alone is given authority over the Church” 19, the presbyters or deacons who share his labors must obey him and only on his instructions carry out everything that church administration requires 20. Like St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, St. Cyprian tirelessly talks about obedience to the bishop. “Let them not think,” he writes about virgins, “that one can inherit life and salvation without obeying bishops and priests” 21 . He has a number of proofs of the necessity and godliness of this obedience. He cites all the passages from the Holy Scriptures, not only the New, but also the Old Testament, where only obedience to the priests is spoken of. He quotes several times the words of Deuteronomy (see: Deut. 17:12–13), where the punishment of death for disobedience to the priest is established 22. Refers to the example of Christ, Who showed respect to bishops and priests, although they had neither the fear of God nor the knowledge of Christ. “He taught us by this to show true priests legitimate and complete respect” (legitime et plene honorari) 23. Obedience to the bishop is necessary for the peace and integrity of the Church. “If, according to Divine teaching, the entire brotherhood obeyed him, then no one would ever rebel against the host of priests, no one, after the Divine determination (judicium), after the voice (suffragium) of the people, after the verdict (consensum) of his fellow bishops, would no longer make himself a judge - not over the bishop, but over God, no one would tear the Church apart by dissolving the unity of Christ, no one would become a judge to please himself and out of arrogance would separately establish a new heresy outside the Church" 24 . To all opponents of the episcopal power of St. Cyprian points to the fate of Korah, Dathan and Abiron, who began to consider themselves equal to the commanding priest and received punishment for sacrilegious insolence. By such punishment of the rebels it was shown that the Provider of priests avenges them 25, that all attempts made by the wicked of their own free will to destroy the Divine order (ordinationem) are made against God 26. Finally, in a letter to Florence Pupian, which was written by St. Cyprian in a raised and excited tone, we read: “Bees have a queen, cattle have a leader, and remain faithful to them, robbers obey the ataman with complete obedience. How much more honest and better are senseless beasts and dumb animals, as well as bloodthirsty, raging robbers with swords and weapons? And there they recognize and fear a leader who was installed not by God’s determination, but by agreement of a dissolute crowd and a criminal mob” 27. Obedience to the bishop is the basis of the unity of the Church! On the contrary, disobedience is the beginning of division and heresy. “The efforts of heretics and malicious schismatics usually begin with self-indulgence, combined with arrogant and proud contempt for the primate. This is how apostasy from the Church and the desecration of the altar occur, this is how the peace of Christ, the order (ordinatio) and the unity of God are disturbed.”28 This idea is repeated many times in various expressions in the works of St. Cyprian. “Proud and rebellious people and enemies of the priests of God apostatize from the Church or rebel against the Church” 29. Pride in general in ancient church literature is considered the cause of heresy or schism. At St. Ignatius the God-Bearer and St. We have already seen Irenaeus of Lyons condemnation of heresy, which is very close in meaning 30. But in comparison with previous church writers, St. Cyprian and at this point a certain peculiarity is noticed. Previously, pride was considered a source of opposition to the “rule of faith” or its distortion 31 . At St. Cyprian's heretical pride produces mainly a rebellion against the hierarchy, against the bishop, to whom everyone in his area must obey. St. Cyprian, thus, partly complements the teaching that existed before him about the power of the bishop and the need to obey him 32. At the same time, St. Cyprian does not place the bishop as some kind of autocratic manager of all church affairs, so that his expression: “The Church in the bishop” could be interpreted in the sense of replacing the Church with a bishop. “Church,” says St. Cyprian, - consists of the bishop, the clergy and all who stand in the faith" 33. Very often in the letters of Cyprian we find evidence of the decision of affairs by the bishop together with the clergy and people 34. He himself writes to the presbyters and deacons: “From the very beginning of my bishopric, I made it a rule not to do anything at my sole (privatim) discretion, without your advice and without the consent of the people” 35. And about the Roman bishop Cornelius, Cyprian reports that he always read the letters he received to the glorious clergy who sat with him (tecum praesidenti) and to the most holy, most famous people 36. Some representatives of church historical science cannot reconcile the two provisions of St. Cyprian: “The Church is in the bishop” and “The Church is in the bishop, the clergy and all who stand in the faith.” They want to see in the works of St. Cyprian has two elements: early and later 37. In Cyprian, the ancient idea that the Church is first of all a community 38 seems to break through, and a late, even unexpected trace of the autonomy of the community 39 is encountered. Under the duress of the circumstances in which he found himself, Cyprian could not eliminate this autonomy, but could direct it in his favor 40 . They suggest a change in his view 41 or [believe] even that Cyprian himself was in his soul a supporter of episcopal absolutism, but disguised his views with words about the mutual consent of the bishop, clergy and people 42 . But the last suspicion is in vain. At St. Cyprian's expressive testimony about the power of the bishop stands completely next to the definition of the Church, according to which it consists of a bishop, clergy and believers 43. Although it is a fair remark that St. Cyprian does not explain how both of them agree with him, 44 however, there can be no doubt that both of these points are organically connected with one another. St. Cyprian affirms the unity of the private Church on the power and importance of the bishop; the bishop is the center and support of this unity 45. But the thought of the holy father revolves in the dogmatic, not legal, sphere. His teaching on the unity of the private Church has no legal connotation; from the pure moral-Christian soil of St. Cyprian doesn't leave. And given the nature of his teaching, the power of the bishop and his constant connection with the community not only do not exclude each other, but, on the contrary, complement each other. The Church, in agreement with the bishop, remains in unity, and the bishop, in agreement with the entire community, finds the moral basis of his authority 46. This is, in general terms, the teaching of St. Cyprian on the unity of each individual Church, governed by a bishop. But it is not this teaching that constitutes, as we have already said, the most characteristic feature of the ecclesiological views of the holy father; This point in the doctrine of the Church has already been decisively expressed by church writers from the very beginning of Christian literature. And it is not this subject that St. speaks especially persistently about. Cyprian. His favorite thought is the thought of the unity of the entire Church of Christ. One cannot, of course, think that St. Cyprian created this doctrine of the unity of the entire Church of Christ out of nothing. No, the thought of the unity of all Christianity has always lived in the church consciousness; but this consciousness breaks through in written monuments only as if by accident; it was not the subject of detailed discussions 47 . Cyprian's merit is that he gave a clear and systematic expression to the dogmatic teaching about the unity of the Church, a unity that was even earlier recognized in its internal necessity and one way or another received external implementation 48. Having established this general view of Cyprian’s attitude to the church thought that preceded him, we move on to a more detailed presentation of his teaching about the unity of the entire Church of Christ. Christ sent His apostles to preach 49 . His disciples, according to the command of the Teacher and God, dispersed throughout the world to teach the commandments for salvation, to lead people from the darkness of error onto the path of light - to enlighten the blind and ignorant to the knowledge of the Truth 50. But the Church, founded by the apostles in all corners of the world, is one. The apostles handed over only one Church to the bishops 51. The Church by its very foundation is one; she is the Catholic Church 52 . The Lord established (constituta) the Catholic Church, which is one and only (una et sola) 53. “Christ prayed to the Father for everyone, saying: I pray not for these only, but also for those who believe their words in Me, that they may all be one; as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be one in Us (John 17:20–21). Great is the goodness and love of the Lord in the arrangement of our salvation! Not content with redeeming us with His Blood, He also asked for us! And when you ask, look at what desire He had: that we too may remain in that very unity (in ipsa unitate) in which the Father and the Son are one.”54 “The Lord says: I and the Father are one (John 10:30). And again it is written about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit: and these Three are one (1 John 5:7). Who will think that this unity, based on the immutability of the Divine (de divina firmitate) and united with the heavenly Sacraments, can be disrupted in the Church and fragmented by the discord of opposing desires? No, he who does not keep such unity does not keep the law of God, does not keep faith in the Father and the Son, does not hold on to life and salvation” 55. The Lord, instilling in us that the unity (of the Church) comes from Divine power, affirms and says: I and the Father are one (John 10:30), and directing His Church to such unity, adds: and there will be one flock and one Shepherd (John 10:16) 56. In addition to the unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, the unity of the Church of St. Cyprian bases it on the unity of God and Christ. “There is one God, and one Christ, and one Church” 57. One flock and one Shepherd. Who would think that in one place there can be either many shepherds or many flocks? 58 The Church stands in a particularly close connection with Christ. The Church is the bride of Christ 59, copulated and united (adunata) with Christ 60 as her Bridegroom 61. The blessed apostle, with his holy voice, testifies to the unity between Christ and the Church, bound by indissoluble bonds 62. St. Cyprian speaks of the marriage of Christ with the Church 63 . The mysterious union of Christ with the Church of St. Cyprian likens it to the mixing of water and wine in the Cup of the Lord. Just as wine and water are inextricably and closely united with each other and cannot be separated from one another, so in the same way nothing can separate the Church from Christ, that is, the people who make up the Church (plebem in ecclesia constitutam), firmly and unshakably abiding in faith and bound by everlasting, indissoluble love 64 . In his further speech on the sacrament of the Eucharist, St. Cyprian uses the same image to denote the unity of believers in this sacrament as we already saw in the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.” Neither flour nor water can be the Body of the Lord, but both, combined in one bread. And here the unity of the people is mysteriously depicted. For just as many grains, gathered together, ground and kneaded, form one bread, so in Christ, who is the Heavenly Bread, we see one body in which our multitude is bound and united 65 . Of course, this mysterious unity of the members of the Church in the sacrament of the Eucharist can also be attributed to the private church alone. But St. Cyprian, in agreement with the Apostle, calls the entire universal Church a body. He writes to Cornelius that it is necessary to take all possible measures to unite the members of the divided body into the unity of the universal Church (ad catholicae ecclesiae unitatem) and bind them with the bonds of Christian love 66. The Church is one people united in the unity of the body (in solidam corporis unitatem) by the union of consent 67. The very image of the bread of the Eucharist of St. Cyprian in another place applies to the entire Christian people 68. All churches scattered throughout the world are united by bonds of unity 69 . It is worthy of attention that the Roman clergy also calls the entire universal Church one Body, who in his letter to Cyprian speaks of the body of the entire Church, whose members are located in different provinces 70 . This theme of the unity of all individual churches in one universal Church of Christ is revealed in most detail by St. Cyprian in his wonderful treatise “On the Unity of the Catholic Church.” This treatise contains, as it were, the most sincere thoughts of the holy father. In his other treatises, and especially in his letters, there are constant repetitions, sometimes almost literal, of the same thoughts as in the treatise “On the Unity of the Church.” Almost nothing is omitted from this treatise; on the issue of the unity of the Church, Cyprian’s other works do not bring anything new. Everything from the Holy Scriptures that can be interpreted as applied to the Church is collected here. Here we see a whole range of different similarities and analogies. Even in the Old Testament, in prophecies and types, the truth of the unity of the Church was given. Noah's Ark foreshadowed the unified Church 71 . The house of the Old Testament Rahab served as the only refuge during the extermination of the inhabitants of Jericho (see: Josh. 2:18–19); but the house of Rahab prefigured the Church 72 . The sacrament of Passover required that the lamb, slain in the image of Christ, be eaten in one house; and for believers there is no other home except the one Church. The Church is an abode of like-mindedness, and only like-minded people live and abide in the house of God, in the Church of Christ 73 . The church is a closed garden and a sealed spring 74, the vineyard of the Lord of hosts 75. The One Church is also denoted by the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs, speaking on behalf of the Lord: One is My dove, My perfect one; she is one to her mother, she is chosen by her who gave birth to her (Song. 6:8) 76. This sacrament of unity, this union of indissoluble consent is indicated in the Gospel story about the tunic of the Lord Jesus Christ. The tunic was not divided and torn, but went entirely to one who fell by lot, and came into possession unspoiled and indivisible (see: John 19:23–24). He had a unity that came from above, that is, from Heaven from the Father. When, after the death of Solomon, the kingdom and its people were to be divided, the prophet Ahijah, meeting King Jeroboam on the field, tore his clothes into twelve pieces (see: 1 Kings 11:30–36). But just as the people of Christ should not be divided, so the robe of Christ, woven together everywhere, was not torn by those who prevailed over it: by the indivisible strength of its connection it points to the indivisible agreement of all of us who have put on Christ. Thus, by the mysterious sign of His clothing, the Lord prefigured the unity of the Church 77. The Catholic Church is one; it should not be cut or divided 78. The sacrament of unity is indivisible 79 . Church unity is not at all contradicted by the existence of separate communities scattered throughout the universe, governed by bishops. This truth of St. Cyprian explains with analogies. “The Church is one, although with the increase in fertility, expanding, it is split into many. After all, the sun has many rays, but there is only one light; There are many branches on a tree, but there is only one trunk, firmly held by the root; many streams flow from one source, but although the overflow resulting from the abundance of waters represents multiplicity, unity is still preserved at the source itself. Separate the sunbeam from its origin - unity will not allow a separate light to exist; break off a branch from a tree - the broken one will lose the ability to grow; separate a stream from its source - the separated one will dry up. In the same way, the Church, illuminated by the light of the Lord, spreads its rays throughout the world, but the light spreading everywhere is one, and the unity of the body remains undivided. Throughout the earth she spreads her branches laden with fruits; its abundant streams flow into distant space; despite all this, there remains one head, one beginning, one mother, rich in the success of fruitfulness” 80. This animated and tenderly poetic excerpt clearly expresses the idea that an individual Christian community is alive to the extent that it lives the life of Christ insofar as it is united with the entire universal Church. To separate the local Church, to withdraw into itself, is for it the same as for a ray to be separated from the sun, for a stream to be separated from its source, for a branch to be separated from its trunk. Life can only exist through an organic connection with the universal Church; If this connection is broken, Christian life will dry up. Finally, we need to consider another very controversial argument of St. Cyprian, with whom he proves the unity of the Church. St. Cyprian writes: “The Lord says to Peter: I say to you, etc. (see: Matt. 16:18–19). And again He said to him after His resurrection: Feed My sheep (John 21:16). Thus [He] founds the Church on one thing. And although after His resurrection He assumes equal authority (parem potestatem) to all the apostles, saying: As the Father sent Me, and I send you... receive the Holy Spirit: Whose sins you forgive, their sins will be forgiven; and to Him you hold fast (John 20:21–23), but in order to show unity (ut unitatem manifestaret), He was pleased to begin this unity from the same place. Of course, the other apostles were the same as Peter - they had equal dignity and power with him (hoc erant utique et ceteri apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio paediti et honoris et potestatis); but at the beginning one is indicated to designate the one Church (exordium ab unitate proficiscitur, ut ecclesia una monstretur)” 81. And in another place St. Cyprian writes: “The Church, based on the origin and requirement (origin et ratione unitatis) of unity, founded by Christ the Lord in Peter, is one” 82. It is quite understandable how much attention these passages from the works of Cyprian enjoy among Roman Catholic scholars and theologians. In their opinion, here St. Cyprian one way or another testifies to the primacy of the Apostle Peter. This understanding of the words of St. Cyprian has always been disputed and disputed by Orthodox and Protestant theologians. This dispute, of course, will not end as long as Catholicism with its teaching about the primacy of the pope continues to exist. Polemical literature on both sides has already said everything that can be said. If we decided to analyze the Catholic belief in detail, it would lead us far astray 83. We will only note that in the above words it is emphatically stated that all the apostles are equal in power and dignity. When the Lord spoke to one Apostle Peter, he had a special purpose to show the unity of the Church (ut unitatem manifestaret, ut ecclesia una monstretur). St. Cyprian, in the same chapter, gave many evidences to prove that the Church should be one. Reference to Matthew (see: Matthew 16:18–19) for St. Cyprian is just one of a number of these testimonies. The foundation of the Church by Christ only on one Apostle Peter, this is for St. Cyprian is only a symbol of church unity, nothing more than 84. So, St. Cyprian proves with particular detail and expressiveness the truth of the unity of the Church. But how is this unity expressed? If we, according to the works of St. Cyprian, if we trace his answer to this question, we will see much that is already familiar to us from the works of early church writers. And above all, St. Cyprian repeats the doctrine of the unity of faith. He ensures that all Churches maintain unchanging unanimity 85. All Christians have a community of confession (confessionis consortium) 86, a common faith (fides communis) 87, and this faith of St. Cyprian calls it the universal faith (catholica fides) 88. The unity of faith comes, according to tradition, from God the Father and the Lord our God Jesus Christ 89. Only in the Church is there pure faith 90, and the unity of faith cannot be separated from the unity of the Church 91. Anyone who does not adhere to the unity of the Church cannot think that he is keeping the faith. The Apostle Paul speaks of one faith (see: Eph. 4:5), and this unity must be firmly supported and defended 92. Therefore, heresy is not only separation from the Church, but always a distortion of faith: “The enemy invented heresies and schisms in order to overthrow faith, pervert the truth, and dissolve unity. His servants proclaim treachery under the pretext of faith, the Antichrist under the name of Christ, and, covering lies with plausibility, destroy the truth with subtle cunning.”93 Just as the devil is not Christ, although he deceives in His name, so one who does not abide in the truth of His Gospel and faith cannot be considered a Christian. The heretic dissects the Church, destroys the faith 95, he takes up arms against the Church, a traitor in relation to faith, a blasphemer in relation to piety, a disobedient slave, a lawless son, an enemy brother 96. “If we consider the faith of those who believe outside the Church, it turns out that all heretics have a completely different faith, even, strictly speaking, they have the same fanaticism, blasphemy and debate, hostile to holiness and truth” 97. Thus, according to St. Cyprian, the unity of the Church is expressed in the unity of the true faith. Christianity St. Cyprian does not distance himself from the universal Church; For him, both of these concepts completely coincide with one another 98. Outside the Catholic Church - outside the camp of Christ 99. Anyone outside the Church must be considered among opponents and antichrists. St. Cyprian refers to the words of the Lord (see: Luke 11:23; Matt. 18:17) and the words of St. Apostle John (see: 1 John 2:19) and substantiates the position with them: those who have apostatized from the Church and act against the Church are antichrists and pagans 100. Here, for example, is what St. writes. Cyprian to Antonian about Novatian: “You wished, most beloved brother, that I would write to you regarding Novatian, what heresy he introduced. Know that, first of all, we should not be curious about what he teaches when he teaches outside the Church. Whoever and whatever he may be, he is not a Christian, just as he is not in the Church of Christ” (christianus non est qui in Christi ecclesia non est) 101. In his treatise “On the Unity of the Church,” St. Cyprian also expresses the same thought, emphatically exclaiming: “He can no longer have God as a Father who does not have the Church as a mother” 102. Belonging to Christianity St. Cyprian, therefore, conditions not only recognition of the teachings of Christ, but first of all agreement with the Church established by Christ and submission to it 103. One might think that those who separated from the Church during the time of St. Cyprian still claimed the name "Christians" and even "Church". One of their arguments is presented and analyzed by St. Cyprian. “Let not some deceive themselves by the words spoken by the Lord: Where they have gathered two or three in My name, I am in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20) 104. St. Cyprian gives a very thorough refutation of such a reference to the words of Christ. “Perverters of the Gospel and false interpreters quote these words; but these are subsequent words, and they skip the previous ones; while recalling one part, they insidiously keep silent about the other; just as they themselves separated from the Church, so they cut apart the integrity of one and the same place.” In this place, Christ speaks of unanimity, but “how can two or three gather in the name of Christ, of whom it is known that they are separated from Christ and from His Gospel?” Christ promised to be with those of one accord, as He was with the three youths in the cave and with the two apostles imprisoned. “So, when the Lord lays down and says in His commandments: where two or three are gathered in My name, I am in the midst of them, then He who created and established the Church does not alienate people from the Church, but, convicting those who have fallen from the faith and exhorting the faithful to the world, shows in His words that He is more willing to deal with two or three who pray with one accord than with a large number of dissenting minds, and that more can be was sought by the harmonious prayer of a few, rather than by the discordant prayer of many.” “Do they really, when they gather, think that Christ is with them when they gather outside the Church of Christ” 105 . St. Cyprian does not limit the unity of the Church to the unity of faith, but speaks in detail about the living unity between members of the Church, which was briefly mentioned by early writers. The unity of theoretical and dogmatic principles would not satisfy the needs of the life of St. Cyprian, when church strife did not occur on this basis alone. And therefore, according to the teachings of St. Cyprian, the unity of the Church should be expressed not only in the unity of faith, but also in the unity of common love. Better to say, St. Cyprian does not separate faith from love. Faith is life-giving only when it is preserved in life 106. The Church is the unanimous and consonant people of God 107. “The sons of God should be peaceable, meek in heart, simple in speech, agreeable in mutual disposition, faithfully united with each other in a union of unanimity. Such unanimity once existed under the apostles: thus the new people of believers, observing the instructions of the Lord, adhered to mutual love. This is confirmed by Divine Scripture, which says: But the people who believed were one in heart and soul (Acts 4:32) 108. At St. Cyprian we find a highly poetic description of the ideal of common Christian love: “Only those who are like-minded, agreeable and simple-hearted live and abide in the house of God, in the Church of Christ. For this reason, the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove. This simple and meek animal, without bitter bile, does not bite, does not torment fiercely with its claws, loves human dwellings and knows only one common nest; during childbearing, couples raise children together; do not separate from each other while flying; spend their lives in mutual cohabitation; with kisses they testify to their agreement and peace: they observe the law of unanimity in everything. And in the Church the same simple-heartedness must be known - the same love must be achieved: brotherhood must imitate doves in love, and in meekness and quietness equal lambs and sheep. Bitterness cannot be combined and mixed with sweetness, darkness with light, bad weather with buckets, war with peace, barrenness with fertility, dryness with a water source, storm with silence” 109. The very sacrament of the Lord's sacrifice points to Christian unanimity, sealed by firm and undivided love 110. God commands that only peaceful, concordant and unanimous people should live in His house. He wants those regenerated to remain as He made them by the second birth (secunda nativitate), so that those who have become sons of God will remain in the peace of God, so that we, who have one Spirit, will have one heart and feeling. For God, a great sacrifice is our peace and fraternal harmony, a people united in the unity of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” 111. The members of the divided Body are united into the unity of the universal Church and are bound by the bonds of Christian love 112. Violation of common love and mutual consent is the destruction of the unity of the Church. “The indelible and grave guilt of discord is not cleared away even by suffering... Christ has given us peace; He commanded us to be agreeable and unanimous, commanded us to inviolably and firmly preserve the union of affection and love. He who by treacherous disagreement violated the love of Christ will not belong to Christ: he who does not have love does not have God. Those who do not desire to be unanimous in the Church of God cannot remain with God” 113. If the united Church is a union of love, then any separation from the Church, any heresy, which is based on pride and self-will, testifies to a lack of love. It can be said that the main idea of ​​the entire treatise on the unity of the Church is precisely that heretics lack love, and the unity of the Church is a direct consequence of love 114. A heretic or schismatic does not preserve either church unity or brotherly love 115 and acts against the love of Christ 116 . It is known about heretics that they retreated from the love and unity of the Catholic Church 117. “What kind of unity does he maintain, what kind of love does he preserve, or what kind of love does he think about who, giving in to the impulses of discord, dissects the Church, destroys the faith, disturbs the world, uproots love, desecrates the Sacrament?” 118. This idea of ​​the unity of the entire Church in love, of course, was not only abstract. We already said at the beginning of our research that the consciousness of all Christianity as one Church has always been expressed externally. St. also speaks of the same vital expression of the idea of ​​the unity of the Church in love. Cyprian 119. The expression of church-wide love was, first of all, prayer, as St. Cyprian. “The Teacher of the world and the Teacher of unity, first of all, did not want prayer to be performed separately and privately (sigillatim et privatim) - so that the one praying would pray only for himself. In fact, we do not say: “My Father, who art in heaven, give me my bread this day,” each of us does not ask for the remission only of his debt, does not pray for himself alone, so as not to be led into temptation and to get rid of the evil one. We have a national and common (publica et communis) prayer, and when we pray, not for one person, but for the whole people, because we - the whole people - are one (totus populus unum sumus). God, the Teacher of peace and harmony, who taught unity, wanted one to pray for everyone, just as He alone carried us all” 120. “Let everyone pray to God not only for himself, but for all his brothers, as the Lord taught us to pray: He does not command everyone to pray privately (privatam precem), but commands everyone to pray for everyone with a common prayer and unanimous prayer.” 121 Heresies hinder prayers 122. The same common love that unites the Christian Church is expressed in charity. St. Cyprian wrote a whole special book, “On Charity and Alms,” in which he strongly persuades Christians to do mutual charity. Speaking about the unity of the Church, he also does not miss the opportunity to talk about charity: he is sad, seeing that unanimity has become impoverished and generosity in alms has diminished 123. Letters from St. Cyprian provide rich material for characterizing church charity in the mid-3rd century. St. Cyprian speaks of helping widows, the weak and the poor, and supporting wanderers 124. He talks about organized charity 125, the ransom of prisoners 126, etc. Mutual support of members of a separate community, of course, united them among themselves in the most effective way 127. But charity was not limited to the private church - it extended to the entire universal Church. The charity of the Roman Church extended, for example, around the time of St. Cyprian to the regions of Syria and Arabia, as Dionysius of Alexandria testifies 128. Even in the middle of the 4th century in Cappadocia they gratefully remembered the help of the Roman Church 129. St. also reports the same facts of church-wide charity. Cyprian, and it is remarkable that he places the fact of this charity in close connection with the dogmatic teaching about the unity of the Church. In this regard, Cyprian’s letter to the Numidian bishops: Januarius, Maximus, Proculus, Victor, Modian, Nemesian, Nampulus and Honoratus is worthy of special attention. The Numidian bishops notified the Carthaginian Church of the captivity of some brothers and sisters. The Carthaginian Christians collected one hundred thousand sesterces (“from the offerings of the clergy and people”), which Cyprian sent along with his letter. In the letter, Cyprian thanks the Numidian Christians for wanting to make his flock a participant in a good and necessary cause, and sends lists of donors with a request to pray for them. Here Cyprian writes: “Who would not consider his brother’s sorrow as his own?” Citing the words of the apostle (see: 1 Cor. 12:26; 2 Cor. 11:29), Cyprian continues: “We must consider the captivity of our brothers our captivity and consider the sorrow of those in need our sorrow; since one body of our union (adunationis nostrae corpus unum), and not only love, but also faith (religio) should encourage and motivate us to redeem the members of the brotherhood" 130. Charity, therefore, according to St. Cyprian, is a vital expression of the dogmatic teaching about the unity of the Church. We learn about widespread charity between different Churches from the letters of the Apostle Paul, but in the monuments of church writing that have reached us, charity and all communication between Churches were not placed in inextricable connection with the dogmatic teaching about the unity of the Church: St. Cyprian for the first time emphasizes the dogmatic side of the matter and thereby partly complements the ancient church thought about the unity of the Church. But St. Cyprian also speaks of a more real external unity of individual Churches. When the Apostolic Traditions were alive, then the truth was established through communication with the Churches founded by the Apostles. Here the foundation was already laid for the relations of the Churches, for the conciliar solution of emerging controversial issues. Each bishop did not imagine himself as a completely separate head of a separate community: he was not only the center of the unity of the community within itself, but also the organ of external unity of the community with others. At St. Cyprian, for the first time we encounter a developed theory of the external unity of the entire Church in the person of its bishops. The episcopate is the organ of external unity of the universal Church. The one Catholic Church is united and sealed by the bond of priests mutually connected with each other (cohaerentium sibi invicem sacerdotum glutino copulata) 131. The bishopric is one and indivisible, and everyone participates in it by common consent 132. Here the idea is given that a bishop has the power of episcopacy as long as he agrees with all other bishops 133. There is one bishopric 134, ramified in the unanimous face of many bishops, 135 and each individual bishop is the bearer of precisely this universal priesthood. Although there are many shepherds, they feed one flock; they must gather and protect all the sheep that the Lord acquired with His blood 136. If a bishop falls away from the union of his fellow bishops and the unity of the Church, then he cannot retain the bishopric. “The Apostle exhorts us to mutually support each other, so as not to depart from the unity established by God: with patience, he says, with love for each other, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:2-3). And therefore, whoever, not observing either the unity of the spirit or the union of peace, separates himself from the bonds of the Church and from the society of priests, he, not recognizing neither the episcopate, nor the unity and peace, can have neither the power nor the honor of a bishop” 137. Bishops, therefore, must maintain peace among themselves and not enter into quarrels with their comrades and fellow bishops. “We,” writes St. Cyprian, “with all patience and meekness we try to preserve spiritual love, and the honor of concelebration, and the union of faith, and the harmony of the priesthood” 138. Consent with the episcopacy protects each individual bishop from errors, and the Church from divisions. “The society of priests, bound by the bonds of mutual consent and unity, is numerous for this reason, so that if any of our host attempts to produce heresy, to torment and scatter the flock of Christ, others would resist and, as caring and merciful shepherds, gather the Lord’s sheep into one flock” 139 . The idea of ​​unity and like-mindedness of the bishopric is constantly expressed by St. Cyprian and his contemporaries also in the fact that they often use the names: co-bishop, co-priest 140. So, a single and like-minded episcopate unites all individual Churches into one universal Church 141. Bishops unite among themselves at Councils. The Council of Bishops is, according to the teachings of St. Cyprian, the main organ of the external unity of the Church. The councils of bishops were, of course, not the product of such dogmatic teaching; on the contrary, the very teaching of St. Cyprian about the Council was already recognized earlier as the very fact of the Councils. Already from the second century there is precise information about the Councils. Thus, when Montanism appeared in Asia, then, as an anonymous author reports from Eusebius, “believers began to gather often and in many places in Asia” 142. When, at the end of the second century, a dispute arose about the time of celebrating Easter, “on this occasion councils and conferences of bishops took place, which all unanimously, through their messages,” resolved this dispute and established a general rule 143. The Councils can be considered the initial phenomenon in the life of the Christian Church 144. This fact of the Councils, even in the absence of dogmatic, detailed theories, clearly indicates that the Church has always had a consciousness not only of its unity, but also of conciliarity as the highest form of manifestation of this unity 145. By the middle of the third century, the conciliar principle was already firmly established in church practice, and St. Cyprian, based on this practice, created a dogmatic theory that corresponded to the existing church life and was already presented in not only certain forms to representatives of the Church. In the ecclesiological system of St. The Council of Cyprian represents the highest point of church unity. The time of life and activity of St. Cyprian is very rich in Cathedrals. When persecution prevented the bishops from meeting, Cyprian postponed the decision of the most important church issues until the time when the persecution ceased and the bishops could form a Council. We find the conviction to wait for conciliar decisions almost invariably in all the letters of St. Cyprian, written by him at a time when he was hiding from persecution. “Let them,” he writes about the confessors, “wait for our return, and when we, by the mercy of God, come to you, then after convening many co-bishops, in the presence of the confessors and according to your opinion, it will be possible, applying the Divine teaching, to consider the letters of the blessed martyrs and their desires” 146. About those who are in a hurry to receive peace, St. Cyprian writes to the Carthaginian clergy, “since this matter concerns not one particular Church or region, but the whole world, let them expect the public peace of the Church itself from the protection of the Lord. For humility, and teaching, and our very life demands that we, the leaders, having gathered with the clergy in the presence of the people, who should also be given honor for their faith and fear, can dispose of everything according to a common agreement” (consilii communis religione) 147. Same with St. Cyprian wrote to the Roman presbyters and deacons 148. The Church Council, as it appears to us in the works of St. Cyprian, was precisely the body that united the Church, mainly in the person of its primates - bishops. The Church Council was not a disorderly meeting of the whole people or some elected representatives, it was a Council of bishops who alone made decisions. So the letter to the clergy and the Spanish people about Basilides and Martial was written on behalf of the Council, and in its inscription only bishops are listed 149. In the inscription of the letter to Januarius and other Numidian bishops, the bishops who participated in the Council 150 are also named, among 31. Regarding the resolution of the issue at the Council, Cyprian writes: “Having gathered together, we, the bishops of Africa and Numidia, numbering 71, approved by our common opinion...” 151 Speech of St. Cyprian at the Council of 256 was addressed to the bishops, and only bishops expressed their opinions 152. Bishops condemned heretics at Councils, as, for example, Privat was condemned in the Lambesitan colony by the common vote of ninety bishops 153. True, presbyters, deacons, and people were present at the Councils along with the bishops, but they were just present. The councils were councils of bishops, but took place in the presence of the clergy and the people, 154 as can be seen from the testimonies of St. just cited above. Cyprian on the Councils In a letter to the presbyters and deacons of Rome, Saint Cyprian says: “We, the primates, will gather together in large numbers and, in consultation with you (communicato etiam vobiscum consilio), will discuss and correct” 155. Consequently, the elders were invited to the Councils for consultation, and the decision came from the bishops. Sometimes the bishops determined the decision of the Council in accordance with the requests of the people present, as evidenced by an excerpt from the letter of Cornelius to Fabius of Antioch, preserved by Eusebius 156. Catholic scientists are trying in every possible way to prove that St. Cyprian considered it necessary for the external unity of the Church to have a person uniting all the bishops, and as if for him such a person was the bishop of Rome 157. But at St. Cyprian, on the contrary, can rather indicate the places where he denies anyone’s primacy in the Church and speaks of the equality of all bishops among themselves 158. Yes, St. Cyprian sharply condemns those schismatics who “dare to undertake a journey both to the See of Peter and to that main Church from which priestly unity emanated.” “We have all decided (and this is fair and legal) that everyone’s case should be heard where the crime is committed, and since each of the shepherds is entrusted with his own part of the flock, which he must lead, having to give an account to the Lord for his activities, those governed by us should not run hither and thither, should not violate the consent of the bishops with their crafty and deceitful behavior, but are obliged to conduct their business there, where they can have both accusers and witnesses to their crime. And can only a few desperate and lost people think the importance of the bishops installed in Africa, who have already judged them, is insignificant? And this is written to the Bishop of Rome! It is obvious, according to Cyprian, that the Roman bishop has no power over other 160 bishops who are equal to each other 161. St. doesn't say Cyprian and about the necessary agreement with the Roman bishop: “We,” he writes, “must adhere to the unity of the Catholic Church in everything.” In the dispute about the baptism of heretics, St. Cyprian said a lot that is completely inconsistent with the theory of papal supremacy. The very fact of this dispute shows that Cyprian did not think of truth as inextricably linked with the Roman bishop. “One should not prescribe on the basis of custom where it should be proven by reasoning. For Peter, whom the Lord first chose and on whom he founded His Church, when Paul subsequently entered into a dispute with him about circumcision, did not arrogantly arrogate anything to himself and did not say with arrogance that he, as the first chosen, should be obeyed by subsequent newcomers (nec Petrus... vindicavit sibi aliquid insolenter aut adroganter assumpsit, ut diceret se primatum tenere et obtemperari a novellis et posteris sibi potius oportere): he did not disdain Paul, but accepted the counsel of truth and easily agreed to the legal reasoning advocated by Paul, presenting us with an example of consent and patience, so that we do not stubbornly hold on to our opinions (ut non pertinaciter nostra amemus), but if when something useful and saving is offered by our brothers and comrades, we would consider it ours, if only it is true and legal” 162. Even if the Roman bishop 163 was not directly meant here, then still the thought of St. Cyprian is stated quite clearly here. Every bishop must agree with his brothers and comrades, if only their opinion is true and legitimate. The highest authority is, therefore, the Council of Brother-Bishops, and not just one person. According to this view, the bishop of Rome, as an equal with everyone, must listen to the conciliar voice of the bishops 164. St. spoke about the complete equality of all bishops during the conciliar discussion of the matter. Cyprian and in his speech at the opening of the Council of 256. After various relevant documents were read out, St. Cyprian said: “It remains for each of us individually to express our opinion on this subject, without condemning anyone or excommunicating anyone who thinks differently. None of us will claim that he is a bishop of bishops, will not force his comrades to follow his opinion, since each of the bishops has his own judgment according to his free will, power and cannot be judged by others, just as he himself cannot judge another” 165. This passage requires a few notes. The Bollandists already noted that this passage cannot be left without interpretation, for it contradicts the dignity of the Roman bishop. The Bollandists offered this interpretation: Cyprian urged each of the assembled bishops to freely express their opinions. That is why he says that they are all equal (sese omnes collegas esse). And although he is the leader in Africa, he does not consider himself or any of the bishops present to be a bishop and does not arrogate to himself the power to tyrannically order others 166. But to this day, most scientists 167 consider the Council of Carthage in 256 to be an oppositional Council against the Roman Bishop Stephen, who prohibited the rebaptism of heretics and broke unity with the eastern and southern bishops, who recognized the need to rebaptize heretics. In this case, in the above words of Cyprian they see an allusion to Stephen. This view is so widespread that Ernst calls it sententia communis 168. But some Catholic scholars: for example, I. Peters, Grisar 169 and especially Ernst, who complements him, based on the fact that nowhere in the acts of the Council is there any mention of any edict of Stephen, deny the position according to which precisely such an edict served as the reason for convening the Council 170. Ernst therefore argues that Cyprian's words do not refer to Stephen. Referring to the Liber de rebaptismate, Ernst expresses the following opinion: Cyprian’s intensified propaganda of the need to rebaptize heretics aroused discontent among African bishops; They began to reproach him for his pride and desire to carry only his thoughts everywhere. Saint Cyprian defends himself against such accusations in his opening speech at the Council of 256 171. Ernst's view is fully shared by Poschmann 172. But whether we recognize this or that view, the dogmatic idea that underlies the entire system of St. Cyprian: neither he himself nor any other bishop can be called a bishop of bishops and cannot assign to himself any special power 173. There is no exception for the bishop of Rome; all bishops are equal to 174. The Roman bishop contemporary to Cyprian, however, expressed claims to special power precisely in the dispute over the rebaptism of heretics. Dionysius of Alexandria wrote to Stephen's successor Sixtus: “He had long ago written about Helen, about Firmilian and all the bishops of Cilicia, Cappadocia, Galatia and further adjacent regions, that he would not have communication with them either (ὡ ς οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις κοινωνήσων) for the same reason - because, that is, they rebaptize heretics" 175. On the conciliar decrees of the African Churches of St. Cyprian reported to Stephen 176. Stephen responded to Cyprian no less sharply than he wrote to the bishops of Asia Minor. Although Stephen’s letter itself has not survived, there is enough information about it. Cyprian himself says that Stephen is mistaken, that he is trying to defend the cause of heretics against Christians and the Church of God, that in his letter there is much that is too arrogant, unskillfully and thoughtlessly written 177. Cyprian ridicules Stephen's letter, considers it a humiliation of the Church of God 178, says of Stephen that he defends what is wrong and false, and this comes from an inclination towards conceit and arrogance 179, calls Stephen a friend of heretics and an enemy of Christians, because he considers it necessary to distance himself (abstinendos putat) from those priests of God who defend the truth of Christ and the unity of the Church 180. Regarding disagreements with Stephen, Cyprian wrote to Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and he responded with a remarkable letter. This letter shows very well, first of all, how definitely there was at that time the consciousness of the unity of the episcopate at such a great distance. “Having received the letter,” writes Firmilian, “we thanked the Lord with all our hearts for the fact that, according to His dispensation, we, distant from each other in body, are so close in spirit, as if we were not only in the same area, but also living together in the same house. This is fitting to say, because there is only one spiritual house of God. The grace of God is strong to bind and seal with a union of love and unity even that which is separated on earth by apparently a very significant distance” 181. Firmilian attacks Stephen with the harshest censures, excluding any thought about the primacy of the Roman bishop 182. Firmilian even compares Stephen with Judas, postponing speech about him to the end of the letter, “so that by remembering his insolence and pride (audaciae et insolentiae) he would not cause himself lasting annoyance at his bad deeds (de rebus ab eo improbe gestis) 183).” But in the second part, Firmilian begins to talk about Stephen, and speaks very harshly. “In this part I will express justified indignation at the clear and obvious recklessness (stultitiam) of Stephen, according to which he, who boasts so much about the place of his bishopric, claiming that he holds the inheritance (successionem) of Peter, on which the foundations of the Church are laid, introduces many other “stones” and does not understand that by leaving and betraying unity in this way, he darkens and, as it were, destroys the truth of the Christian “stone” 184 . Obviously, the Roman bishop justified his claims to an exceptional position by the advantages of his see, 185 Firmilian not only does not condition the unity of the episcopate on the consent of each individual bishop with the Roman bishop, but considers it necessary for the Roman bishop to agree and unify with the episcopate. Consequently, the same assessment that is applied to every bishop in Cyprian’s “De unitate ecclesiae” also applies to the Roman bishop. At the end of Firmilian’s letter we read: “When you participate in the baptism of heretics, do you not drink from their dirty puddle and, having been cleansed by church sanctification, do you not defile yourself by touching other people’s filth? Yes, you are worse than all heretics (tu haereticis omnibus pejor es), because you support error and, darkening the light of Church truth, increase the darkness of the heretical night... How many disputes and disagreements have you started with all the Churches! What a grave sin he committed himself by cutting himself off from so many flocks! So do not be deceived: you cut yourself off, because truly one must be considered cut off (schismaticus) who has separated himself from communion with the unity of the Church (qui se a communione unitatis apostatum fecerit), and you, thinking that you can separate everyone from yourself, have separated yourself from everyone.”186 It is absolutely clear that, according to the thoughts of Firmilian and Cyprian, the Roman bishop, in order to be a true bishop, must be in a union of peace with the entire episcopate 187. Catholic scholars often express and defend the position: Stephen did not excommunicate either Cyprian or the Eastern bishops, but only threatened them with excommunication 188 . The sources, indeed, nowhere definitely speak about Stephen’s excommunication of his opponents 189, even in the most decisive testimony of Firmilian just cited, vague terms are used - rumpens pacem, and te abstineri, ab omnibus abstinuisti 190. However, most scientists 191 admit that excommunication actually took place 192. From the evidence we have presented, it can be seen that such a view of the significance of the Roman bishop in the 3rd century, as expressed by the latest Catholic researchers, such as Ernst and Poschmann, has no basis. Let's even say that Stefan only threatened excommunication. According to Poschmann, unity with the Roman bishop was a necessary condition for episcopal authority 193. But why then did Stephen’s threat have no effect, and he was unanimously condemned both in the east and in the south? Doesn't Firmilian call Stephen himself a schismatic and even - although not directly - a false Christ and a false apostle 194 for his dismissal from the episcopate? 195 And in general, if you compare the letters of Cyprian, written to the Roman bishop at different times, with letters to other bishops, then you cannot help but notice that he writes to the Roman bishop the same way as to any other. In Cyprian's letters to the Roman bishop there is absolutely no sign of any special respect, which we have a right to expect if Cyprian had recognized the primacy of the Roman bishop. The Roman bishop for Cyprian is “collega”, “frater”, and he speaks of his ecclesiastical position in exactly the same way as about his own or the position of any other bishop 196. Is it not better, therefore, to establish that, according to the church consciousness, it was not the agreement of the bishop with the bishop of Rome that was the condition for his authority, but, on the contrary, a necessary condition for the authority of the Roman bishop was his agreement with the entire bishopric of the Church 197? Thus, neither in the works of St. Cyprian, nor in his contemporary monuments is there any idea that the unity of the episcopate has a visible focus in the Roman bishop; such a center of the episcopate of St. Cyprian considered only conciliar unity and unanimity of bishops 198. This alone is what the entire ecclesiology of St. demands. Cyprian. But also the significance of the Council of Bishops for the unity of the Church in St. Cyprian does not have a legal meaning. It is remarkable that the Holy Father does not speak at all about the need for the bishop’s unconditional submission to all council decisions 199 . We have already cited the speech of St. Cyprian at the opening of the Council of Carthage in 256, from which it is clear that the council of bishops should not excommunicate anyone, even if he thought differently (neminem... a jure communicationis, si diversum senserit amoventes) 200. This idea is repeated many times in various letters of St. Cypriana 201. Even the question of whether to rebaptize heretics or recognize their baptism as valid, a question inextricably linked with dogmatic teaching, as Cyprian himself constantly proved, he does not consider resolved at the Councils in the sense obligatory for every bishop. Reporting the resolution of the Council of Carthage to the Roman Bishop Stephen, St. Cyprian writes: “We know that some, having once accepted something, do not want to change their opinions (propositum) by abandoning what they accepted, and adhere to the abuses they once committed (usurpata) with a healthy union of peace and harmony between comrades (inter collegas). In this matter, we do not force anyone, we do not give the law to anyone, because every primate is free to govern his church according to his own will, having to give an account of his actions to the Lord” 202. On matters of a disciplinary nature (in ecclesiae administratione) the council of bishops does not give law; the main thing that is needed for the unity of the episcopate is not the uniformity of church discipline, but unanimity, peace and love between bishops; under these conditions, salvo inter collegas pacis et concordiae vinculo, as St. wrote. Cyprian Stefanou, church practice, even in very important points, can be different 203. Each bishop can, when governing his Church, turn to the Lord’s principle of the Gospel and Apostolic Tradition 204. Before God he is responsible for his mistakes 205. Cyprian distinguishes between the concepts veritas and consuetudo. Veritas - otherwise lex evangelii, praecepta dominica, regula - is a mandatory norm, and every bishop should try to agree the consuetudo of his church with veritas 206. Agreement in veritas is sufficient for ecclesiastical peace and communication between bishops. “We ourselves,” writes St. Cyprian, - as far as it depends on us, we do not at all enter into quarrels with our comrades and fellow bishops because of heretics: but on the contrary, we observe the Divine consent and the Lord's peace all the more, as the apostle says: If anyone imagines being contentious, we are not imams of such a custom, lower than the Church of God (1 Cor. 11:16). We try with all patience and meekness to preserve spiritual love, the honor of concelebration, the union of faith, and the harmony of the priesthood" 207 . However, according to St. Cyprian, the unity of bishops, especially at Councils, is also important for improving discipline, for harmonizing consuetudo with veritas. “Much can be revealed to each individual for the better, and no one should stubbornly defend what he once conceived and holds on to, but if something better and more useful is offered, everyone should willingly accept it. For we are not defeated when the best is offered to us, but we are taught, especially regarding what belongs to the unity of the Church, to the truth of our hope and faith” 208. The unity of the episcopate is expressed not only in general agreement, but also in the conciliar installation and consecration of each new bishop. “For proper installation, all nearby bishops must gather in the flock for which the primate is appointed, and elect a bishop in the presence of people who fully know life and become familiar with the affairs of the one elected through their treatment of him” 209. The bishops consecrated the chosen one by laying their hands on him. This is exactly how St. describes it. Cyprian was consecrated by the Spanish bishop Sabinus 210, and Novatian was also consecrated by the laying on of hands 211. Protestant scholarship often asserts that the laying on of hands on a bishop during his consecration to St. Cyprian considers it only as a rite that does not have any sacramental meaning 212. We have already expounded the teaching of St. Cyprian on the divine establishment of the hierarchy. Here we can only note his teaching on initiation precisely as a Sacrament. St. Cyprian says that God is pleased to choose and appoint priests for Himself in His Church 213. The Lord God makes a bishop 214. This appointment of a bishop by God consists precisely in the fact that he is given a special power of God: “We,” says Cyprian, “who have received the Spirit of God (spiritum Dei accepimus), must be zealous for the Divine faith 215.” The grace of the Holy Spirit is given only for the work of serving the one Church. If a bishop breaks his connection with the Church and falls into grave sins, then he is deprived of the Holy Spirit 216. But the view of consecration as a sacramental act was most clearly expressed by like-minded people and contemporaries of St. Cyprian. Thus, at the Council of 256, Bishop Nemesian definitely spoke about the communication of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands 217. Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea, writes to Cyprian: “The Church is presided over by elders who have the power to baptize, lay on hands (forgive sins), and consecrate; a heretic, just as he can neither dedicate nor lay on hands, cannot baptize” 218. Here we see that consecration is included among the undoubted Sacraments, like baptism. Thus, the episcopate in its entirety possesses a special grace, which it honors every new bishop; episcopate is, therefore, an indissoluble unity that preserves the special grace of God in the Church. The unity of the episcopate revealed at the consecration of a new bishop, as can be seen from the works of St. Cyprian, was not limited only to the bishops present, but covered a much wider circle. Entering his cathedra, the bishop notified many even individual bishops about this with special messages, and they acknowledged him with reply messages and thus entered into communication with him 219. When two bishops are installed in Rome at the same time - Cornelius and Novatian, both of them rush to receive recognition from other bishops 220. If a difficulty arises, Cyprian sends special persons to find out about the events in Rome in order to have firm grounds to recognize Cornelius and reject Novatian 221. Cyprian calmed down only when the messengers returned and delivered him letters of approval about Cornelius from the bishops who ordained him 222. One might think that in other cases, when such clashes did not occur, other bishops entered into communication with the new bishop out of trust in the brothers who appointed him 223. We have outlined how St. Cyprian of Carthage completed the first half of the great task that fell to him - to reveal in detail the teaching about the Church. All the early elements of the teaching about the Church as the custodian of Christ's truth were partly adopted by St. Cyprian, partially replenished. He learned what had been known since the time of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer's teaching about the bishop as the focus of each individual Church. The already previously developed in detail doctrine of the succession of bishops was adopted into his system of ecclesiology; this idea was so thoroughly adopted by the church consciousness that St. Cyprian does not even try to talk in detail about the succession of bishops, does not list the ranks of bishops ascending to the apostles, as we saw in St. Irenaeus of Lyons. But St. Cyprian developed in particular detail the doctrine of the unity of the Catholic Church and of episcopacy as an organ of the external unity of the Church. For St. The Bishop of Cyprian is not the focus of only a separate Church, but primarily the individual bearer of the Catholic bishopric, on which rests the unity of the entire universal Church. Through the bishop, each individual Church stands in inextricable external connection with the entire universal Church. The unification of the bishopric is carried out at the Council. In Cyprian's teaching on the Church, the dogma of the Church first received full expression; to what Cyprian said about the unity of the Church, about the episcopacy or hierarchy in general as an organ of this unity, almost nothing new was added in essence. During the 3rd century, the conciliar unity of the episcopate and the conciliar government of the Church became more and more established, until in the 4th century such comprehensive phenomena as Ecumenical Councils entered the life of the Christian Church. In the Ecumenical Council, the ecclesiological system of St. Cypriana for the first time receives the most appropriate external expression for her. But the teaching of St. Cyprian about the unity of the Church and the episcopate, one might say, was, as it were, derivative. All his church activities took place in an intense struggle around other points: the main issue that had the most vital interest in the days of St. Cyprian, there was a question about the holiness of the Church. To an account of how St. Cyprian solved the second, most important part of his problem, and we now move on. In disciplinary practice, already the Roman Bishop Callistus, with his edict, established the acceptance into church communion of those who had fallen into the sin of adultery. During the period from 220 to 250 AD. this practice became more and more widespread. Montanist protest was not successful in church society. However, Roman practice was not yet generally accepted. Yes, St. Cyprian writes: “Among our predecessors, some bishops of the local region did not consider it permissible to give peace to adulterers and did not at all allow repentance for adultery; and yet, continues St. Cyprian, - they did not retreat from the community of their fellow bishops and did not break the Catholic unity by persistence in their cruelty and severity; and because others gave peace to adulterers, the one who did not give it was not separated from the Church” 224. But that inconsistency of church discipline, which Tertullian pointed out, still remained: apostates were not compared with adulterers, and practice regarding them was not established. Yes, this question did not have any special urgency during the indicated period of time: at that time there was almost no persecution at all. But this question became even more acute when the persecution of Decius began. The persecution of Decius had its own characteristics. Christians were not executed for their faith, but were persuaded, having abandoned the Christian faith, to return to the pagan faith, which was defended by the Roman government. Christians were forced to make sacrifices to the gods, and those who refused were tortured (but not executed). Therefore, during the Decius persecution there were almost no martyrs, but only confessors. But many of the Christians, unaccustomed to persecution, fearing torture, hastened to make sacrifices and receive certificates from the authorities. Such certificates (libelli) were prepared by entire masses 226, and government officials did not have time to bestow them on the crowds of those who renounced, as Saint Cyprian 227 bitterly speaks of this. “The fallen”—as those who offered sacrifices to idols came to be called—were not idolaters in the proper sense; Their entire guilt often consisted only in the fact that, fearing torment, they only received evidence that they had carried out the government’s orders, although in fact they did not offer sacrifices or incense to idols. They never ceased to be Christians in their souls. It is clear that the Church had to establish its attitude to this new fact. Accepting an adulterer into fellowship after repentance, it would be very unfair to completely refuse such fellowship to a libellatist. St. Cyprian, comparing the sin of both, considered the adulterer more guilty, since he sins voluntarily 228. “Indeed, in Carthage some presbyters who ruled the Church in the absence of St. Cyprian, looked at the sin of the “fallen” very condescendingly: they accepted them without the intercession of the martyrs, without any feats of repentance, and even without the permission of the bishop. St. Cyprian, however, ordered that the fallen should repent (exomologesis), not rush to receive church communion, but wait for the end of the persecution, when the issue of their acceptance would be decided by the council 229. Only in the case of a dangerous illness did Saint Cyprian allow those who had testimonies from the martyrs to be accepted - this is the order of St. Cyprian did this in view of the onset of summer, “when serious illnesses incessantly rage” 230. From the very beginning, Cyprian did not deny the possibility of accepting the fallen into fellowship; he fought only against the fact that some fallen people rejected the need for repentance 231. And therefore it is impossible to look at this permission to accept sinners into fellowship as a relaxation of the previously strict rigoristic discipline 232; In case of illness, the period of repentance was shortened. Meanwhile, a lively exchange of opinions arose among the various Churches regarding the fallen. The general opinion was precisely that after proper repentance the fallen can be accepted, but it is necessary to wait until the end of the persecution 233. Cyprian speaks specifically about the need for unanimous and consonant saving advice when using and healing the wounds of the fallen (ad fovenda et sananda lapsorum vulnera) 234. At the end of the persecution, the Council, until which Cyprian postponed the decision on the issue of the fallen, took place in May 251. This Council divided all the fallen into several classes, depending on the severity of their fall 235. Different periods of repentance were assigned, so as not to weaken the severity of the church court, and not to deprive the fallen of hope for forgiveness 236. At the same Council, Novatus and Felicissimo were finally excommunicated, who demanded a more lenient attitude towards the fallen. In 252, another Council of Carthage, in view of a new persecution, decided to accept all those who had fallen during the previous persecution 237. The issue of accepting the fallen was resolved differently in Rome: there the matter ended in schism. For more than a year, the Roman Church was widowed: it was ruled by presbyters, among whom Novatian stood out, a very educated man, eloquent and strict ascetic 238. However, the letters of the Roman clergy to Cyprian show that in Rome there was no rigoristic tendency among the clergy that would treat the fallen more strictly than St. Cyprian 239. St. Cyprian very often in his letters speaks of his agreement with the Roman Church 240. Novatian was not a rigorist 241, which, on the basis of Cyprian’s letter (55–43), is strongly emphasized by Pacian in his letter to Simpronian 242. But when Cornelius was elected to the episcopal see, Novatian with several presbyters separated, found three “uneducated and simple-minded” (ἀγροίκους καὶ ἀπλουστάτους) bishops and forced them “through an empty semblance of ordination ( εἰκονικῇ τινι καὶ ματαίᾳ χειρεπιθεσίᾳ ) to give oneself the episcopate” 243. Novatian announced his elevation to bishop in letters to bishops of different regions. This was the beginning of innovation. One cannot help but notice the fact that in the letters of Cyprian and Cornelius there is no mention of what dogmatic differences there were between the Roman Church led by Cornelius and the adherents of Novatian. Novatianism is considered only as an ecclesiastical rebellion, and not as a heresy in dogmatic terms. And Novatian himself in his epistles only tries to denigrate Cornelius personally, and Cornelius, together with Cyprian, defends the Roman bishop, appointed by the majority, only in relation to his personal qualities 244. The schism, therefore, had a personal basis, and not a dogmatic one. Perhaps Novatian was not the main leader of the schism; he himself wrote in a letter to Dionysius of Alexandria that he was brought to a schism involuntarily 246, and St. Cyprian says about Novatus that he installed a bishop in Rome, that is, Novatian 247. Blessed Jerome directly names Novatus as the founder (auctor) of Novatianism 248. Novatianism acquired the character of dogmatic disagreement, and precisely on the question of the holiness of the Church, only later. Novatian hastens to enter into communication with various Churches, informing them of his dedication. It is clear that he did not mean to separate from the Church as erroneous, and he did not consider only his adherents to be the true Church 249. Soon after his election as bishop, Cornelius, at a large council of 60 bishops, established a lenient practice regarding the fallen: to heal and heal the brethren who, through misfortune, had fallen, through the means of repentance 250. The concept of the holiness of the Church, which we already noted at the very beginning of the 3rd century, necessarily led to such a definition. Many were unhappy with this ruling; the practice regarding the fallen had not yet been established exactly for a long time, but there was no division 251. For Novatianism, the practice established regarding the fallen served as a reason for even further deviation from the Church 252. Little by little, the discord moved from a personal basis to a principled one. In the Novatian society, as it appears to us at the first stages of its existence, we do not see any consistent teaching about the holiness of the Church. The Novatians refused to accept the fallen, because, in their views, this was contrary to the holiness of the Church, but, as Cyprian testifies, they gave forgiveness to adulterers 253; the dispute was only about the fallen. This is, of course, inconsistency on the part of the Novatians. Later historical news makes it clear that the Novatians stopped accepting into fellowship all those who had sinned mortally and thereby resumed the practice of the Montanists 254. Novatian himself was inclined towards this practice, 255 perhaps because, as a result of the cessation of persecution, the question of the fallen lost its former urgency 256. We do not have anywhere a detailed dogmatic teaching of the Novatians about the holiness of the Church, but from the few data that have been preserved, one can see that the concept of the Church almost at the very beginning among the Novatians was somewhat different than that of St. Cyprian and other representatives of the Church. Cyprian writes: “The sin of one, as they say, infects another, and the idolatry of the one who sinned passes on to the one who did not sin” 257. If the Novatians thought so, then, obviously, in their opinion, the acceptance of the fallen was contrary precisely to the holiness of the Church. On the other hand, the exclusion of the fallen did not mean, according to their teaching, that his salvation was hopeless. So, if someone who has fallen in one persecution suffers in another, then “he does not need peace from the bishop, since he will have peace through his glory and will receive a great reward from the mercy of the Lord Himself” 258. Consequently, one can be saved outside the Church; the episcopal power to “decide” does not extend to all sins; mortal sins can be forgiven by God Himself 259. In Novacianism, therefore, we see both features that characterized the Montanists’ concept of the Church: the Church is a society of saints, and the episcopal “power of the keys” is limited 260. But nevertheless, this dogmatic difference of opinion was hardly ever clearly recognized; still St. Epiphanius of Cyprus reports about the Novatians: “They say that they have the same faith that we have” 261. The very name - Kafars ("pure"), which Novatian himself gave to his community 262, indicates more church practice than dogma. But by assigning such a proud name to themselves, the Kafars hardly corresponded to it in reality, as Epiphanius says about this 263, who wittily calls them unclean Kafars 264. In the previous one, we established that Novatianism itself did not come up with completely precise dogmatic formulas for the doctrine of the holiness of the Church. Yes, such precise formulas are hardly possible if we take the point of view of the Montanists and Novatians, because it is absolutely impossible to draw a precise line between sins that contradict and do not contradict the holiness of the Church. But this circumstance explains what St. Cyprian almost nowhere contains a special speech about the holiness of the Church; in the struggle with the Novatians, he mainly revealed the doctrine of the unity of the Church and the church hierarchy, viewing them, obviously, more as church rebels, regardless of their dogmatic teaching. Hence there is some incompleteness in the teaching about the holiness of the Church and in St. himself. Cyprian. However, in his remarks scattered in various places we have almost sufficient material to characterize his teaching on the holiness of the Church. St. Cyprian calls the Church Holy (sponsa Christi incorrupta sancta pudica) 265. A person can sin and must be separated from the Church. But complete separation without hope of return should only take place when he persists in his sin. Only those who are stubborn in their stubbornness or fury and who do not want to return should be left outside the Church 266 . “With shameless stubbornness,” writes Cyprian, “we can never accept them into the Church, lest by their misdeeds they give others a reason to fall 267. When a sinner persistently sins and does not obey the Church, then it is clear that he is lost, and excommunication is only a consequence of such a state of stubbornness 268. He doesn't need the Church, and he can only be harmful to it. We must rejoice when such people separate from the Church, so that they do not destroy the doves and sheep of Christ with their ferocious and poisonous infection” 269. One can already assume from what has been said above how one should have looked at the complete exclusion from the Church of St. Cyprian. We have seen that he called the Church one and only; There is no Christian outside the Church; anyone standing outside the Church is a pagan. But until Christ leads us to God the Father, until then all the infirmities of the flesh (carnis incommoda) will be common to us with the entire human race 270. Man sins constantly. “In order to eliminate contentment with ourselves as if innocent, in order to avoid the danger of perishing through arrogance, we are commanded to pray daily for sins and thereby are given a reminder and instruction that we sin daily” 271. And here is St. Cyprian emphatically expresses the idea that the Church should not excommunicate sinners from its fellowship, but should heal. The one who has sinned is precisely the sick person 272. “From Divine Scripture, from the teaching of God Himself, the Author of Scripture, we know that sinners are called to repentance and that forgiveness and mercy are not denied to those who repent” 273. “The first degree of happiness is not to sin, the second is to be aware of sins. There is innocence there, whole and undamaged, which preserves; here is a medicine that heals” 274. “The priest of God must provide for saving medicines. The doctor who lightly only palpates the swollen convolutions of wounds is not skillful: by keeping the poison contained inside, in deep depressions, he only increases its strength. It is necessary to open the wound, cut it and, having cleared it of pus, apply a strong plaster to it. Let the patient cry out, let him scream, let him complain of unbearable pain; he will thank you later, when he feels healthy” 275. Such treatment did not correspond to the acceptance of the fallen without repentant feats, and St. Cyprian, as we have seen, firmly insisted on the need for this repentance 276. But the unconditional rejection of the sinner was no less inconsistent with the benefits of salvation. “Paternal love and Divine mercy do not allow the Church to be closed to those who push into it and those who contritely beg for help with saving hope to be denied it” 277. “If we reject the repentance of such people, who have some hope of leniency for their conscience, then they, without delay, with their wife and children, whom they kept unharmed, will be carried away by the devil’s inspiration into heresy or schism, and on the Day of Judgment it will be imputed to us that we did not heal a wounded sheep and, for the sake of one wounded one, we destroyed many whole ones.”278 There must be a treatment. Such treatment is the subject and task of church discipline. “Discipline is the guardian of hope, the guardian of faith, the leader on the path of salvation, the planting and nurturing of good inclinations, the nurturer of virtue. As much as it is salutary to follow it, it is disastrous to evade it and neglect it” 279. The task of discipline is not to preserve the holiness of the Church by cutting off those who have sinned from it, but to raise those who have sinned to holiness. Those who have sinned remain in the Church; There are tares in the Church 280. Even those who have sinned seriously do not remain outside the Church. “Let the fallen, who realize the gravity of their crime, relentlessly appease the Lord; let them not abandon the catholic Church established (constituta) by the Lord, which is the one and only one, but, repenting and asking for the mercy of the Lord, let them join the Church, so that they may be received by him where they were and return to Christ, from whom they have departed” 281. The presence of sinners does not destroy the holiness of the Church; the tares do not prevent the wheat from growing. The Novatians taught that the presence of the fallen in the Church, as it were, infects the entire society, and it is no longer holy. “For us,” writes St. Cyprian, - according to our faith and the image of Divine teaching given to us, it seems more consistent with the truth that everyone is responsible for his own sin and that one cannot be guilty for the sins of another, as the Lord Himself foreshadows this and says: the righteousness of the righteous will be on him... the iniquity of the wicked will be on him (Ezek. 18:20). Also: let not fathers die for their sons, and let not sons die for their fathers, but let each one die for his own sins (2 Kings 14:6)" 282. “And do not think, dear brother,” Cyprian writes to Antonian, “that either the virtue of the brothers will be diminished, or that martyrdom will be destroyed because the fallen are allowed to repent, and those who repent are given hope of peace. The strength of true believers remains unshakable, the integrity of those who fear God and love Him with all their hearts holds firm and firmly. Yes, we also give adulterers time to repent and grant peace: and yet, through this, virginity does not fall in the Church, the glorious vow of abstinence does not weaken due to the sins of others. The Church, crowned with so many virgins, flourishes, purity and chastity constantly stand in it at the same degree of their glory, and the power of abstinence is not crushed by the fact that repentance and forgiveness are given to the adulterer” 283. The Montanists and Novatians considered salvation possible even without visible church communion. Their church did not embrace all Christians; The Church included only perfect saints. Between the Church and paganism there are, as it were, several intermediate steps. Those who stand outside the Church can be pardoned and absolved from their sins only by God Himself. At St. Cyprian, on the contrary, the Church is understood, as we have seen, to stand in opposition to the world 284. And therefore it is clear that St. Cyprian was the first to briefly and decisively formulate the position: outside the Church there is no salvation (salus extra ecclesiam non est) 285. Just as all those outside the house of Rahab in Jericho perished, so will all those outside the Church perish 286. “Those outside the Church could be saved (evadere) only if one of those outside Noah’s ark were saved” 287. From the point of view of the Novatians, the acceptance of the fallen into the Church is an anticipation of God’s judgment, for whoever is in the Church is saved. But according to the teaching of Cyprian, on the contrary, excommunication from the Church would be the appropriation of God's right to oneself, for one who is excommunicated from the Church cannot be saved. The question, therefore, concerns the religious significance of the Church 288. Cyprian several times clearly expresses his idea that there is no repentance in hell (apud inferos confessio non est nec exomologesis illic fieri potest) 289. Therefore, those who repent and beg with all their hearts must be accepted into the Church and preserved in it for the Lord, Who, when He comes to His Church, will judge those whom He finds within it 290. “The right to break earthen vessels is given to the Lord alone, to whom was given a rod of iron (see: Rev. 2:27). A slave cannot be greater than his master, and what the Father has provided to the Son alone, no one can appropriate for himself, considering it possible for himself to carry a shovel to clear and cleanse the threshing floor or to separate all the tares from the wheat by human judgment. This would be a proud stubbornness and a sacrilegious attack of which evil fury is capable. Those who arrogate to themselves more dominion than meek truth requires are expelled from the Church, and those who brazenly exalt themselves, being blinded by their very arrogance, lose the light of truth” 291. It must, of course, be noted that for the Novatians this speech of St. Cypriana could not be particularly convincing: according to their teaching, completely excommunicating from the Church did not mean taking away all hope of salvation - salvation is possible even outside the Church. Cyprian's entire argument is understandable only in his ecclesiological system. Arguing this way, both sides were right in their own way, and this is precisely because the dispute was mainly about issues of practice, and the dogmatic teaching about the holiness of the Church was not the subject of special consideration. In connection with all his teaching about the Church, St. Cyprian speaks only of temporary excommunication from the Church, and this excommunication cannot in the proper sense be called excommunication 292. We have already pointed out at St. Cyprian's idea that those who fell before the time of their complete reunification with the Church still belong to the Church; they are members of the Church, but not full-fledged ones; they are tares, but they grow with the wheat; they are deprived for a time of communication in prayers and in the Eucharist 293. The Church did not abandon them at all; on the contrary, it guided and controlled them 294. “Could it be,” says St. Cyprian, “the best and most perfect task for the shepherds of the Church is how to help heal and preserve the sheep through diligent care and saving healing?” 295. In the works of St. Cyprian we find evidence that the Church takes upon itself the care of the penitent. Repentance of those who have sinned is one of the aspects of church life 296. In the Novatian ecclesiological system, repentance was individual; The Church could not have any close relationship with repentance. The one who sinned before God repented and received forgiveness from Him, which was not accompanied by visible reunification with the Church. In the system of St. For Cyprian, the work of the penitent is the work of the Church: her member hurts - and with it all the others suffer. The sinner must undergo a time of repentance under the guidance of the Church, mainly the hierarchy. “He repents who, remembering the Divine commandment, being meek and patient and obedient to the priests of God, pleases the Lord with his obedience and righteous deeds” 297. This is the repentance of St. Cyprian calls the term exomologesis, already known to us, and describes it in the same way as Tertullian. At St. The Cyprians laid the foundations for the development of a complex disciplinary institution of repentance, varied in each individual Church. We need not enter into a historical study of the forms of penitential discipline 298 . We can notice that in all this variety of penitential rules, one tendency dominates: to give medicine to someone who is sick with sin that corresponds to his illness. This was done at the Council of Carthage, where the qualities of the fallen were taken into account. Repentance must be crowned with acceptance into full church communion. Every repentant must be absolved from sin; he must not be allowed to die without permission from sin. “It was fair to continue the repentance of the penitents for a long time and only provide assistance to the sick upon death” 299. But “it is unfair, when departing from this world, to let them go to the Lord without communion and church permission; and He who gave the law himself promised that what is bound on earth will be bound in Heaven, and that there only that which is permitted in the Church can be permitted” (see: Matt. 18:18). 300 For these dogmatic reasons, permission was given to all the fallen at the beginning of a new persecution, so as not to give them the opportunity to die without church permission. It is worthy of attention that already in the cited text of St. Cyprian especially emphasizes the second half. According to the teachings of the Montanists and Novatians, what is bound on earth can be resolved in Heaven; St. Cyprian, on the contrary, argues that only what is permitted on earth can be permitted in Heaven. You can only be saved in the Church. This was the general belief of the church people of that time. Dionysius of Alexandria, in his letter to Fabius of Antioch, gives the following story about a certain elder Serapion. This Serapion fell during the persecution, and no one accepted him into church communion. Having become ill, he asked for permission. The presbyter gave the boy sent a small part of the Eucharist, ordering him to soak it and place it in the elder’s mouth. The boy returned, and before he entered the room, Serapion became more animated and said: “Have you come, my child?” The boy soaked the particle and poured the Eucharist into his mouth. As soon as the elder swallowed it, he immediately gave up the ghost. “Isn’t it obvious,” Dionysius concludes his story, “that he was preserved and kept in life until the moment of resolution, until the time when his sin was blotted out and the many virtues he committed returned him to Christ?” 301. This story conveys precisely the idea that without church fellowship salvation is impossible for one who has completely blotted out his sin. The Lord even keeps a righteous person on earth until he receives church fellowship. From the Novatian point of view, ecclesiastical communion is not necessary. Serapion could have died in the hope that God Himself would free him from sin. However, St. Cyprian does not completely identify the church court with the court of God. “We do not precede the Lord, who has to judge: if He finds the sinner’s repentance complete and righteous, then He will ratify (ratum faciat) then what we have established (statutum) here. If someone deceives us with feigned repentance, then God, Who is not mocked (Gal. 6:7) and looks into the human heart, will judge what we did not see through, and, like the Lord, will correct the sentence (sententiam) of His servants” 302. Thus, only what is permitted on earth is permitted in Heaven, but not everything that is permitted here is permitted there. Visible membership in the Church does not necessarily lead to salvation in Heaven. With his feigned repentance, a sinner can deceive the Church, and his membership in the Church will be useless for him in this case. But if St. Cyprian admits that sometimes the Lord can correct the judgment of His servants, then what is the significance, in his opinion, of being accepted into church communion? It is very often assumed that remission of sin was not at all connected with such communication. Sin remained until God's judgment. The Earthly Church did not forgive mortal sins 303. But in the works of Cyprian it is repeatedly said that acceptance into church communion is united with the world and in Heaven. Thus, already the Roman clergy at the very beginning of the persecution wrote to St. Cyprian: “Some (the fallen) came to the point that they did not so much ask as they demanded peace for themselves and even said that they already have this peace in Heaven. If they have, then why do they ask for what they have? And if by the very fact that they ask they prove that they do not have it, then why do they not submit to the judgment of those from whom, in their opinion, they should ask for peace, which they really do not have? 304. The confessor Lucian, who caused so much grief to the Carthaginian bishop, ordered precisely to give peace and forgive sins 305. St. himself Cyprian says that in the giving of peace a pledge of life is given (pignus vitae in data race) 306. “I am surprised,” wrote St. Cyprian, “that some... consider it impermissible to allow the fallen to repentance and to give forgiveness (veniam) to those who repent” 307. “The Lord would not exhort to repentance otherwise than because he promised mercy (indulgentiam) to those who repent” 308. Those who mourn should not be denied the fruit of repentance (poenitentiae fructus dolentibus non negandus) 309 . What, according to the teachings of St. Cyprian, acceptance into church communion was associated with resolution from sin, this is proven by the fact that St. Cyprian considered the admission of the fallen to the Eucharist before the laying of hands on them by the bishop and clergy as a sign of repentance as a desecration of the Holy Body of the Lord, referring to the words of the Apostle Paul (see: 1 Cor. 11:27) 310. In addition, St. Cyprian, while the persecution continued, forbade accepting the fallen into communion because it was possible to receive not only forgiveness, but also a crown 311. And here St. Cyprian identifies acceptance into church communion with forgiveness. The whole course of evidence from St. says the same thing. Cyprian in favor of lenient practice: in a letter to Antonian, St. Cyprian proves in detail from the Holy Scriptures that forgiveness must be given to those who repent 312. Therefore, when St. Cyprian says that the Lord God can correct the mistake of His servants, this only means that the priest can be deceived by feigned repentance. Forgiveness can only be given when the sinner sincerely repents of his sin. With sincere repentance here on earth, not only visible communion with the Church is given, but also real forgiveness of sin. The Bishop, as the representative of the Church, St. Cyprian is in perfect agreement with his entire system of teaching about the Church and ascribes in full the “power of the keys” 313. The “power of the keys” also extends to the sin of temporary apostasy during persecution. The fallen must confess their sins and receive forgiveness from the bishop (remissio facta per sacerdotes) 314. At St. Cyprian does not even have a special speech about the “power of the keys” of the bishop; he does not justify this power in any way. The idea that the “power of the keys” in the Church belongs to the bishop lies at the basis of his reasoning about the acceptance of the fallen into the Church and, as generally accepted, does not need proof 315. Bishops have this power as the successors of the apostles, to whom the Lord gave the right to bind and decide 316. It is the bishop's right to decide and knit St. Cyprian especially defended when, at the beginning of the Decian persecution, confessors intervened in the matter of accepting the fallen. Very often the opinion is expressed that under St. Cyprian ended the struggle of the episcopate with representatives of the former charismatic organization of the Church. Only under Cyprian did the episcopate completely take into its own hands the “power of the keys,” removing from it the confessors, these legal heirs of the full ecclesiastical rights of the ancient charismatics. The last step was taken towards the formation of a hierarchical, episcopal organization of the Church 317. We have already proven in detail that there are no indisputable grounds for such a presentation of the history of the ancient Church. In particular, the works of Cyprian show that already at the beginning of his church activity, the “power of the keys” undeniably belonged to the bishop. There is not a single piece of evidence that directly speaks about the ownership of the “power of the keys” by the martyrs. During the time of Cyprian, no one acted as a defender of this power. St. Cyprian testifies about the time preceding him that then the martyrs were subordinate to the leadership of the clergy 318. Cyprian himself treats the martyrs with great respect 319. When some presbyters accepted the fallen into communion without his consent, he saw in this a violation of the rights of the bishop, as well as a reproach of the blessed martyrs 320. However, the martyrs themselves were initially far from appropriating the “power of the keys” to themselves. It is worthy of note that in the absence of Cyprian himself, it is first of all the elders who are accepted into church communion, and St. Cyprian sees this as a violation of his episcopal rights. At the very beginning, the martyrs only ask Cyprian in a letter to consider his desires and grant peace to the fallen, when peace will be granted to the Church itself 321. It is clear that the martyrs themselves did not consider themselves to have the “power of the keys”: they only asked for the fallen 322, promising their intercession before God 323. Over time, a lot of abuses have appeared on this basis. The martyrs do not only intercede, but demand the fulfillment of their desires, presenting the matter as if, in turning to the bishop, they were fulfilling only a formality. “Know,” the confessors write to Cyprian, “that we have granted (dedisse) peace to all those about whom you have been informed about how they behaved after their act, and we wish that this (hanc formam) through you should become known to other bishops” 324. However, we see that St. Cyprian, in a letter to the clergy, leaves the demand of the martyrs unsatisfied, because he considers the issue of admission into church communion to be subject to the competence of the Council of Bishops 325, and in a letter to the fallen, in the words of the Lord to the Apostle Peter (see: Matt. 16:18–19), he proves that the Church is appointed by bishops and every action of the Church (omnis actus ecclesiae) is controlled by the same rulers 326. In a letter to the Roman clergy, a letter from the confessors of St. Cyprian calls almost destroying every union of faith, the fear of God, the commandment of the Lord, the holiness and strength of the Gospel. There were also among the fallen people who overestimated the importance of the martyrs in the matter of accepting them into church communion. When Cyprian began to listen and examine the guilt of everyone, it seemed to many that they were being denied what they had already received from the martyrs and confessors. The crowd attacked the primates, demanding immediate access to peace, which, as they shouted, was once given to all of them by martyrs and confessors 327. But the best interpretation of these facts is given by representatives of the Roman clergy in their response letter. The fallen say that they already have peace in Heaven “But if they have, then why do they ask for what they have? And if, by the very fact that they ask, they prove that they do not have it, then why do they not submit to the judgment of those from whom, in their opinion, they should ask for peace, which they really do not have?.. If the martyrs believed that peace should be given to such, then why did they not give it themselves? Why did they consider it necessary, as they themselves say, to send them to the bishop? He who commands that something be done, of course, can himself do what is commanded” 328. And Cyprian himself proves in detail that “those who themselves have fulfilled God’s commands cannot demand from bishops anything contrary to the command of God (contra mandatum Dei)” 329. “Will the martyrs command us to do anything? If this is fair, permissible, and not disgusting to the Lord Himself, then the priest of God must do it” 330. Without episcopal permission, communication cannot be considered valid. “One cannot consider as peace what some falsely propose as peace. No, this is not peace, but abuse. Why call a lie a blessing? This indulgence does not bring peace, but destroys; it does not provide communication, but serves as an obstacle to salvation” 331. From the given data it can be seen that before St. Cyprian, and at the beginning of his activity, according to church teaching, the “power of the keys” in the Church belonged to the bishop; the confessors only interceded with the bishop 332, thereby clearly indicating that they themselves did not have the “power of the keys.” And if sometimes the martyrs stepped out of their boundaries, then these were precisely the abuses against which St. Cyprian considered it his duty to fight 333. A similar testimony is given about the Alexandrian Church by St. Dionysius. Having reported that some martyrs received some fallen brethren, introduced and introduced them into the church, and made them partners in prayers and meals, St. Dionysius asks: “So, what do you advise me, brothers, in this case? What should we do? Should I remain in agreement and like-mindedness with them, observe their judgment and their love and do good to those whom they had mercy on? Or recognize their judgment as unjust, make ourselves the judges of their opinion, insult mercy and destroy order? 334. Here we have the same fact as in the life of St. Cyprian: the martyrs are accepted into church communion, but this is an exceptional case, and the bishop, considering himself the right not only to approve, but also to cancel the order of the martyrs, only asks for advice on what to do in order to avoid clashes and preserve church peace. St. Cyprian, as we have seen, insisted on his own; St. Dionysius was inclined to make a concession, but he also considers the “power of the keys” his power 335. Finally, at the Council of Carthage in 251, confessors, along with all laypeople who were firm in the faith, were invited only for consultation, and confessors are called after deacons 336. A detailed definition with the division of the fallen into classes was made by the Council of Bishops; nothing is said in the conciliar definitions about the participation of martyrs in the work of repentance of the fallen 337 . Martyrs are not mentioned in the acts of the Council, which determined to accept into church communion all those who had fallen before the start of the persecution 338. Phenomena similar to the Council of Carthage in 251 also occurred in the East. The number of those who fell was very large in Alexandria 339. The Alexandrian Bishop Dionysius allowed the fallen to be accepted into church communion, ordering that the dying, if they ask, especially if they had asked before, be given remission of sins and that they be released with good hope 340. In a letter (which has not reached us) to the Egyptian brothers, Dionysius expressed his opinion about the fallen, determining the degree of their fall 341. Obviously, the question of the fallen saints. Dionysius and the Alexandrian Church in general was decided in exactly the same way as it was decided in Rome and Carthage 342. St. Dionysius completely united with Cyprian and Cornelius to suppress the Novatian movement. He wrote a letter to Novatian himself 343 and a whole series of letters about repentance and church peace not only to Rome, but also to the brothers in Armenia, in particular he wrote to the Roman confessors, who until then continued to favor the opinion of Novatian 344. The Novatian schism had some reflection in the East, where the Bishop of Antioch Fabius 345 sympathized with it. Dionysius wrote an extensive letter to this Fabius, opening his eyes to the personality of Novatian and his movement 346. However, in Antioch some wanted to support Novatian's schism, and on this occasion a Council was convened in Antioch under Fabius' successor Dimitrian; At this Council, Novacianism was decisively condemned 347. Soon, on the issues raised by Novatianism, complete unanimity was established in the East, which Dionysius reported to the Roman Bishop Stephen (255–257) 348 . The surviving documents make it possible to characterize only the external historical side of the matter of the fallen in the East and the disputes over Novatianism, 349 but we do not know at all whether dogmatic questions about the holiness of the Church were touched upon in these disputes. But the fact that the Eastern Churches so quickly came to an agreement among themselves precisely on the very same thing that was decided in Rome and Carthage, this shows that the eastern bishops were not alien to the dogmatic teaching about the holiness of the Church, which was revealed by St. Cyprian and who was held by representatives of the Roman Church. The Novatian movement also forced the Eastern Churches to pay attention to the question of the holiness of the Church, and this question received in them the same answer as in the West. The Council of Carthage of 251 and others like it in the history of penitential discipline are rightly given very great importance 350, but this significance was only practical. In dogmatic terms, the Council, having decided to accept the fallen into church communion and recognized the power of the bishop to forgive sins, did not introduce anything new. The question of the right of martyrs to absolve sins was not even raised; Obviously, no one challenged the “power of the keys” of the bishop. Therefore, one cannot see in the resolutions of the Council a tendency “to shake confidence in the absolution power of the martyrs” 351. We consider unacceptable the view of the significance of the Council of 251, which is defended by the majority of Protestant 352 and some of the Catholic 353 and Orthodox 354 scholars and according to which the Council of 251 seemed to repeat the innovation of Callistus, extending lenient practice to the sin of apostasy, which the Church did not know before, so that Novacianism stood on the basis of the ancient church tradition. In fact, we see that it is not the Novatians, but precisely the representatives of the Church, who boldly declare that they stand on the basis of church tradition, which Novatian deviates from by introducing a new teaching. Thus, Dionysius of Alexandria wrote that Novatian “drew some brethren to wickedness and blasphemy, spread the most wicked teaching about God and slandered our Most Good (χρηστότατον) Lord Jesus Christ as unmerciful” (ὡ ς ἀνηλεῆ) 355. In the treatise “Ad Novatianum haereticum” 356 it is said about Novatian that, taking away the hope of salvation, denying the mercy of the Father, rejecting the repentance of his brother, he, with subtle and new cruelty (ingeniosa ac nova crudelitate), kills the seriously wounded 357. And then the author of the treatise directly reproaches Novatian for the fact that he, who recognized the possibility of repentance for the fallen until he was an apostate from the Church, now thinks differently, denying the need to heal the wounds of the fallen 358. Cyprian 359 also hints at the same change in Novatian’s views, as we have already seen. Pacian, in his letter to Simpronian, expounding the teaching of the Novatians, directly says that neither Moses, nor Paul, nor Christ, who suffered for sinners, taught this way. Novatian taught this after the reign of Decius, that is, almost three hundred years after the suffering of the Lord. Maybe he followed the prophets, like the Cataphrigians? Or did he himself have the authority of a prophet? But he did not have the talents to introduce a new gospel (evangelium novi juris). Did no one from Christ to Decius understand Christ’s teaching? And after Decius, are all those who have fellowship with sinners (se miscere perditis mallent) 360 mistaken? Pacian also turns against his addressee the testimony of Cyprian that Novatian himself, before his apostasy, held onto the idea of ​​the possibility of repentance for the fallen 361. In his letter, Pacianus examines all the arguments 362 that Simpronianus 363 so painstakingly collected; however, it is absolutely not clear that the latter had any argument from Tradition. Pacian calls Cyprian a defender of universal practice (catholica jura retinentem), which Tertullian also defended before his fall into Montanism: The Church, according to Tertullian, can forgive sins (posse Ecclesiam peccata dimittere) 364. Bearing in mind the ancient church discipline, as it is characterized above, we can say about the Council of 251 and about all the decisions in general regarding those who fell during the Decian persecution that they did not introduce anything completely new either into church discipline or into the dogmatic teaching about the Church: both in Rome and in Carthage, when determining the fate of the fallen, they had in mind the ancient church practice 365. And if St. Cyprian is the first time we encounter a clearly expressed doctrine of the “power of the keys” as the right of the bishop or the hierarchy in general, so we also cannot be considered the creator of this doctrine. We find this teaching in an even more definite form in the eastern monuments of the 3rd century. The apostolic decrees in the second book, that is, where they transmit the ancient monument - the Syrian didascalia, speak of the “power of the keys” as the right of the bishop alone. “When you offer the floor, sit in the congregation as one who has authority to judge those who have sinned; because it is said to you, bishops: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven (Matthew 16:19)" 366 · "Know, bishop, your dignity: you have inherited the power to both bind and loose." 367 "You have the power to return and set the tortured free (Luke 4:18). Savior to those in sin: your sins are forgiven... your faith has saved you; go in peace (Matthew 9:2; Mark 5:34). And peace and a quiet haven is the Church of Christ: instruct (ἁ ποκαθίστα) those who have sinned, resolving them sound and blameless” 368. So, in the middle of the 3rd century, the doctrine of the “power of the keys” of the bishop was definitely developed in church writing and consistently carried out in church practice. The holiness of the Church, therefore, does not always consist, of course, in the relative holiness of its members; in the Church people only strive for holiness; she guides their penitential deeds in case of their falls; she, by the judgment of the bishop, cleanses them from sins with the power given by the Lord to the holy apostles and after them, successively preserved in the hierarchy. But the Church not only cleanses its members from sins, it alone also gives strength for moral improvement. For salvation, according to the teachings of Cyprian, human strength alone is not enough; Divine help is needed, which St. Cyprian calls it grace. When grace is given to a person, he becomes new, and life in the Holy Spirit begins for him, and what previously seemed difficult becomes convenient, the impossible becomes possible. “God’s work is everything that we can do” 369. The question of the action of God's grace in man St. Cyprian dedicated his early letter to Donatus 370. In order to embark on the path of improvement and follow it, for this it is necessary to receive Divine grace, which is given in baptism. Therefore, only the baptized and reborn can achieve the Kingdom of God 371. Only through regeneration through baptism are we made children of God. Through baptism the Holy Spirit is received; the water of baptism is the water of eternal life 372. A person regenerated in baptism receives the Holy Spirit at the laying on of hands 373 . Those who are baptized are presented to the leaders of the Church and through their prayer and laying on of hands they receive the Holy Spirit and are sealed with the Lord's seal 374. Only then can people be completely sanctified and become children of God, when they are reborn by both Sacraments, according to Scripture: unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God (John 3:5) 375. But where can a person receive Divine grace in baptism? Who can bring down upon him the gifts of the Holy Spirit 376? To these questions St. Cyprian answers: a person can receive grace in the Church. “When we say: do you believe in eternal life and the remission of sins through the Holy Church, we understand that remission of sins can only be granted in the Church.” “It is also necessary for the one who is baptized to be anointed, so that, having received the anointing, he can become God’s anointed and have the grace of Christ within himself. Those who are baptized are anointed with oil, consecrated in the altar, where the Eucharist is celebrated, but whoever had neither an altar nor a Church could not consecrate the substance of the oil” 377. “It is obvious where and by whom the remission of sins granted in baptism can be given. The Lord first gave the power to resolve anything on earth so that it would also be resolved in Heaven to Peter, on whom He founded the Church, thereby establishing and demonstrating its unity (see: Matt. 16:19), and after the resurrection to all the apostles, saying: As the Father has sent Me, I am sending you. And these things he said, breathed, and said to them: receive the Holy Spirit; Forgive their sins, their sins will be forgiven; and by Him you hold fast (John 20:21–23). From here it is clear that baptism and absolution can only be given in the Church by primates who have the basis of the Gospel law and the Lord’s dedication (evangelica lege ac dominica ordinatione fundatis)” 378. “The Church, like paradise, encloses within its walls only fruitful trees. She irrigates these trees with four rivers, that is, with the four Gospels, and with the heavenly overflow of their waters she abundantly gives them the grace of saving baptism. She alone guards and possesses all the power of her Bridegroom and Lord. In it we preside, we defend its honor and unity, its grace and glory, faithful to our vow (devotione), we defend. By the grace of God, we will feed the thirsty people of God, we will protect the borders of life-giving sources” 379. Exactly the same thoughts of St. Cyprian expresses this in his letters to Pompey and Magnus 380. In these letters to St. Cyprian compares the Church to Noah's Ark. “Just as during the universal baptism, which cleansed all ancient untruths, whoever was not in Noah’s ark could not be saved from the water, so now, whoever is not baptized in the Church, in the mysterious likeness of the one ark based on the Lord’s unity, cannot be saved by baptism” 381. So, the grace of God, necessary for moral improvement, can only be received in the Church 382. Cyprian does not separate the grace of the Holy Spirit from the Church. He sometimes calls grace church 383 and speaks of the gifts of the Church. “The Lord, in His mercy, is able to grant forgiveness and not to deprive those who, having been accepted into the Church, have fallen asleep in the Church, of the gifts of His Church (ab ecclesiae suae muneribus non separare)” 384. “They will come to us and ask us for the benefits and gifts of the Mother Church (munera ac dona ecclesiae matris implorant), knowing that they cannot in any way achieve the true promise of Divine grace unless they first turn to the truth of the Church” 385. All grace-filled life is contained only within the one Church of Christ. The Church alone, having received (consecuta) the grace of eternal life, lives forever and gives life to the people of God. Therefore, whoever is not in the Church is dead 386. Everything that has been separated from the vital principle (a matrice) cannot especially live and breathe and loses the being of salvation (substantiam salutis) 387. In the same way, Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, in his letter to Cyprian writes that all power and grace are granted to the Church 388, that Christ granted the power of heavenly grace to the Church alone 389. Firmilian also speaks in the same way about the great heavenly gifts of the Church (magna et caelestia ecclesiae munera) 390. It should also be noted that under the grace of the Church of St. Cyprian and Firmilian understand the totality of grace - both Christ and the Holy Spirit 391. Thus, in the middle of the 3rd century, the doctrine of the Church as a treasury of God's grace was expressed in church writing: only through the Church can a person receive the Divine grace-filled help necessary for his moral perfection. In the Church, the hierarchy 392 serves as the organ of Divine grace by virtue of its apostolic succession. On the negative side, the same thoughts were revealed in more detail in the famous dispute about the baptism of heretics, 393 which we will look at from its dogmatic side. The question of the baptism of heretics was raised by the same Novatian schism. Do converts from Novatianism who were baptized outside the Church need to be baptized upon acceptance into the Church? This question also arose in Africa, but the debate itself began when the Roman Bishop Stephen expressed his opinion. Stephen considered it impossible to baptize heretics, referring to the custom that existed in the West, and not considering it possible to introduce anything new except what was faithful 394. Stephen did not express any special concept about the Church, but recognized the baptism of heretics as valid without any connection with the dogma of the Church, only by force of custom 395. As a dogmatic basis for his custom, Stephen cited the fact that baptism among the Novatians is performed in the same way as in the Church: they baptize in the same way in the name of Christ. “The name of Christ contributes greatly to faith and the holiness of baptism, so that whoever is baptized into Christ immediately receives the grace of Christ” 396. Therefore, to baptize heretics means to allow a second baptism 397. You only need to lay hands on them to communicate the gifts of the Holy Spirit. But even earlier, in Africa and Asia Minor, regarding the Gnostics and Montanists, it was decided not to consider their baptism valid 398. Firmilian writes: “We contrast the custom of the Romans with the custom of truth, observing from the beginning what was handed down by Christ and the apostles” 399. Consequently, the practice of rebaptism was extended to the Novatians. St. Cyprian immediately transfers the question of the baptism of heretics to dogmatic soil, to the doctrine of the Church. There is one baptism, but only in one Church 400. “Whoever says that anyone can receive baptism and consecration from Novatian, let him first prove and teach that Novatian belongs to the Church or is in charge of the Church” 401. “If heretics are devoted to the Church and are in the Church, then, of course, they can enjoy its baptism and other saving benefits (salutaribus bonis). If they are not in the Church and even act against the Church, then how can they baptize the Church with the baptism?” 402. “When the apostles assert that heretics are not from God, but from the spirit of Antichrist, then how can those who are the enemies of God and whose hearts are possessed by the spirit of Antichrist do spiritual and divine things? 403". “All heretics in general have no power or right. Why is it impossible and should not make an exception for Novatian, especially since he, being outside the Church and acting against the peace and love of Christ, should be considered between opponents and antichrists” 404. The Roman Bishop Stephen recognized even the baptism of the Marcionites as valid 405. On the contrary, St. Cyprian made no distinction between all the opponents of the Church. “And the blessed Apostle John did not distinguish any heresy or schism and did not identify, in particular (speciatim posuit), some who separated, but called all those who apostatized from the Church and acted against the Church Antichrists” 406. Between the schismatic and the heretic St. Cyprian makes no distinction. Christ, sending the apostles first to the Jews, “commands to go around the pagans, and adding that they should also go around the city of Samaritan, where there were schismatics (schismatici), showed that schismatics should be equalized with the pagans” 407. And since Novatian is outside the Church, Novatians cannot have baptism. “When they say: Do you believe in the remission of sins and in eternal life through the Holy Church? - then they lie in the very question, because they do not have a Church” 408. “If heretics do not have the Church, because it is one and cannot be divided, if they do not have the Holy Spirit, because He is also one and cannot be with the wicked and alien, then, of course, they cannot have baptism, which consists of the same unity, because it cannot be separated either from the Church or from the Holy Spirit” 409. Since heretics have separated from the Church of God, they absolutely cannot have any power and grace (nihil habere potestatis aut gratiae posseunt). A heretic cannot ordain, lay on hands, baptize, or perform anything holy and spiritual, since he is alien to spiritual and god-created (deifica) holiness 410. Thus, the baptism of heretics is invalid, because they do not have a Church, and outside the Church there is no Holy Spirit. In all his reasoning, Cyprian proceeded from the idea of ​​a single Church 411. But heretics do not have a legal hierarchy, descended successively from the apostles. “Novatian does not belong to the Church, and one who, having despised the Evangelical and Apostolic Tradition, without inheriting anyone (nemini succedens), descended from himself, cannot be considered a bishop” 412. Among heretics, the baptizer does not have the power to baptize 413. Only one who has the Holy Spirit can baptize and give remission of sins, but heretics do not have the Holy Spirit 414. On the last point - heretics do not have the Holy Spirit - supporters of Stephen of Rome also agreed. St. Cyprian says about them that, although they are stubborn and slow-witted in other ways, they nevertheless admit that all heretics and schismatics do not have the Holy Spirit and therefore, although they can baptize, they cannot give the Holy Spirit 415. But the grace of the Holy Spirit is given already at the laying on of hands, and Stephen, recognizing heretical baptism as valid, at the same time did not recognize their laying on of hands as such 416. Consequently, Stephen and his associates divided the spiritual gifts of grace into two parts: the grace of Christ and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Church alone possesses the gifts of the Holy Spirit and imparts them upon the laying on of hands. The grace of Christ is communicated in baptism to heretical communities outside the Church 417. Heretics therefore cannot be compared with pagans; they left the Church, but also abandoned paganism; They also have some of the grace. Heretics stand, as it were, between the Church and the pagan world 418. The Church therefore does not coincide in its boundaries with Christianity in general; it can be represented by a smaller concentric circle enclosed within a larger one. The Church possesses grace in its full extent, but part of grace, namely the grace of Christ, goes beyond the boundaries of the Church 419. But the opponents of Bishop Stephen, led by St. Cyprian did not recognize the possibility of sharing grace, distinguishing the grace of Christ from the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Grace is one and indivisible and belongs only to the Church 420. The most succinct general thought of all Stephen's opponents was expressed by one of the bishops present at the Council of 256: “The heretics either be allowed everything, or nothing” 421 . It is from this point of view that the question of the baptism of heretics by St. Cyprian and Firmilian. One cannot put on Christ without the Spirit, and the Spirit cannot be separated from Christ 422 . Hence the main argument of St. Cyprian: it is inconsistent to recognize the baptism of heretics and deny their laying on of hands. “Let those who patronize heretics and schismatics answer us whether they have the Holy Spirit or not? If they have, then why is a hand laid on those who are baptized there, when they come to us, to receive the Holy Spirit, which, of course, would have been received where it could have been given if He were there? If the heretics and schismatics who are immersed outside do not have the Holy Spirit, and therefore a hand is laid on us so that we may receive here what is not there and which therefore cannot be given, then it is obvious that remission of sins cannot be given through those about whom it is known that they do not have the Holy Spirit" 423 . Stephen connected the grace of Christ with the name that the heretics pronounced at baptism 424. St. Cyprian refutes this argument and proves that without the Holy Spirit no grace can be imparted. “If the reality of baptism is attributed to the greatness of the name... then why is it not done in the name of the same Christ over the baptized person and the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit? Why does not the same greatness of the same name exert the same power in the laying on of hands as is attributed to it in the consecration of baptism? 425. If someone, having been reborn outside the Church, could become the church of God, then why couldn’t he also become the temple of the Holy Spirit? Whoever, having been baptized by heretics, can put on Christ, can even more so receive the Holy Spirit sent by Christ... Isn’t it an obvious absurdity when they say that one can be born spiritually among heretics, where [they] themselves do not recognize the existence of the Spirit? For water alone, of course, cannot cleanse sins and sanctify a person without the Holy Spirit. So, one of two things must be done: either they agree that where, in their opinion, there is baptism, the Holy Spirit is also present, or where there is no Holy Spirit, they do not recognize baptism, because baptism cannot be without the Holy Spirit” 426. The last thought is definitely and decisively expressed by Firmilian 427 and Bishop Nemesian 428. Thus the baptism of heretics is emphatically rejected; it is declared completely invalid. A heretic or schismatic who turns to the Church is considered an unbaptized pagan. Defenders of heretical baptism thought that heretics cannot be baptized, because there is only one baptism. From the point of view of St. Cypriana, you can’t say that. There is one baptism, because the Church is one and outside the Church baptism is impossible. “We affirm that we do not rebaptize those who come from there, but we baptize them (non rebaptizari apud nos sed baptizari): for they receive nothing where there is nothing” 429. The baptism of heretics is not baptism, but only an empty and unclean immersion (sordida et profana tinctio) 430. The heretic, having sprinkled himself with foul water in some den or den of robbers, not only did not put his old sins in it, but added new and greater ones to them 431. Firmilian 432 also calls the baptism of heretics illegal and empty immersion. The water in which heretics are immersed serves only for bodily washing, and not for the Sacrament of baptism 433. Among the unanimous opinions of the bishops of the Council of 256 on the invalidity of heretical baptism (where, by the way, we meet all the same thoughts as in St. Cyprian) there is the same expression: The Church does not rebaptize heretics, but baptizes 434. And in his final word at the Council, St. Cyprian says... “Heretics must be baptized with the only baptism of the Church, so that they can become friends from opponents and Christians from antichrists” 435. It should also be noted that St. Cyprian considered such a ruling on the invalidity of heretical baptism useful for converting heretics to the Church; On the contrary, he considered the recognition of heretical baptism as valid to be harmful. “If they see that by our judgment and opinion we determine and decree that the baptism with which they were baptized there is righteous and legal, then they will think that they righteously and legally have the Church and other church benefits (ecclesiae munera). And there will be no reason to turn to us when, having had baptism, they think that they have everything else. On the contrary, when they learn that outside the Church there is no baptism and that remission of sins cannot be given, then they will come to us more willingly and hastily and humbly ask for the blessings and gifts (munera ac dona) of the mother of the Church, knowing that they are completely unable to achieve the true promise of Divine grace if they do not first turn to the truth of the Church.”436 We have already noted that St. Cyprian pointed out the illegality of the heretical hierarchy. Along with the question of the baptism of heretics, the following decree was also made about hierarchical persons: “presbyters and deacons who were ordinati first in the Catholic Church and later became traitors and rebels against the Church or among the heretics were installed as false bishops and antichrists, contrary to the institution of Christ, by empty dedication (and pseudoepiscopis et antichristis contra Christi dispositionem profana ordinatione promoti sint) and, contrary to the one and Divine altar, they tried to offer false and sacrilegious sacrifices on the side; when they are converted, they must be accepted under the condition that they are allowed into communication as simple laymen (ut communicent laici)” 437. In the stated disputes 438 about the baptism of heretics by St. Cyprian and his like-minded people also emphasized from a negative side the dogmatic truth: outside the Church there is no salvation. Salvation requires special powers of grace, and they can only be obtained in the Church. The church is like a blessed oasis surrounded by a completely barren desert. Outside the Church - outside grace, outside the Holy Spirit, and this applies equally to a pagan, a heretic, and a schismatic. They are all equally graceless, because they stand outside the Church, and they all equally need to be baptized if they want to join the Church. The Church, exclusively possessing the fullness of grace necessary for people, teaches it to believers through a hierarchy that, successively from the apostles, preserves both the power and rights given by the Lord to His disciples. In accordance with this view, St. Cyprian and in contemporary literary monuments, hierarchical persons are especially often called priests. In various Sacraments they teach people gifts of grace 439. For salvation, it is necessary not to believe only in Christ, but apparently to belong to His Church and to receive Divine grace through the organs established in it by God, that is, through the hierarchy. God saves people through His Church and its hierarchy 440. Here the question arises about the relationship of activity imparting grace to the personality of representatives of the hierarchy. With what, according to the teachings of St. Cyprian, is the right to communicate grace connected with a person or with an ecclesiastical office? Everything previously stated suggests an answer in the sense that the right to communicate grace is connected with ecclesiastical office 441. But if, to resolve this issue, we turn to the works of St. Cyprian, then first of all we will see that he is not indifferent to the moral state of the hierarchical person. During the persecution of Decius, which was aimed primarily at hierarchical persons, several cases of apostasy of bishops occurred. Fallen bishops of St. Cyprian considers them to be deprived of the Holy Spirit. So, about Fortunatian St. Cyprian writes to Epictetus and the Assuritan people: “I was indignant with great sorrow when I learned that Fortunatian, your former bishop, after his grave criminal fall again wants to act as before, appropriating the bishopric for himself... How can one who has obeyed and served the priests of the devil consider himself entitled to correct the office of a priest of God?.. In the Divine Scriptures, God forbids priests guilty of even the slightest crime to begin making sacrifices (following quotes: Lev. 21:17–18; Exodus 19:22; 28:43). Those who have brought upon themselves grave sins, that is, have made sacrilegious sacrifices by eating idols, have no right either to assimilate the priesthood of God, or, under the pretext of it, to offer prayer for their brothers. As we see and believe, by Divine will there was also a determination that incestuous people should not remain at the altar and henceforth touch the purity, the treacherous faith, the wicked piety, the earthly Divine, the sacrilege of the sacred. An offering cannot be consecrated where there is no Holy Spirit, and the Lord will not fulfill the prayers and petitions of one who has himself gravely offended the Lord.”442 When a similar incident occurred in Spain, where bishops Basilides and Martial fell, the entire Council of thirty-seven African bishops agreed that “they should not bear the rank of bishop and serve in the priesthood of God.” And then we read in the message of this Council: “The Divine judgment teaches and shows that all those who have been defiled by the sacrifice of an unclean and unrighteous priest become involved in sin in every possible way... The people who obey the Divine commandments and fear God must separate from the sinner primate and not participate in the sacrifice of the sacrilegious priest” 443 . Therefore, bishops and presbyters who fell under persecution were usually accepted into church communion by ordinary laymen. This is how presbyter Trophim, whom St. mentions, was received. Cyprian 444. Cyprian himself was accused of grave sins, and this is what he writes to Florence Pupian: “If we had not been cleansed before you and were not justified by your sentence, the brotherhood would not have had a bishop for six years, the people a leader, the flock a shepherd, the Church a ruler, Christ a primate (antistitem), God a priest! May Pupian help, may he pronounce his verdict and confirm the judgment of God and Christ, so that such a multitude of believers, subordinate to us, will not be deprived at the end of the hope of salvation and peace, so that they will not think of those who have again believed that through us they have not received any grace of baptism and the Holy Spirit, so that peace and communion, given at our discretion to such a multitude of the fallen and repentant, will not be destroyed! 445. The data we have given from the works of St. Cyprian receives tendentious interpretation in Protestant scholarly literature. They want to see in them some archaistic remnant of the supposed charismatic organization of the early times of Christianity and the ancient concept of the Church as a society of saints. By demanding greater moral perfection from the bishop, Cyprian thereby shows that he is not completely alien to the view of the bishop as a charismatic, whose personal qualities make him capable of implementing the Divine principles in the life of the Church. The Novatians excluded, in the name of the holiness of the Church, all mortal sinners; Cyprian limited the concept of the Holy Church as a society of saints to the clergy, demanding the exclusion of fallen members from the clergy. The clergy is the “Holy Church” in the Church, which, including sinners, is the corpus permixtum 446. We need to establish our attitude to this point of the teaching of St. Cyprian. The question of the relationship of the grace of the priesthood to the personality of a representative of the hierarchy already had its own history before St. Cyprian. After all, already St. the Apostle Paul in his pastoral letters lists various demands from a sacred person; this means that it was impossible not to demand certain special qualities from a representative of the hierarchy. This is also understandable psychologically. No one can ever judge the shortcomings of a sacred person in the same way as the shortcomings of a layman. But at the beginning of the 3rd century, Montanism came up with the doctrine of a universal priesthood 447. This teaching threatened great complications for the Church. The original definite hierarchical system of the Church could and was replaced in Montanistic societies by a disorderly and therefore short-lived and even impossible system without hierarchy or with its insignificant significance. But at the same time, the Roman bishop Callistus, perhaps, in contrast to Montanism 448, determined (ἐδογμάτισεν): if a bishop sins, even mortally, he should not be deposed. For this, Saint Hippolytus reproaches Callistus, from whom we learn about his definition 449. Many attach great importance to this definition of Callistus, understanding it in an unlimitedly broad sense 450, but Hippolytus’s brief remark hardly provides sufficient grounds for this, especially since it is difficult to determine which sins in this case Hippolytus calls mortal and whether Callistus’ order extended to all mortal sins 451. It is only clear that the issue was not resolved by the whole church. About the Roman Bishop Cornelius, Saint Cyprian reports that he, together with all the bishops appointed everywhere (in toto mundo constitutis), determined to allow fallen bishops and presbyters to offer repentance, but with a prohibition for them to enter the clergy and bear the priestly rank 452. Although it is known about Stephen of Rome that he accepted Basilides and Martial as bishops, St. Cyprian positively asserts that Basilides deceived (fefellit) Stephen, who, due to his remoteness, did not know exactly about the events that took place 453. In any case, there is no definite data to judge Stephen's way of thinking 454. If we now pay attention to the above excerpts from the letters of St. Cyprian, we will see that their content is very insufficient to accurately characterize the views of the holy father. It is unclear, first of all, whether St. Cyprian: the inability or unworthiness of a libelistic bishop to be a conductor of Divine grace in the Church. In a letter to the Spanish clergy and people, he blames the permission to serve a sinner bishop, because the people have the power to elect worthy priests and depose unworthy ones. “God, we know, has decreed that the priest should be chosen in the presence of the people, before the eyes of all, and that his dignity and ability (dignus atque idoneus) should be confirmed by public judgment and testimony... so that those present may both reveal the crimes of the wicked and proclaim the merits of the good, and so that the ordinatio justa et legitima should be just and legal (ordinatio justa et legitima), as based on a general verdict and trial” 455. Here is St. Cyprian writes: “Of course, sometimes unworthy people are appointed, but not by the will of God, but by human prejudice (praesumptionem). The consequences of such an illegal and unrighteous election are unpleasant to God” 456. But there is not a word about whether or not someone unworthy is still capable of being an organ of grace. Apparently, here we are talking only about the dignity of the person elected to church service. Only such a flagrant crime as renunciation of faith deprives a hierarchical person of the opportunity to remain in his former rank. Elsewhere in St. Cyprian expresses himself, as we have seen, more decisively, asserting that a fallen bishop loses the Holy Spirit, and even as if suggesting that a bishop guilty of grave sin from the very moment of the Fall no longer imparts any grace of the Holy Spirit in baptism 457 . But in the same letter to St. Cyprian expresses his most decisive thought that the Church is in the bishop and the bishop in the Church, and also does not allow the possibility of such a case that the bishop would be unable to be a conductor of grace 458. Nothing happens without the will of God, much less a bishop is appointed. “To believe that those who are appointed are unworthy and criminal (indigni et incesti), is this not to believe that His priests are appointed not from God and not through God in the Church?” 459 It is clear that St. Cyprian certainly does not answer the question we have posed; from his views he did not draw decisive conclusions in one direction or another. The reasoning of the anonymous author of the essay “De rebaptismate” is also worthy of special attention. The author says that even the apostles did not have perfect and intact faith, but they baptized and, of course, imparted grace 460. Further, the author, as if finishing the thought of St. Cyprian, asks him a question: what do you say about those who are baptized by errant bishops or bishops of bad behavior? 461 In the writings of Cyprian we will not find an answer to this question, so directly posed. Although the author of “De rebaptismate” assumes on the part of St. Cyprian's answer is that such people should be baptized again 462, and however, one must think, St. himself. Cyprian did not draw such decisive conclusions 463. After all, these conclusions would completely destroy his entire system of teaching about the Church, created with such diligence and tirelessly defended in word and deed throughout his life. In the general system of St. Cyprian is, of course, a contradiction 464 , in any case an inconsistency, but to explain this inconsistency it is hardly necessary to resort to a reference to the remnant of the supposed charismatic organization of the primal Church 465 . Cyprian teaches quite clearly that they are made bishops not by virtue of their personal qualities alone, but by the election of the people and after sacramental consecration as bishops. The Lord, who provides for His Church, does not allow an unworthy bishop to be installed; in exceptional cases, when a bishop sins mortally, for example, by renouncing the faith in persecution, by the judgment of the same Church he is deprived of his rank and becomes a layman. The bishop possesses the grace of the Holy Spirit by virtue of his ecclesiastical position, but he himself must correspond to his position 466. Nevertheless, some expressions of St. Cyprian gives the impression of a contradiction. All these contradictions were destined to be resolved later, when the Donatist schism drew the attention of church writers precisely to this point, which was not clearly revealed by St. Cyprian. De pudic. P. 9: “iam non moechi et fornicatores, sed idololatrae et blasphemi et negatores et omne apostatarum genus... patri satisfacient.” CSEL, 20, 1. P. 237, 1–3; "Aut et cetera delicta pariter capitalia concedi opportebit aut paria quoque eorum moechiam et fornicationem inconcessibilia servari." P. 238, 21–23. Wed. remarks on the meaning of Tertullian's objection in Döllinger's “Hippolytus und Kallistus”. S. 130; Rolffs. Das Indulgenz-Edict. TU 11, 3. S. 75 and Anm. 1. Wed. also German translation Kellner'ä Tertullians sämtliche Schriften. Bd. 1. Köln, 1882. S. 417. When writing our essay, in addition to general courses and already cited studies, we used the following works devoted exclusively to St. Cyprian: Ioh. Ed. Huther. Cyprians Lehre von der Kirche. Hamburg und Gotha. 1839; Dr. Friedrich Wilhelm Rettberg. Thascius Cäcilius Cyprianus, Bischof von Carthago. Gottingen, 1831; Johannes Peters. Der heilige Cyprian von Karthago, Bischof. Kirchenvater und Blutzeuge Christi, in seinem Leben und Wirken dargestellt. Regensburg, 1877; Lic. Bernhard Fechtrup. Derhl. Cyprian. Sein Leben und seine Lehre. Münster, 1878; Dr. Ioseph. Hub. Reinkens. Die Lehre des heiligen Cyprian von der Einheit der Kirche. Würzburg, 1873; Friedrich Böhringer. Cyprianus, Bischof von Karthago, der das moderne spezifisch hierarchische Episcopat im Kampfe um seine Würde und sein Recht. Die alte Kirche. 4-ter Teil. Stuttgart, 1874; Priest Alexey Molchanov. St. Cyprian of Carthage and his teaching about the Church. Kazan, 1888; Dr. Bernhard Poschmann. Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche nach Lehre des hl. Cyprian. Forschungen zur Christlichen Literatur und Dogmengeschichte, herausgeg. von Dr. AEhrhard und Dr. I. P. Kirsch. Bd. VIII, Heft. 3. Paderborn, 1908; E. Michaud. L'ecclésiologie de St. Cyprien. Revue internationale de thélogie. 1905. P. 34–54; 1906. P. 125–130; Hugo Koch Cyprian und der römische Primat. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur. Herausgeg. von Adolf Harnack und Karl Schmidt. XXXV, 1. Leipzig, 1910; Dr. Anton Seitz. Cyprian und der römische Primat oder Urchristliche Primatsentwicklung und Hugo Kochs modernistisches Kirchenrecht. Regensburg, 1911. Epist. ad plebem. 43–34. P. 3. R. 592. Part 1. P. 190; Epist. 52–42 ad Cornell. P. 2. R. 618. Part 1. P. 212. In quotations from Cyprian’s letters, we will number them twice: the first digit indicates the letter number in CSEL, vol. III pars 2, and the second - in the Russian translation, published by the Kyiv Theological Academy, ed. 2nd, Kiev, 1891. The letter “p” is placed before the page index of the Latin edition, and the letter “ch” is part of the works in the Russian translation. Le fond de son caractere peut se résumer dans ces deux mots: Paix et Unité E. Michaud. Revue internationale de théologie. 1905. P. 34. Vgl.: Seeberg. Studien zur Gesch. des Begr. der Kirche. S. 84; Poschmana Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche. S. 4. For details, see Poschmann's Der Kirchenbegriff des hl. Cyprian und die altere Tradition. Op. cit. S. 61 ff. Wed. Harnack's remark: Dogmengeschichte. I. S. 405. Epist. 66–54 ad Pupian. P. 1. R. 727. Part 1. P. 302. Cfr.: P. 5. R. 730. P. 305. Cfr.: Epist. 59–47. P. 5. R. 672. Part I. P. 255. Idem. 66–54 ad Pupian S. 9. R. 733. Part I. pp. 307–308. Idem. 48–39 ad Cornelium. C. P. 608.Ch. I. pp. 203–204. The Lord God made Cornelius a bishop: Epist. 52–43 ad Antonian. P. 8. R. 629. Part I. P. 221. Cornelius was made a bishop by determination (judicio) of God and His Christ (Idem. P. 222), according to the will of God: R. 630, 3. P. 223. P. 9. R. 630–631. pp. 224–225. Epist. 3–4 ad Rogatian. S. 3. R. 471. Part I. S. 110, 111; Epist. 71–58 ad Quintum. P. 3. R. 774. Part 1. P. 328. Epist. 33–17 ad laps. P. 1. R. 566. Part I. P. 139. Cfr.: Epist 42–36 ad Cornel. P. 3: “unitatem a Domino et per apostolos nobis successoribus traditam.” P. 602.18–19.4.1. C 199. The idea of apostolic succession of the episcopate was clearly expressed by one of the bishops present at the Council of Carthage in 256: “Clarus a Mascula dixit: Manifesta est sententia Domini nostri Iesu Christi apostolos suos mittentis et ipsis solis potestatem a patre sibi datam permittentis, quibus nos successimus eadem potestate ecclesiam Domini gubernantes." Sent 79. P. 459. It should also be noted that in the words of Christ (Matthew 16: 18–19) Cyprian sees only the idea of ​​​​founding the episcopate in general. Every bishop is, as it were, the successor of the Apostle Peter. Firmilian of Caesarea reasoned in a similar way in a letter to Cyprian. After referring to the Gospel (Matthew 16:19; John 20:22–23), he continues: “Potestas ergo peccatoram remittendoram apostolis data est et ecclesiis quas illi a Christo missi constituerant et episcopis qui eis ordinatione vicaria successerunt.” Epist. 75. P. 16. R. 820–821. Part I. P. 383. “Christ said to the apostles, and through this to all the rulers (praepositos), successively placed in the place of the apostles (qui apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt): listen to you, He listens to Me; and sweep you away, Me is swept away; But if you reject Me, you will reject Him who sent Me (Luke 10:16).” Epist. 66–54 ad Pupian. S. 4. R. 729–730. Part 1. P. 304. Cfr.: Epist. 69–62 ad Magn. P. 5: “Ordinationi suecedanea praesidens.” R. 753, 21–22. Part 1. P. 364. Epist. 3–4 ad Rogatian. P. 3. R. 471. Part 1. P. 110. Epist. 73–60 ad Iubajan. P. 20. R. 794. Part I. P. 345. Epist. 73–60 ad lubajan. P. 22. R. 796, 7: “Qui fidei et veritati praesumus.” Part 1. P. 347. Epist. 74–61 ad Pompejum. P. 10. R. 803, 13 sqq. Part I. pp. 358–359. The importance of the bishop to the community is depicted by: Dr. Johann Adam Möhler (“Die Einheit in der Kirche oder das Prinzip des Katholicismus, dargestellt in Geiste der Kirchenväter der drei ersten Jahrhunderte.” Tübingen, 1843. S. 175 ff., esp. 187–195); Poschmann (“Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche.” S. 6). Epist. 66–54 ad Pupian. P. 8. R. 733. Part I. P. 307. Therefore, those who, not having peace with the priests, think in vain to win over some to secret communication with themselves. Epist. 76–62 ad Magnum. P. 5. R. 753. Part I. P. 364. Epist. 66–54 ad Pupian. P. 5. R. 730. Part I. P. 304. Epist. 5–27 ad presbyt. et diac. P. 2. R. 510. Part I. P. 173: “Deacons are ministers of the episcopal rank in the Church”; Epist. 3–4 ad Rogatian. P. 3. R. 471. Part I. P. 110, 111: “Otherwise, the disobedient will of the bishop must be excommunicated and brought to justice”; Epist 34–18 ad presb. et diac. P. 3. R. 570. Part 1. P. 142: “Let those who rebelled against the bishops not be with the bishops.” Epist. 40–34. C 5. Part I. P. 193. R. 594–595. Epist. 4–3 ad Pompon. P. 4. R. 476. Part 1. Ss. 107. Epist. 4–3 ad Pompon. P. 4. R. 476. Part 1. P. 107; Epist 3–4 ad Rogatian. S. 1. R. 469–470. Part I. P. 109; Epist. 59–47 ad Cornel. P. 4. R. 670. Part I. P. 253; Epist. 66–54 ad Pupian P. 3. R. 728. Part I. P. 303. Epist. 3–4 ad Rogatian. P. 2. R. 471. Part 1. P. 110. Epist. 59–47 ad Cornel. P. 5. R. 672. Part 1. pp. 254–255. Epist. 3–4 ad Rogatian. P. 1. R. 470. Part 1. P. 109. De unitate eccles. P. 18. R. 226. Part 2. P. 192. Here there is also an indication of King Uzziah, who took the censer and did not want to obey and yield to the priest Azariah, who forbade him to do so, for which he was struck with leprosy on his forehead - marked (notatus) by the offended God on that part of the body on which those who please the Lord are anointed (signantur). R. 226–227. Epist. 66–54 ad Pupian. S. 6. R. 730–731. Part 1. P. 305. Epist. 3–4 ad Rogatian. S. 3. R. 471–472. Part 1. P. 111. Compare: Epist 66–54 ad Pupian P. 5: “Schisms and heresies have occurred and are occurring in the case when the bishop, who alone is given authority over the Church (qui unus est et ecclesiae praeest), is disdained by some out of proud arrogance, when people consider a person honored by honoring God to be unworthy. And what kind of excessive pride is this, what kind of arrogance of heart and arrogance of mind is this - to call the rulers and priests to your judgment! - R. 730. Part 1. P. 304. “After all, heresies arose from nothing else and schisms were born, as from the fact that they do not show obedience to the priest of God and do not recognize as the vicegerent of Christ (vice Christi) in the Church one priest and judge appointed for a certain time.” Epist. 59–47 ad Cornel. P. 5. R. 672. Part 1. P. 254. Cfr.: De unit eccles. P. 10. R. 218. Part 2. P. 184. Epist. 59–47 ad Comel. P. 7. R. 674. Part 1. P. 256. Ad Philad 8; Tral 7; Contra haeres. IV. 33, 7. The views of ancient church writers on the source of heresies are set out in Seitz’s book “Die Heilsnotwendigkeit der Kirche”. S. 84–86. Wed. and 87 ff. Vgl.: Harnack. Dogmengeschichte 4. I. S. 423. Cfr.: Tertull. De praescr. P. 6: “Quorum opera sunt adulterae doctrinae.” P.L. T. 2. Col. 20B.; De monogam. P. 2: “Adversarius spiritus... primo regulam adulterans fidei.” P.L. T. 2. Col. 980–981. Cfr.: Irenaeus. Contra haeres. III. 24, 1–2. Detailed teaching of St. Cyprian about the bishop is described by St. A Molchanov. See: St. Cyprian of Carthage. pp. 208–248; also in Huther (“Cyprians Lehre von der Kirche.” S. 59 ff.). We limit ourselves to a schematic presentation. However, we will continue to talk about the bishop. Epist. 33–17 ad laps. P. 1: “Ecclesia in episcopo et clero et in omnibus stantibus constituta.” P. 566.15–16. Part l. C. 139. Epist. 14–27 ad presb. et diac. S. 1. R. 510. Part 1. P. 172; Epist. 19–13 ad cl. S. 1. R. 525. Part 1. P. 152; Epist. 34–18 ad presb. et diac S. 1. R. 568–569 Part 1. P. 141. Epist. 14–27 ad presb. et diac S. 4. R. 512. Part 1. P. 175. Epist. 59–47 ad Cornel. P. 19. R. 689. Part 1. P. 271. Harnack says that the passages in which Cyprian defined the Church as constituta in episcopo et in clero et in omnibus credentibus date back to an early time, when he himself, in essence, adhered to the old concept of the Church. The definition of the Church as a community governed by a bishop is a product of the Novatian crisis. See: Dogmengeschichte 4 .1. S. 417, Anm. 2. Seeberg. Studien zur Geschichte des Begriffs der Kirche. S. 34. Ritschl A. Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche. S. 558: “Er (Cyprian) zeigt sich also als Vertreter der Autonomie der Gemeinde, in einer Zeit, in welcher nach unserer Darstellung der Geschichte der Gedanke daran nicht mehr zu erwarten wäre.” Cfr.: Böhringer. Die alte Kirche IV. S. 950: “Wir erkennen hierin (ep. 33–17. P. 1) einen Rest der alten Gemeindeautonomie.” Böhringer. Die alte Kirche. IV. S. 950. Seeberg R. Studien zur Geschichte des Begriffs der Kirche. S. 34–35. But cf. Poschmann’s judgment about this “Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche”. S. 64, Anm. 2. Also see S. 6, Anm. 2. Ritschl. Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche. S. 559: "Mit dem angerührten Grundsatz über die Harmonie von Bischof, Klerus, Gemeinde hat jedoch Cyprian seine eigentliche Ansicht nur sehr schwach maskirt." Epist. 33–17 ad laps. P. 1. R. 566. Part 1. P. 139. L'eveque est donc l'organe de l'église, mais il n'est pas l'église; il est le symbole visible de son unité, mais il n'est pas l'unité même... E. Michaud. L'ecclésiologie de St. Cyprien. Revue internationale de théologie, 1905. P. 37. Cfr.: judgments Michaud la notition de l'ordre dans l'église non de l'ordre factice qui résulte de la phantaisie et de l'absolutisme des chefs, mais de l'ordre verilable, fondé sur le maintien de la doctrine et des institutions du Christ. Revue internal, de théol., 1905. P. 34. Cfr.: P. Batiffol. L'eglise naissante et le catholicisme. P. 422, not. 2. At the beginning of our study, we already characterized this ancient Christian thought about the unity of the Church. Orthodox and Catholic scholars always defend the position that the Church of Christ has always thought of itself as a single whole. For brief remarks about this consciousness of the Church before Cyprian of Carthage, see the study by priest A Molchanov: “St. Cyprian of Carthage." pp. 187–190. Poschmann speaks about this in somewhat more detail, indicating the literature: “Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche.” S. 71–75; Möhler: "Die Einheit in der Kirche". S. 213–220. This also includes the peculiar Protestant theory of Zom. Poschmann comes to almost the same result (“Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche.” S. 75). Möhler says the same thing (“Die Einheit in der Kirche.” S. 222): “What was clearly and systematically expressed was what had already been in the Church for a long time; for who, after all the development described above, can still assert that a new teaching, a new phenomenon has now penetrated into the Church, or even that Cyprian alone and his work on the unity of the Church introduced this teaching into the Church? See Poschmann (S. 75, Anm. 2) for the opinions of other scholars. Wed. Loots F. Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte 4 . § 29, 1. S. 204. Epist. 74–61 ad Pompejum. P. 2. R. 800. Part 1. P. 351. De vanitate idolorum. P. 14. R. 31. Part 2. pp. 8–9. Epist. 73–60 ad lubajan. P. 13. R. 787. Part 1. P. 339. Epist. 73–60 ad lubajan P. 20. R. 794. Part 1. P. 345; Epist. 45–36 ad Cornel. P. 1. R. 599. Part 1. P. 197. De oratione dominica. P. 30. R. 288–289. Part 2. P. 221. Cfr.: P. 23. R. 284–285. P. 217. De unitate ecclesiae p. 6. R. 215. Part 2. P. 181. Epist. 69–62 ad Magnum. P. 5. R. 753. Part 1. pp. 363–364. Epist. 43–34 ad plebem. P. 5. R. 594. Part 1. P. 192. The same is true in De unitate eccles. P. 23. R. 231. Part 2. P. 197. Cf. With. 4. R. 214. P. 180. The Apostle Paul in the words of Eph. 4:4–6 shows the sacrament of unity (sacramentum unitatis). De unitate ecclesiae. P. 8. R. 217. Part 2. P. 182. De unitate eccles. P. 6. R. 216. Part 2. P. 180; Epist. 69–62 ad Magnum. S. 2. R. 751. Part 1. P. 361–362; Epist. 52–42 ad Cornell. S. 1. R. 617. Part 1. P. 212; Epist. 74–61 ad Pomp. P. 6. R. 804. Part 1. pp. 354–355. Epist. 74–61 ad Pompejum P. 6. R. 804. Part 1. P. 354–355. Epist. 73–60 ad Iubajan. P. 11. R. 786. Part 1. P. 338. Epist. 52–42 ad Cornell. S 1. R. 617. Part 1. S 211–212. Here St. Cyprian means Eph. 5:31–32. Epist. 63–63 ad Caecil. P. 12. R. 711. Part 1. P. 396. Epist. 63–63 ad Caecil. P. 13. R. 711. Part 1. pp. 396–397. “That is why, when consecrating the Chalice of the Lord, you cannot bring a single water or a single wine. If only wine had been brought, then the Blood of the Lord would have been left without us, and if only water had been brought, then the people would have been left without Christ. And therefore, the spiritual and heavenly Sacrament is accomplished only when both are mixed and inextricably united with one another” (R. 711–712). Epist 63–63 ad Caecil. P. 13. R. 712. Part 1. P. 397. Compare: Didach. X, 5. Epist. 45–36 ad Caecil. P. 1. R. 599. Part 1. P. 197. De unitate eccl. P. 23. R. 231. Part 2. P. 197. Cfr.: P. 5, 12, 23. R. 214, 220, 230. P. 180, 186, 196; Epist. 41–35 ad Cornel. P. 3: “Catholicae ecclesiae corpus unum.” P. 598. Part 1. P. 196; Epist. 66–54 ad Pupian. P. 8. R. 732. Part 1. pp. 306–307. “When the Lord calls bread, made up of many grains, His Body, He indicates that our people, whom He took the image of, are one whole; and when He calls His Blood the wine squeezed from grape clusters and many berries and pressed into one, it means that our flock is also made up of a mixture of many, held together into one.” – Epist 69–62 ad Magnum. P. 5. R. 754. Part 1. P. 364. Epist. 66–54 ad Pupian. P. 7. R. 732. Part 1. P. 306. Epist. 36. P. 4: “Corpus totius ecclesiae, cujus per varias quasque provincias membra digesta sunt.” P. 575. Part l. C. 155. De unitate eccl. P. 6. R. 214. Part 2. P. 181; Epist. 74–61 ad Pomp. P. 11. R. 809. Part 1. P 359: “The Church, in mysterious likeness to a single ark, is based on the Lord’s unity. The Apostle Peter (1 Pet. 3:20) referred to the ark of Noah, precisely proving and defending church unity and testifying that the one ark of Noah was a prototype of the one Church.” – Epist. 69–62 ad Magn S. 2. R. 751. Part 1. P. 362. De unitate eccl. P. 8. R. 217. Part 2. P. 183; Epist. 69–62 ad Magnum. S. 4. R. 752–753. Part 1. P. 363. De unitate eccl. P. 8. R. 217. Part 2. P. 183; Epist. 69–62 ad Maga S. 4. R. 753–754. Part 1. P 364. Epist. 74–61 ad Pompej. P. 11. R. 808. Part 1. P. 359; Epist. 69–62 ad Magnum. P. 2. R. 751. Part 1. pp. 361–362. De unitate eccl. P. 4. R. 213. Part 2. P. 179; Epist. 69–62 ad Magnum. S. 2. R. 750–751. Part 1. P. 361. De unitate ecclesiae. P. 7. R. 215–216. Part 2. pp. 181–182. Epist. 66–54 ad Pupianum. P. 8. R. 733. Part 1. P. 307. The Church is one and cannot be divided. Epist. 74–61 ad Pompejum S. 4. R. 802. Part 1. P. 353; Epist. 51–40 ad Cornel. P. 2. R. 615. Part 1. P. 207. Epist. 69–62 ad Magnum. P. 6. R. 754, 15. Part 1. P. 364. De unitate eccl. P. 5. R. 214. Part 2. P. 180. De unitate eccl. S. 4. R. 212–213. Part 2. P. 179. Epist. 70–57 ad Januar. P. 3. R. 769. Part 1. P. 324. All such expressions are collected in Harnack’ä Dogmengeschichte 4. I. S. 420–421, Anm. 2. We consider it not superfluous to indicate literature related to this issue with a Catholic understanding of the passage cited, which can be found in Poschmann’s book “Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche.” S. 13–21. See also: Karl Adam. Cyprians Kommentar zu Mt. 16, 18 in dogmengeschichtlicher Beleuchtung – Theologische Quartalschrift. 1912. S. 99 ff., 203 ff. - or Seitz's "Cyprian und der römische Primat". S. 30 ff. The most detailed anti-Catholic interpretation [can be found] in Koch’s special work “Cyprian und der römische Primat”. TU 35, 1. S. 6–22, 31–38. In Russian literature, an analysis of Catholic references to Cyprian [is present] in “an opinion on the evidence of the defender of the Roman Catholic Church about the primacy of the Roman bishop.” – Collection of opinions and reviews of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, ed. edited by Rev. Savva, Archbishop. Tverskoy. T. 2, St. Petersburg, 1885. pp. 131–134; Ar-chem. Nikanor. Analysis of the Roman teaching on visible (papal) primacy in the Church. pp. 206–236; D. Kasitsyn. Schisms of the first centuries of Christianity. pp. 162–166 (Additions. Part 44. pp. 365–370); Priest A. Molchanov. St. Cyprian of Carthage. pp. 254–262. Let us also note that reading ch. 4. "De unit. eccl." in different codes it is not the same; later codices have a number of interpolations, some of which are retained in the Mignë PL edition. T. 4. Col. 499–500. See: Michaud E. Revue internat. de theologie, 1905. P. 44–48; P. Batiffol. L'eglise naissante et le catholicisme. P. 440–447; Koch H. Cyprian und der römische Primat S. 158–169; Bruders H. Mt. 16, 19; 18, 18 und Io 20, 22, 23 in frühchristlicher Auslegung – Zeitschrift für katholische Théologie. 1911. S. 93 ff. This is exactly how the quoted words from “De unit” are interpreted. eccl." P. 4 almost all non-Catholic scientists. See: Ritschi A. Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche. S. 573; Böhringer. Die alte Kirche. IV. S. 592; Huther. Cyprians Lehre von der Kirche. S. 93; Reinkens. Die Lehre des hl. Cyprian. S. 5: “Petrus ist die persönliche Veranschaulichung der Idee der Einheit.” Cfr.: S. 9; Benson. Cyprian, his life, his times, his work. London, 1897. P. 198: “The origo, exordium, of unity Starts (proficiscitur) from one as a manifestation or demonstration (manifestaret, monstretur) of unity.” (Quoted from Poschmann, S. 15, Anm. 1.); Loots F. Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte 4 . § 29, 3. S. 209. Cfr.: P. Batiffol. L'eglise naissante et le catholicisme. P. 431; archim. Nikanor, op. Op. P. 211; priest A. Molchanov. St. Cyprian of Carthage. P. 261. Koch strongly defends this same understanding. See: Cyprian und der römische Primat, S. 22: “Peter is the temporary beginning of the Church and its unity, but not its origin in the sense that the Church grew out of him and its unity rests on unity with him, precisely with him. The real principle, the efficient cause for the Church and its unity, both at the beginning and after, is only Christ Himself, and not Peter. He is not the beginning of the Church and not the beginning of unity, but he is the numerical unity (unitas) with which Christ deigned to begin His Church (ab uno incipientem disposuit, exordium ab unitate proficiscitur). With this beginning the Founder most clearly showed that His Church was to be forever one and only. This – and nothing else – is Cyprian’s thought.” Cfr.: S. 11, 14, 16–17, Anm. 21, 27, 30, 43, 137–138. Koch sees the same meaning in epist. 70–57. pp. 3, 73–60. pp. 7, pp. 42–45. But cf.: Adam K. Theologische Quartalschrift. 1912. S. 108–109, 118–119. Epist. 33–23 ad clerum. P. 565: “una fida consensio” – other reading: “una fide consensio”. Part 1. P. 156. De unitate ecclesiae. P. 22. R. 230. Part 2. P. 196. Epist. 13–26 ad Rogatianum. P. 2. R. 505. Part 1. P. 168. Epist. 25–15 ad Caldon. R. 538. Part 1. P. 137. Epist. 74–61 ad Pompejum. P. 4. R. 802. Part 1. P. 353. Epist. 69–62 ad Magnum. P. 12. R. 760. Part 1. P. 371. Cfr.: Epist. 71–58 ad Quintum. P. 2. R. 733. Part 1. pp. 326–327. Epist. 74–61 ad Pompejum. P. 4. R. 802. Part 1. P. 353. Cfr. Epist. 70–57 ad Jannuar. P. 3. R. 770. Part 1. P. 325. De unitate eccl. P. 4. R. 213. Part 2. pp. 179–180. De unitate eccl. S. 3. R. 211–212. Part 2. P. 178. De unitate eccl. P. 14. R. 223. Part 2. P. 189. Ibid. P. 15. R. 224. Part 2. P. 190. Cfr.: Epist. 73–60 ad Iubajanum. P. 4. R. 781. Part 1. P. 334: “Heretical plagues, swords and poisons that corrupt the truth.” De unitate eccl. P. 17. R. 226. Part 2. pp. 191–192. Heretics are traitors to the faith and the Catholic Church: Epist. 51–40 ad Cornel. P. 1. R. 615. Part 1. P. 205. They violate the purity of the Church with adulterous teaching and distort the gospel truth. Epist. 43–34 ad plebem. P. 4. R. 593. Part 1. P. 192. Epist. 73–60 ad Iubajanum. pp. 4, 5. R. 781, 782. Part 1. pp. 334–335. Poschmann talks about this in detail. See: Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche. S. 43–52. But it is in vain that Poschmann titles this department: “Die Heilsnotwendigkeit der sichtbaren Kirche.” In our opinion, the necessity of the Church for salvation should be discussed in connection with the question of the holiness of the Church. Epist. 51–40 ad Cornel. S. 1. R. 614–615. Part 1. P. 205. Epist. 69–62 ad Magnum. S. 1. R. 749–750. Part 1. pp. 360–361: “If those who do not listen to the Church are considered pagans and publicans, then much more should be considered among the pagans and publicans as troublemakers and enemies.” Cfr.: Epist. 74–61 ad Pompejum. P. 2. R. 800. Part 1. P. 351; Epist. 70–57 ad Iannuar. P. 3. R. 770. Part 1. pp. 324–325. Cfr.: sententiae episcoporum, 11, 24, 87. R. 442, 445–446, 461. Epist. 55–43 ad Antonianum. P. 24. R. 642. Part 1. P. 234. St. says the same thing. Cyprian and about Novatus. Epist. 52–42 ad Cornell. P. 1: “How can one be with Christ who is not with the bride of Christ, who is not in His Church.” R. 617. Part 1. P. 212. De unitate eccl. P. 6. R. 214. Part 2. P. 181. “Can one imagine that he is with Christ, who acts against the priests of Christ - separating himself from communion with His clergy and people.” Ibid. P. 17. R. 226. Part 2. P. 191. This view, of course, is not alone of Cyprian. Wed. sayings of ancient church writers, collected from Seitz (“Die Heilsnotwendigkeit der Kirche.” S. 21–25, 83–86). Wed: Harnack. Dogmengeschichte 4. I. S. 423–425. Böhringer draws attention to these words and makes a very strange remark: “Noch aber war die altchristliche Ansicht von der Kirche nicht ganz ausgestorben.” Die alte Kirche. IV. S. 957. But there is hardly any reason to declare these words to be an ancient Christian view of the Church. De unitate ecclesiae. pp. 12, 13. R. 220–222. Part 2. pp. 186, 187, 188. Cfr.: Epist. 11–25 ad clerum et plebem. S. 3. R. 497–498. Part 1. P. 162. Epist. 13–26 ad Rogatian. P. 2. R. 505. Part 1. pp. 168–169. Epist. 72–59 ad Stephan. P. 2. R. 777. Part 1. P. 330. De unitate ecclesiae. pp. 24, 25. R. 231–232. Part 2. P. 197; De opere et eleemos. P. 25. R. 393. Part 2. P. 288. De unitate ecclesiae. pp. 8, 9. R. 217, 218. Part 2. pp. 183–184. Epist. 69–62 ad Magnum. P. 6. R. 754. Part 2. P. 384. De oratione dominica. P. 23. R. 284–285. Part 2. P 217. Epist. 45–36 ad Corne. S. 1. R. 599–600. Part 1. P. 197. De unitate ecclesiae. S 14. R. 222–223. Part 2. pp. 188, 189; De oratione dominica. P. 24. R. 285. Part 2. P. 217–218; Epist. 55–43 ad Antonian. P. 29. R. 647. Part 1. P. 239. Harnack says that this thought is “ist ein Grandgedanke, ja die Spitze der Schrift de unitate.” – Dogmengeschichte 4. I. S. 418, Anm. 4. Epist. 55–43 ad Antonian. P. 24. R. 642. Part 1. P. 234; Epist. 72–59 ad Stephan. S. 2: “The heretics, having forgotten the peace and love of the Gospel, with the hostile fury of disagreement rebel against the unanimous and harmonious people of God.” R. 777. Part 1. P. 330. Epist. 69–62 ad Magnum. P. 1. R. 749. Part 1. P. 360: “Marcian, uniting with Novatian, became an opponent of mercy and piety.” Epist. 68–55 ad Stephan. P. 4. R. 748. Part 1. P. 312. Epist. 69–62 ad Magnum. P. 1. R. 750. Part 1. P. 361. De unitate ecclesiae. P. 15. R. 224. Part 2. P. 190. Vgl.: Harnack. Dogmengeschichte 4. I. S. 418, Anm. 4. De oratione dominica. C. 8. P. 271. Part 2. P. 204. On the prayer of one Church for another, see Epist. 62–53 ad episcop. Numid. P. 4. R. 700. Part 1. P. 301. Epist. 11–25 ad clerum et plebem. P. 7. R. 501. Part 1. P. 166 Epist. 43–34 ad plebem. P. 5. R. 594. Part 1. P. 192. De unitate ecclesiae. P. 26. R. 232. Part 2. P. 198. Epist. 7–28 ad cleram. R. 485. Part 1. P. 176. Epist. 41–38 ad Caldon. P. 1. R. 587. Part 1. P. 187. Epist. 62–53 ad episcop. Numid. R. 698 sqq. Part 1. pp. 298–300. Harnack speaks in detail about charity in the ancient Christian Church. See: “Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums 2”. 4-tes. Kap.: "Das Evangelium der Liebe und Hilfleistung". S. 127 ff. “All the Syrian regions and Arabia, where you always send your benefits... everyone and everywhere rejoices in unanimity and brotherly love,” Dionysius wrote to Stephen, Bishop of Rome. – Eusebius. History Ecclesias. VII, 5, 2. GrchSch. 9, 2. S. 638, 640. Works of St. Dionysius the Great, Bishop of Alexandria, in Russian translation, ed. Kazan Theological Academy. Kazan, 1900. P. 59. See Basil the Great letter 66 (70). - Creations. Part 6, ed. 4. Holy Trinity Lavra of Sergius, 1901. P. 151. Epist. 60–53. R. 698 sqq. Part 1. pp. 298, 299, 300, 301. On the moral unity of Christians, see also Epist. 37–29 ad Moys. et Maxim. P. 1. St. Cyprian writes to the confessors: “And in a certain way we are there with you in prison; being so united with you in heart, we consider ourselves to feel together with you the sweetness of the Divine visitation. Your undivided love makes us participants in your honor, and the spirit does not allow us to be separated from you by devotion.” R. 576. Part 1. pp. 176–177. Epist. 66–54 ad Pupian. P. 8. R. 733. Part 1. P. 307. De unitate ecclesiae. S. 5. R. 214, 1–2. Part 2. P. 180. The Latin text of this passage is as follows: “Episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur.” This text has been translated and interpreted in various ways. Various German translations are collected from Poschmann. See: Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche. S. 8–9, Anm. Compare: Koch H. Cyprian und der römische Primat. S. 27–28, Anm. 2. The Russian translation – “wholly participates in it” – does not have a specific meaning. We provide translations in accordance with the context. Koch finds it possible to attribute further analogies of a sunbeam, a tree, a stream to episcopate. See: Cyprian und der römische Primat. S. 25, 28, 29. Cfr.: S. 138–139. Epist. 43–34 ad plebem. S 5. R. 594. Part 1. P. 192. Epist. 55–43 ad Anionian P. 24: “Episcopatus unus episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus.” P. 642, 14–15. Part 1. P 235. Epist. 68–55 ad Stephan. P. 4. P747. Part 1. P. 312. Epist 55–43 ad Antonianum. P. 24. R. 643. Part 1. P. 235. To leave the alliance with the bishops means to break ties with the Church and to be together with heretics and schismatics: Epist. 52–42 ad Cornell. P. 4. R. 620. Part 1. P. 214. Epist. 73–60 ad Iubajanum. P. 26. R. 798. Part 1. P. 349; Epist. 55–43 ad Antonianum. P. 8: “Co-bishops, of whom the whole host throughout the world is in unanimous agreement.” R. 629. Part 1. P. 221. Epist. 68–55 ad Stephanum. P. 3. R. 746. Part 1. P. 311. See Epist. 17–11 ad pleb. P. 3. R. 523, 4. Part 1. P. 130; Epist. 44–35 ad Cornet. S. 1. R. 598, 1. Part 1. P. 195; Epist. 48–39 ad Comel. P. 2. R. 606, 18. Part 1. P. 202. P. 4. R. 608, 2. P. 203; Epist. 59–47 ad Cornel. P. 5. R. 672, 6. Part 1. P. 255; Epist. 55–43 ad Antonian. S. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 21, 24. R. 624, 9–10, 15; 628, 6, 21; 629, 4; 639, 1; 642, 11. Part 1. P. 214, 219, 220, 221, 235; Epist. 68–55 ad Stephan. S. 1. R. 744, 5. Part I. S. 309; Epist. 72–59 ad Steph. S.I.R. 776.12. Part 1. P 329; Epist. 67–56. S. 1. R. 735.13. Part 1. P. 314; Epist. 71–58 ad Quint. S. 1, 4. R. 771, 6; 774, 13. Part 1. P. 325, 328; Epist. 73–60 ad Iubajan. P. 26. R. 798, 13. Part 1. P. 349. Cfr.: Sententiae episcop. R. 435, 12; 8; 26. R. 441, 6; 446, 11; Epist. 49 Cornel. ad Cyprian. S. 1. R. 610, 12.Part. 1. P. 205. Cfr.: P. Batiffol. L'eglise naissante et le catholicisme. P. 418. Cfr.: Ibid. P. 437 (extract from article I. Delarochelle. L’idée de l’église dans saint Cyprien. Revue d’hist. et de litt; relig. t. 1. 1896. P. 531). Eusebius. History Ecclesias. V, 16, 10. Eusebius reports that the letter of Serapion of Antioch to Caricus and Pontik had the signatures of many bishops. One might think that this message belongs to a whole council of bishops. H. E. V, 19, 4. GrchSch. 9.1.S 480. Eusebius. Cit. op. V, 23, 2; 24, 8. GrchSch. 9, 1. S. 488, 492; about the cathedral - H. E. V, 25. S. 496. For a list of Councils, see Archimandrite Sylvester: Doctrine of the Church. pp. 295–300. Archimandrite Sylvester reveals the “concept of the Church on the basis of the very essence of the appearance of the Councils that continuously arose in it.” See: Doctrine of the Church. pp. 301–318. Epist. 17–11 ad plebem. P. 3. R. 523. Part 1. pp. 130–131. Epist. 26–16 ad clerum: “This matter requires our common consultation and opinion, and I do not dare to judge in advance and take over the common cause alone... after the Lord has given us peace, we will have the opportunity to gather together.” R. 539. Part 1. P. 138. Cfr.: Epist. 24–18 ad presbyt. et diac. P. 3. R. 570. Part l. C. 142. Epist. 19–13 ad clerum. S. 2, p. 526. Part 1. P. 133. Cfr.: Epist. 35–22 ad presb. et diac P. 571. Part 1. P. 152. Epist. 20–14 ad presbyt. et diac. P. 3: “Affairs... I ordered directly to be suspended and postponed until our arrival, so that later, when the Lord gives you peace and we, the primates (praepositi), gather together in large numbers, we could discuss and correct each of these matters, in consultation with you.” R. 529. Part 1. P. 136. Epist. 67–56. R. 735. Part 1. pp. 313–314. Epist. 70–57. R. 766. Part 1. P. 321. Compare: Epist. 57–49 ad Cornel. R. 650. Part I. P. 282. Epist. 73–60 ad Iubajanum. P. 1. R. 779. Part 1. P. 332. Cf.: Epist. 72–59 ad Stephan. P. 1: “In order to put in order and discuss certain matters through the study of a general Council (consilii communis), we considered it necessary, most beloved brother, having gathered together many priests, to convene and open a Council, at which much was discussed and decided.” R. 775. Part 1. P. 328. Sententiae episcoporum LXXXVII, de haereticis baptisandis. P. 435 sqq. Epist. 59–47 ad Cornel. P. 10. R. 677. Part 1. P. 259. Cfr.: Eusebius. Cit. op. VI, 43, 2. GrchSch. 9, 2. S. 612. Here, for example, is how the Council of 256 is described: “Cum in unum Carthaginem convenissent kalendis Septembribus episcopi plurimi ex provincia Africa Numidia Mauritania cum presbyteris et diaconibus, praesentibus etiam plebis maxima parte etc.” P. 435. Epist. 14–14. P. 3. R. 529. Part 1. P. 136. In a letter to Cornelius, the presbyters and deacons of St. Cyprian also separates the importance of the Council from the bishops: “If the number of those who judged them last year is combined with the presbyters and deacons.” Epist. 59–47. P. 15. R. 684. Part 1. P. 266. Eusebius. Cit. op. VI, 43.10: “ᾦ καὶ ἐκοινωνήσαμεν λαικῷ, ὑπὲρ αὑτοῦ δεηθέντος παντὸς τοῦ παρόντος λαοῦ ". GrchSch. 9, 2. S. 618, 10–11. See, for example: Poschmann. Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche. S. 11–12, 26; Seitz A. Cyprian und der römische Primat. S. 75–80. The most detailed refutation of Catholic references to Cyprian is given by N. Koch. See: Cyprian und der römische Primat. It can be noted that Cyprian does not divide episcopal sees into apostolic and non-apostolic. Wed: Harnack. Dogmengeschichte, I. S. 420, Anm. 1. Epist. 59–47 ad Cornel. S. 14. R. 683–684. Part 1. P. 265. Cf. remarks by N. Koch (“Cyprian und der römische Primat.” S. 92–100). Wed. Jordan’s remark in “Theologischer Literaturbericht”, 1911, No. 11, S. 339: “Cyprian, of course, cannot even speak of the legal primacy of Rome.” Sometimes Catholics look at the fact of the schismatics' appeal as evidence of the real importance of the Roman bishop of that time. See, for example: Bollandistarum animadversiones. Migne. P.L. t. 3. Col. 1078 C. But even Catholics say about such proof that “es ist ein vergebliches Bemühen.” – Poschmaan. Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche. S. 31, Anm 1. Poschmann himself admits that Cyprian directly denies the character of the highest court of appeal in the Roman see (S. 30–31). But further Poschmann claims that St. Cyprian considered the union with Rome a conditio sine qua non of bishopric. But we have already said that, according to St. Cyprian, a bishop is only a bishop when he is in unity with the episcopate, and it is completely in vain that Poschmann replaces the concept of episcopate with the Roman bishop. Epist. 71–58 ad Quintum. P. 3. R. 773. Part 1. P. 327. Compare: Koch H. Cyprian und der römische Primat. S. 47: “Cyprian erklärt, dass aus der zeitlichen Priorität keinerlei Superiorität gefolgert werden dürfe.” Vgl. S. 45–47. Recently, Catholic scholars have made an attempt to prove that the letter to Quintus does not refer to the Roman Bishop Stephen, but to some Moorish bishops. This view is expressed and substantiated by Dr. Johann Ernst (“Papst Stephan I und der Ketzertaufstreit. Forschungen zur christlichen Literatur und Dogmengeschichte”, herausgeg von Dr. A. Ehrhard und Dr. I. P. Kirsch. V. Band, 4 Heft. Mainz, 1905. S. 5–9). Ernst refutes the view of Leo Nelke, expressed in his essay “Die Chronologie des Korrespondenz Cyprians”. Thorn, 1902. Ernst’s view is fully shared by Poschmann (Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche.” S. 28–29). We consider it unnecessary to enter into a detailed analysis of this opinion (See: Koch H. Cyprian und der römische Primat. S. 47–49), since in order to characterize the dogmatic teaching of St. Cyprian about the Church, it is not so important to know against whom his letter is directed. In our opinion, Ernst and Poschmann are in vain placing great hopes on the controversial change of person against whom the letter to Quintus is directed. It is clear that this letter generally denies claims to primacy, no matter who makes them. Compare: Koch H. Cyprian und der römische Primat. S. 48–49. Vgl. S. 121. Compare: Koch H. Cyprian und der römische Primat S. 58.71; Poschmann (op. cit., S. 28–29) regarding Epist. 71–58. P. 3, argues: “Petrus in seinem Verhältnis zu Paulus erscheint nun nicht mehr als das Gegenbild des auf seine Primatialstellung pochenden Papstes gegenüber den Bischöfen, sondern als Gegenbild der starrköpfigen Bischöfe, welche auf keine Gründe eingehen wollen vielmehr sich hartnäckig auf unberechtigte Gewohnheiten steifen.” But if the Roman bishop is “starrköpflig” and “sich hartnäckig auf unberechtigte Gewohnheiten steifen,” as was the case with Stephen, then, obviously, the condemnation of Cyprian and the example of the Apostle Peter will apply to him. Superest ut de hac ipsa re singuli quid sentiamus proferamus neminem judicantes aut a jure communicationis aliquem si diversum senserit amoventes, neque enim quisquam nostrum episcopum se episcoporum constituit aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem colleges suos adigit, quando habeat omnis episcopus pro licentia libertatis et potestatis suae arbitrium proprium tamque judicari ab alio non posit, quam nec ipse posit alterum judicare. – P. 435–436. See: Animadversiones. Migne, P.L. T. 3. Col. 1077 C. They are all listed in Ernst's study in various places, as well as in Poschmann, op. cit., S. 29, Anm. 3. Ernst (S. 40) lists scientists who hesitated to make a definite judgment. Cfr.: R. Batiffol. L'eglise naissante et le catholicisme 3. P. 769. Papst Stephan I. S. 40. Vgl.: Harnack A. Chronologie. II. S. 358–359. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, 1881. S. 193 ff. Ernst devotes a large section to this issue in his study (S. 39–63). You can get acquainted with opposing views from the same study, because it is conducted exclusively polemically, mainly against Leo Nelke. See the same Ernst “Neue Untersuchungen über Cyprian und den Ketzer taufstreit (Kritische Glossen zu d’Ales, von Soden u. a.)”. – Theologische Quärtalschrift. 1911. S. 260–270. Past Stephan I. S. 57–59 · Vgl.: Peters. Der heilige Cyprian von Karthago. S. 515–516. Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche. S. 28–30. Some believe that episcopus episcoporum was at that time a permanent epithet for the bishop of Rome (Cfr.: Tertull. “De pudic”, 1). But without recognizing in the speech of St. Cyprian's reference to Stephen, Ernst proves that the expression episcopus episcoporum was used without any relation to the Roman bishop (S. 60). Wed. note on Sententiae episcoporum in Migne, P.L. T. 3. Col. 1053D-1054B. Also see [work]: Peters. Derhl. Cyprian S. 516. It is remarkable that in episcopus episcoporum Catholic scholars either see an indication of the primacy of the Roman bishop, or - depending on the circumstances - do not attach any significance to it. Vgl.: Koch H. Cyprian und der römische Primat. S. 51. Eusebius. History Ecclesias. VII, 5, 4. GrchSch. 9, 2. S. 640. Works of St. Dionysius the Great. pp. 60–61. Epist. 72–59. R. 775 sqq. Part 1. pp. 328–331. Epist. 74–61 ad Pompejum. P. 1. R. 799. Part 1. P. 350. Ibid. P. 4. R. 802. P. 353. Ibid. P. 10. R. 807. pp. 357–358. Ibid. P. 8. R. 805. Part 1. P. 356. Epist. 75 Firmil. pp. 1, 3. R. 810, 811. Part 1. pp. 374–376. Wed. R. Batiffol's remark L'eglise naissante et le catholicisme 3. P. 482. It is not in vain that many Catholic scholars attempted to recognize Firmilian’s letter as inauthentic. See notes Baluzia: Migne, PL. T. 3. Col. 1153–1154, as well as a whole dissertation by the French scientist: F. Marcellini Molkenbuhr. De Firmiliani ad S. Cyprianum epistola aliisque ejus operibus. Migne, P.L. T. 3. Col. 1361–1410. Compare: Harnack A. Chronologie. II. S. 359–360. Epist. 75 Firmiliani. From 3. R. 811. Part 1. P. 375. Epist. 75 Firmil. P. 17. R. 821. Part 1. P. 383. Cf. remark by A. Harnack'ä Dogmengeschichte 4, I. S.421, Anm. Böhringer says that Stephen anticipated the future papacy. Die alte Kirche. IV. S. 1003. Cfr.: R. Batiffol. Leglise naissante et le catholicisme 3. P. 469. Epist. 75 Firmilian. P. 23, 24. R. 824, 825. Part 1. P. 386. See comments by R. Batiffol. L'eglise naissante et le catholicisme. P. 474–475. Cyprian, of course, fully shared everything Firmilian said. Firmilian's letter was probably translated into Latin by Cyprian himself. See: Fechtrup. Derhl. Cyprian. S. 241; Rettberg. Th. S. cyprianus. S. 188; loh. Ernst. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie. 1894. S. 238 ff; Theologische Quarterschrift. 1911. S. 393–395. Hans von Soden speaks out against this assumption (“Das lateinische Neue Testament in Africa zur Zeit Cyprians nach Bibelhandschriften und Väterzeugnissen.” Leipzig, 1909 (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, herausgeg. von Adolf Harnack und Carl Schmidt. Bd. 33). S. 104; Streit zwischen Rom und Karthago über die Rom 1909. Vgl.: Koch H. Cyprian und der römische Primat. S. 140–141. So [thinks] Ernst: the first [is found] in the article: War der hl. Cyprian exkommunizirt? – Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie. 1894. S. 473–499, the second - in the cited study Papst Stephan I. § 5. Papst Stephan und die kleinasiatischen Anabaptisten. S. 80–93. Compare: Theologische Quarterschrift. 1911. S. 388–392. [Also think] Ioh. Peters. See: Der heilige Cyprian von Karthago. S. 549; Poschmann. Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche. S. 41. See also the argument “An Stephanus ex communicatione percusserit rebaptizantes.” Migne. P.L. T. 3. Col. 1268–1274, esp. Col. 1269C, 1271B. See also Ios Schwane. Dogmengeschichte der vornic Zeit. S. 525. See, however, Epist. 75 Firmil. P. 6: “Stephanus nunc ausus est facere rumpens adversus vos pacem, quam semper antecessores ejus vobiscum amore et honore mutuo custodierunt.” P. 813, 28–30.4.1. P. 577; With. 25: “cum, tot episcopis dissensisse, pacem cum singulis vario discordiae genere rumpentem, modo cum orientalibus, quod nec vos latere confidimus, modo vobiscum, qui in meridie estis.” P. 826. Compare: Part 1. P. 387. Cfr.: Epist. 74–61 ad Pompej. P. 8. R. 805. Part 1. P. 356. On this see: Ernst. Papst Stephan I. S. 82–83. See: Rettberg F. W. Th. S. Cyprianus, Bischof von Carthago. S. 181, 183–186; Fechtrup B. Der. hl. Cyprian. S. 234, 237–238; H. V. Soden Der Streit zwischen Rom und Karthago über die Ketzertaufe. S. 33–34; Koch H. Cyprian und der römische Primat. S. 67–68, 148–149; Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church, vol. 2. P. 386 (“it seems”). Cfr.: R. Batiffol. L'eglise naissante et le catholicisme. P. 471, not. 3. By the way, Seitz draws attention to the fact that Stephen did not even show hospitality to Cyprian’s ambassadors (Epist. Firmil. P. 25. R. 826. Part 1. P. 387), obviously, as schismatics. Firmilian reproaches him for this, because in the East, according to the Apostolic Decrees (VII, 28, 4), they showed hospitality even to heretics. See: Die Heilsnotwendigkeit der Kirche. S. 201. Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche. S. 32: “So ist das Festhalten an der Gemeinschaft mit ihm die notwendige Bedingung der bischöflichen Autorität.” Epist. 75 Firmliani. From 25: “Stephen is not ashamed... to call Cyprian a false Christ, a false apostle and a treacherous worker! Realizing all this in himself, he hastened to attribute to others what he should rightly hear himself.” R. 827. Part 1. P. 388. Vgl.: Koch H. Cyprian und der römische Primat. S. 71–72. For more details, see: Koch H. Cyprian und der römische Primat. S. 121–127. Sometimes Protestant scholars express the opinion that Cyprian contradicted himself. In the grave crisis to which his own community was subjected, he referred to the Roman Church and to the Roman bishop as if communion with this Church was in itself a guarantee of truth; however, in a dispute with the Roman bishop Stephen about the baptism of heretics, he definitely denied the claims of this bishop to special rights in the Church, which should follow from the succession to the Apostle Peter (see: Harnack A. Dogmengeschichte 4, I. S. 420, 421, Anm. 494). But Cyprian spoke about the equality and mutual independence of bishops earlier (vgl.: Koch H. Cyprian und der römische Primat. S. 72–73, 85–86, 100, 141–143), which follows from his entire system (N. Koch. S. 127–128). Harnack writes: “The great confederation of Churches, which Cyprian assumes and which he designates as the Church, has in fact not yet been completely realized; for it cannot be proven either that it extended over all regions of the Roman state, or that it embraced all the faithful and episcopal communities within the Roman Empire. Even after, at least until the fourth century, the terms of the confederation were never definitely formulated, which only from the days of Constantine began to be fully empirical. Therefore, the idea of ​​a single, bishop-based, clearly defined Church, embracing all Christians, was in fact always only an idea; and since, according to Cyprian, it is not the idea, but only its implementation that matters, then his dogmatic system is refuted by actual relations.” – Dogmengeschichte, I. S. 422. However, it is hardly possible to convincingly prove all this in order to have the right to draw such decisive conclusions about the system of St. Cyprian. Information that can be obtained from Eusebius (H. EVII, 5, 6, 7; V, 19) and Firmilian, convincingly speak of how lively the relations between the bishops were and what wide circles they captured. Cfr.: Batiffol R. L’eglise naissante et le catholicisme. P. 478–482. See: Koch H. Cyprian und der römische Primat. S. 54–61; Poschmann Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche. S. 30–32. “The Carthaginian bishop’s basic position on the autonomy and independence of bishops, which he expressed at the September Council, has become so ingrained in his flesh and blood that he repeats it constantly. This basic position stands for him, along with the unity of the Church, as the main point in the magna charta of the church structure.” Koch H. Cyprian and der römische Primat S. 54. Epist. 72–59 ad Stephaa C. 3: “habeat in ecclesiae administratione voluntatis suae arbitrium liberum unusquisque praepositus.” P. 778. Part 1. P. 331. Cyprian repeats the same thing in Epist. 55–43 ad Antonian S. 21. R. 639. Part 1. P. 232; Epist. 73–60 ad lubajan P. 26. R. 798. Part 1. P. 349; Epist. 69–62 ad Magnum. P. 17. R. 765–766. Part 1. P. 374; Epist 59–47 ad Cornel. P. 14. R. 683. Part 1. P 265; Epist 57–49 ad Cornel. P. 5. R. 655. Part 1. P. 287. This idea is expressed especially clearly in Epist 55–43 ad Antonianum. P. 21: “When the bond of consent is maintained and the sacrament of the Catholic Church is kept indivisible (perseverante catholicae ecclesiae individuo sacramento), then each bishop acts at his own discretion, having to give an account to the Lord for his actions.” – R. 639. Part 1. P. 232. Epist. 74–61 ad Pompejum. From 10. R. 808. Part 1. P. 359. Epist. 57–49 ad Cornel. P. 5: “If any of our brethren does not want to give peace to fallen brothers and sisters, then he will give an answer to the Lord on the Day of Judgment for untimely severity or for his inhuman cruelty.” – R. 655. Part 1. P. 287. Epist. 74–61 ad Pompejum. P. 2. R. 800. Part 1. P. 351. See Harnack’s remarks: Dogmengeschichte 4, I. S. 419–420, Anm. 2. Epist. 73–60 ad Iubajanum. P. 26. R. 798. Part 1. P. 349. Thought of St. Cyprian’s idea of ​​the possibility of unanimity and peace among the bishops and the existence of significant differences in church practice was fully shared by Firmilian, who wrote: “And in many other areas, much changes due to the difference of places and people (hominum: another read: nominum), but for this reason they have never deviated from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church.” – Epist. 75. P. 6. R. 813. Part 1. P. 377. Epist. 71–58 ad Quintum. P. 3. R. 774. Part 1. pp. 327–328. Epist. 67–56 ad clerum et plebem Hispaniae. P. 5. R. 739. Part 1. P. 317. About Cornelia, Cyprian writes: “He was ordained bishop by many of our comrades who were then in Rome and sent us letters about his appointment with respectful and laudable reviews of him and glorifying him.” – Epist. 55–43 ad Antonianum. P. 8. R. 629. Part 1. P. 222. In more detail about the election and installation of a bishop, according to the teachings of St. Cyprian, see priest. A. Molchanov (“St. Cyprian of Carthage”. pp. 219–227). Epist. 67–56. P. 5. R. 739. Part 1. P. 317. Epist. 49, Cornel. ad Cyprianum. P. 1: “The Roman confessors repent that through insidious deception they were carried away into schism and became the perpetrators of heresy, allowing hands to be laid on Novatian as if on a bishop.” – R. 610. Part 1. P. 205. Cfr.: Eusebius. History Ecclesias. VI, 43, 9. GrchSch. 9, 2 S. 618. These views are presented and refuted by Poschmann (“Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche.” 5. 171 ff.). Epist. 48–39 ad Cornel. P. 4. R. 608. Part 1. pp. 203–204. Epist. 55–43 ad Antonian P. 8. R. 629. Part 1. P. 221, 222; Epist. 59–47 ad Cornel. P. 6. R. 673. Part 1. P. 256; Epist 66–54 ad Florent, Pupian. P. 9. R. 733. Part 1. P. 307; Epist 70–57 ad Ianuar. S 3. R. 770. Part 1. P. 324–325. Epist. 73–60 ad Iubajan. P. 10. R. 785. Part 1. P. 337. Epist 65–45 ad Epictet S. I. R. 724–725. Part 1. P. 244. Sententiae episcoporum 5. R. 439. Epist. 75 Firmiliani ad Cyprianum P. 7: “In ecclesia ubi praesident majores natu qui et baptizandi et manum imponendi et ordinandi possident potestatem haereticum enim sicut ordinare non licet nec manum imponere, ita nec baptizare.” – P. 814–815. Unfortunately, the Russian translation (Creations. Part 1. P. 378) of this important passage is very inaccurate in general, in particular, conveying potestas baptizandi through “the power to dispose,” it completely omits the most important idea of ​​the original for us. Epist 45–36 ad Cornel. S. 1, 2. R. 599–600. Part 1. P. 197. “We wrote letters, as is done, to maintain communication with Cornelius, that is, the unity of the Universal Church and love.” Epist. 48–39. P. 3. R. 607. Part 1. P. 203; Epist. 67–56 ad clerum et plebem Hispan. P. 5. P. 739. Part 1. P. 317. Epist. 44–35 ad Cornel. S. 1. R. 597–598. Part 1. P 195; Epist. 55–43 ad Antonianum. P. 3. R. 625. Part 1. P. 215; Epist 59–47 ad Cornel. P. 9. R. 676–677. Part 1. pp. 258–259. Epist. 44–35 ad Cornel. S. 1. R. 597. Part 1. P. 195–196; Epist. 45–36. S. 1. R. 599–600. Part 1. pp. 197, 199. “Prior to the investigation of the case, it was decided to consider everything unresolved.” Epist. 48–39. S. 2, 3. R. 606–607. Part 1. pp. 202, 203. Cyprian sent Caldonius and Fortunatus to the co-bishops who were at the consecration of Cornelius. See: Epist. 44–35 ad Cornel. P. 3. R. 592. Part 1. P. 195; Epist. 45–36. From 1. R. 600. Part 1. P. 197; Epist. 48–39. P. 4. R. 608. Part 1. P. 203. Cyprian, defending Cornelius, sets out the information received from Rome in a letter (55–43) to Antonian. P. 8. R. 629–630. Part 1. pp. 221–223. See: Priest. A. Molchanov. St. Cyprian of Carthage. P. 226. Epist. 55–43 ad Antonian S. 21. R. 238–639. Part 1. P. 232. Harnack suggests that in Rome after Callistus, discipline was made more strict. However, Harnack notes that after accepting those guilty of carnal sins there was no controversy. – Novatian. RE 3. Bd. XIV. S. 230. De pudic. pp. 9, 22. See: Harnack. Lapsi RE 3. Bd XI. S. 286–287; Dogmengeschicte 4, I. S. 443–444. Recently, such authentic certificates have been discovered, and it is clear that they were prepared earlier - the names to whom the certificates were issued are written in a different handwriting. “They didn’t even wait to go, at least not until they were caught, to recant when asked. Many were defeated before the battle, overthrown without a fight and did not even leave for themselves any visible pretext, as if they were sacrificing to idols under duress. They willingly run to the marketplace, voluntarily hasten to death - as if they were glad to see an opportunity that they had always been looking forward to! So many rulers gave a reprieve there because evening had come, and how many even asked that their destruction not be delayed.” – De Lapsis. P. 8. R. 242. Part 2. P. 153. “The guilt of an adulterer is much heavier and worse than the guilt of one who bought off torment with a note (libellatici): this one sinned out of necessity, that one sinned of his own free will; this one succumbed to deception, considering it sufficient for himself that he did not make a sacrifice, that one, the thief of someone else’s matrimonial bed, mired in the adulterous mire and public disgusting abyss, corrupted the consecrated body and church of God with a vile mixture.” – Epist. 55–43 ad Antonianum. P. 26. R. 644. Part 1. P. 236. Cf. Tertullian's judgment: "De pudic." P. 22: “nemo volens negare compellitur, nemo volens fornicatur.” CSEL, 20, 1. P. 273, 10–11. On this see: Epist 16–9 ad clerum. P. 517 sqq. Part 1. pp. 123–126; Ad martyr., 15–10. P. 513 sqq. Part 1. pp. 126–129; Ad plebem, 17–11. P. 521 sqq. Part 1. pp. 129–131; Epist. 55–43 Antonianum S. 4. R. 625–626. Part 1. P. 216. Epist. 18–12 ad clerum. R. 523 sqq. Part 1. pp. 131–132. The same was decreed in Rome. Epist. 20–14. R. 527 sqq. Part 1. P. 136. Epist. 35–22 ad presbyt. et diac. R. 571. Part 1. P. 153. See: Epist. 16–9 ad clerum. S. 2. R. 518–519. Part 1. P. 124; De lapsis. P. 15. R. 247–248. Part 2. pp. 158–159. Given the dominance in early times of rigoristic discipline, these claims are completely incomprehensible. It is often assumed that Cyprian himself gradually changed his views; at first he did not consider it possible to accept mortal sinners into church communion See: Rettberg. Th. S. cyprianus. S. 75–76, 117. An analysis of this view and evidence to the contrary is given by: Huther. Cyprians Lehre von der Kirche. S. 173–179; Priest A. Molchanov. St. Cyprian of Carthage. pp. 330–335; D. F. Kasitsyn. Schisms of the first three centuries of Christianity. pp. 198–201 (Additions. Part 44. 1889. pp. 400–403). Epist. 20–14. P. 3. R. 528. Part 1. P. 136; Epist. 25–15. R. 538. Part 1. P. 137; Epist. 26–16. R. 539. Part I. P. 138; Epist 34–18. S. 2, 5. R. 569–570. Part 1. P. 142; Epist. 32–23. R. 565. Part 1. pp. 155–156; Epist. 24 Caldon ad Cyprian. R. 536–537. Part 1. P. 137. Epist. ad presbyt. 34–18. P. 3. R. 570. Part 1. P. 142. The history of the Decian persecution is presented in detail by the priest. A. Molchanov. See: St. Cyprian of Carthage. pp. 54–100. Here [there is] a detailed history of Cyprian’s relations with other Churches on the issue of accepting the fallen. For the classes of the fallen, see Harnack (Lapsi. RE 3. Bd. 11. S. 285). [This is discussed] in detail by St. Molchanov, see cit. composition. pp. 57–61. The decisions of the Council of Carthage were set out by Cyprian in a letter to Antonian (55–43. R. 624 sqq. Part 1. P. 214 et seq.). Epist. 55–43 ad Antonianum. P. 6. R. 627. Part 1. P. 218. For the resolutions of this Council, see letter 57–49 to Cornelius. R. 650 sqq. Part 1. pp. 282–287. His name is not the same among different writers; about this, as well as information about the life of Novatian, see Harnack’ä Novatian RE 3. Bd. XIV. S. 229, 230–231. Vgl.: Frank. Die Bussdisciplin der Kirche. S. 551. Epist. 20–14. S. 3. R. 528–529. Part 1. P. 136; Epist. 27–19. P. 4. R. 544. Part 1. P. 148; Epist. 32–23. R. 565. Part 1. pp. 153–156; Epist. 55–43 ad Antonian. P. 6. R. 628. Part 1. P. 219. See: Harnack ADie Briefe des römischen Klerus aus der Zeit des Sedisvacanz im Jahre 250. – Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsäcker zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstage 11. December 1892 gewidmet. Freiburg i. B. 1892. S. 32–33, 34, 35. St. Cyprian reports that Novatian was the author of a letter to him from the Roman clergy, which among other things said about the need to give peace to those fallen who are weak and close to death (Epist. 55–43 ad Antonian, p. 5. R. 627. Part 1. pp. 217–218). This letter expresses protest only against too hasty communication with the fallen. See also: Epist. 30. P. 3, 8. R. 551, 556. Part 1. P. 219, 224. Vgl.: Döllinger. Hippolytus und Kallistus, S. 129; loh. Stufler. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie. 1907. S. 594, 601–602. Vgl.: Huther. Cyprians Lehre von der Kirche. S. 175–176. See also Harnack: Die Briefe des römischen Klerus. S. 14–17, 32–35. Epist. 3. P. 5, PL. T. 13. Col. 1067A-B. Letter of Cornelius to Fabius of Antioch. – Eusebius. History Ecclesias. VI, 43, 8, 9. GrchSch. 9, 2. S. 6l6, 618. Eusebius. Cit op. VI, 43. Cypr. Epist. 55–43 ad Antonianum. Tillemont proved this very thoroughly. See: Memoires. T. 3. R. 440–442. See also: Harnack A. Novatian RE 3. XIV. S. 232–235. Wed: Works of St. Hippolytus, Bishop of Rome, vol. 1. From XXVII; Priest A. Druzhinin. Life and works of St. Dionysius the Great, Bishop of Alexandria. Kazan, 1900. pp. 172–175; L. Duchesne. History of the Ancient Church. pp. 275–276. Eusebius. Cit. op. VI, 45. Wed: Works of St. Dionysius the Great in Russian. translation. P. 48. Epist 52–42 ad Cornel. P. 2. R. 618. Part 1. P. 213. Novat was a truly dark person who in Rome joined a party that held opposing views. Compare: Peters. Der heilige Cyprian von Karthago. S. 237 ff. See: Pacian. Epist. 3. P. 6. PL. T. 13. Col. 1067C-D. Devir. ill: 70.PL. T. 23. Col. 681B. Creations. Part 5. P. 327. Cfr.: Tillemont. Memoires. T. 3. P. 433, 435. Vgl.: Peters. Der heiliqe Cyprian von Karthago. S. 248. Eusebius. Cit. op. VI, 43, 2. GrchSch. 9, 2. S. 614. On this see: Funk. Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen I. S. 162. The schism of Hippolytus was repeated in Rome. It is worthy of attention that in church literature the schism of Hippolytus was assimilated with Novacianism. Thus, in the hymn of Bishop Damasus (366–384) we read: Hippolytus, fertur, premerent cum jussa tyranni, Presbyter in schisma semper mansisse Novati. The Spanish poet Prudentius says the same thing: Invenio Hippolytum, qui quondam schisma Novati Presbyter attigerat... (Acbelis. Hippotytstudien TU 16, 4. S. 42–44). There is an opinion according to which Hippolytus also took part in the Novatian disputes. Eusebius (H. EVI, 46, 5) has a remark: “Another letter of Dionysius to the Roman brethren about the office of deacon, sent through Hippolytus.” Based on this remark of Eusebius and recalling the words of Prudentius, Gieseler in the article: “Über Hippolytus, die ersten Monarchianer und die römische Kirche in der ersten Hälfte des dritten Jahrhunderts.” (Theologische Studien und Kritiken. 1853, 4 Heft. S. 759–787) develops the hypothesis that Hippolytus around 251 belonged to the Novatian party and was a Novatian bishop near Rome. He was the ambassador sent with the letter mentioned by Eusebius. For an analysis of this hypothesis, see Döllinger'ä Hippolytus und Kallistus. S. 275 ff. Döllinger calls Gieseler's hypothesis a fable built on rotten foundations (S. 276). Archpriest Ivantsov-Platonov defended Gieseler’s hypothesis. See [his work]: “Heresies and Schisms.” pp. 120 ff. This hypothesis is also adopted in the sketch of the life and literary activity of St. Hippolytus with his works in the Russian translation (issue 1. pp. XXVII-XXX), where the supposed fact of Hippolytus’s embassy is given very important importance. Compare: Priest A. Druzhinin. Life and works of St. Dionysius the Great, Bishop of Alexandria. Kazan, 1900. P. 190, approx. But, of course, this hypothesis remains a hypothesis. Regarding the words of Eusebius, Achelis says: “There can be no question that this messenger of Dionysius of Alexandria (247–285) is identical with Hippolytus of Rome. This is a generally unknown Alexandrian, whose name was read by Eusebius at the address of Dionysius’ letter.” Hippolytstudien. TU 16, 4. S. 32, Anm. 1. But, undoubtedly, there was some ideological commonality between the protest of Novatian and Hippolytus, although Novatian’s schism was not a direct continuation of Hippolytus’ schism (See: Harnack A. Dogmengeschichte 4, 1. S. 426), especially since between Hippolytus and Callistus there was not that dogmatic difference of opinion that was between Novatianism and Church. Epist. 55–43 ad Antonian P. 26: “...Let him separate from intimacy (a latere) and from communication (a comitatu) deceivers and adulterers.” R. 644. Part 1. P. 236; With. 27: “Let not the new heretics flatter themselves, saying that they have no fellowship with idolaters, while they have fornicators and deceivers, who have the guilt of idolatry, according to the word of the apostle” (Eph. 5:5; Col. 3:5-6). R. 644–645. Part 1. P 237. Epist. 55–43 ad Antonian P. 26: “...Let him separate from intimacy (a latere) and from communication (a comitatu) deceivers and adulterers.” R. 644. Part 1. P. 236; With. 27: “Let not the new heretics flatter themselves, saying that they have no fellowship with idolaters, while they have fornicators and deceivers, who have the guilt of idolatry, according to the word of the apostle” (Eph. 5:5; Col. 3:5-6). R. 644–645. Part 1. P 237. In the second half of the 4th century, Pacian, Bishop of Barcelona, ​​formulated the Novatian teaching as follows: “post baptismum poenitere non liceat, quod mortale peccatum Ecclesia donare non possit, immo quod ipsa pereat recipiendo peccantes.” Epist. 3 contra tracta-tus Novatianarum. S.1. P.L. T. 13. Col. 1063C-D. The historian Socrates quotes the following words of the Novatian bishop Akesius: “O ὐ χρή τούς μετὰ το βἀπτισμα ὴμαρτηκὀτας άμαρτίαν, ῆν ?? ? ἐλπίδα δὲ τῆς ἀφέσεως μὴ παρὰ τῶν ἱερέων , αλλὰ παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκδέχεσθαι , τοῦ δυναμένου καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχοντος συγχωρεῖν αμαρτήματα ". H. E. 1, 10. Ed. by William Bright (Oxford, 1893). R. 29. Socrates quotes similar words from Bishop Asclepiades (N. E. VII, 25. R. 309). St. Augustine generally says about the Kafars that they are “poenitentiam denegant.” Haer 38.PL. T. 42. Col. 32. Cfr.: Pseudo-August. Quaest, 102: “Recte explosa est non ex modica parte Novatiani assertio, qua duo crimina gravia concessa poenitentiae videntur. Quia si fornicationi ignosci non debet, sicut Novatiano videtur, quanto magis homicidio, aut adulterio.” P.L. T. 35. Col. 2305. "Novatianus, Majora, inquit, crimina nominatim remitti proben-tur, id est, idololatria et fornicatio post lavacrum." Ibid. Col. 2308. Cfr.: Col. 2307. Cfr.: Tillemont. Memoires. T. 3. P. 472–474; Harnack A. Dogmengeschichte, I. S. 450, Anm 453. See: Pseudo-August. Quaest, 50 (pars 2). PL T. 35. Col. 2405. See: Harnack A. Der pseudoaugustinische Traktat Contra Novatianum. Abhandlungen Alexander von Oettingen zum siebzigsten Geburtstag gewidmet von Freunden und Schülern. München, 1898. S. 83–84. Epist. 55–43 ad Antonianum. P. 27. R. 645. Part 1. P. 237. Epist. 57–49 ad Cornel. P. 4. R. 653. Part 1. P. 285. See Pseudo-August. Quest. 102: “Nec ego renuo agendam poenitentiam admissae idololatriae, sed ego remitiere non audeö quia crimen hoc ab with remittendum est, in quem admissum est. Hujus rei effectum aut denegas, aut scire se minime profiteris?” P.L. T. 35. Col. 2310. The Novatian doctrine of the Church is briefly but accurately stated by Harnack. See: Novatian. RE 3.XIV. S. 237–238; Dogmengeschiehte 4, I. S. 450–452. But Harnack, of course, also repeats the generally accepted Protestant opinion, according to which Novatianism is precisely the restoration of the authentic ancient Christian Church: “Die novatianischen Gemeinden haben unstreitig einen wertvollen Rest der alten Uberlieferung bewahrt.” RE 3.XIV. S. 239; Dogmengeschiehte 4, I.S. 452. Haer. 59, 3. PG. T. 41. Col. 1021A. Creations. Part 3. P. 29. See: Harnack. Novatian, RE 3. Bd XIV. S. 229. Doesn’t Cyprian also indicate this when he says that troublemakers invent seductive names (nomina adulterata fingentes)? Epist. 69–62 ad Magnum. P. 1. R. 750. Part 1. P. 361. Haer. 59, 7. PG. T. 41. Col. 1028D-1029A. Part 3. P. 36. Haer. 59, 13:" δεῖ τἀληθῆ λέγειν ". PG. T. 41. Col. 1037A. Part 3. P. 44. Compare: Harnack A. Dogmengeschiehte 4, I. S. 453. Epist. 59–47 ad Cornel. S. 1. R. 667. Part 1. P. 250; De unit. eccl. P. 6: “Incorrupta est et pudica.” P. 214. 4. 2. P. 180. Epist. 45–36 ad Cornel. S. 3. R. 602–603. Part 1. P. 199. Epist. 4–3 ad Pomponium. P. 4. R. 476. Part 1. P. 107. See about this: Seitz. Die Heilsnotwendigkeit der Kirche. S. 135; Poschmann. Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche. S. 52–54; Kasitsyn D. F. Schisms of the first centuries of Christianity. pp. 170–191 (Additions to the works of the Holy Fathers. 1889. Part 44. pp. 373–394). De unitate ecclesiae. P. 9. R. 218. Part 2. P. 184. De mortalitate. P. 8. R. 301. Part 2. P. 254. De oratione dominica. P. 22. R. 283. Part 2. P. 216. Epist. 55–43 ad Antonian. pp. 16, 17. R. 635. Part 1. P. 229: “We will consider not dead, but rather half-dead (semianimes) those whom we see wounded by disastrous persecution: if they were completely dead (in totum mortui), then there would never be any confessors or martyrs among them. But something remains with them that, with the assistance of repentance, is restored to faith, and through repentance is invested with strength for virtue.” Epist. 55–43 ad Antonian. P. 27. R. 646. Part 1. P. 238. Epist. 59–47 ad Cornel. P. 13. R. 681. Part 1. P. 263. De lapsis. P. 14. R. 247. Part 2. P. 158. Epist. 59–47 ad Cornel. P. 13: “When often constituting Councils, we determined by a general verdict and even with threats that the brothers should repent, so that no one would recklessly give peace to those who do not repent.” – R. 680. Part 1. P. 262. See: Epist. 55–43 ad Antonian. P. 23. R. 641. Part 1. P. 234. Vgl.: Ioh Stufler. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie. 1907. S. 592. Stufler especially notes that in Cyprian’s exhortations there is not even the remotest hint that the ancient Church did not at all give forgiveness and fellowship to those who sinned mortally. This, according to Stufler, is proof of the absence of rigorism in the Church even before the year 250. Epist. 57–49 ad Cornel. S. 1. R. 650–651. Part 1. pp. 282–283. Epist. 55–43 ad Antonian P. 15. R. 634. Part 1. P. 228. Cfr.: P. 16. R. 635. P. 229. Epist. 55–43 ad Antonian P. 15. R. 634. Part 1. P. 228. Cfr.: P. 16. R. 635. P. 229. De habitu virg P. 1. R. 187. Part 2. P. 127. Epist. 54–41 ad confessor. Ch. 3. R. 622, 623. Part 1. P. 209: “If there are tares in the Church, then this should not constitute an obstacle to our faith or love; We ourselves should not retreat from the Church because we see tares in the Church, but we only need to try so that we can be wheat, and when they begin to store bread in the Lord’s granaries, we can receive fruit from our deeds and labor. Let us try, dear brothers, and as much as we can, let us see to it that we become vessels of gold or silver.” Epist. 65–45 ad Epictetum. P. 5. R. 725. Part 1. P. 245. Epist. 55–43 ad Antonian S. 27. R. 645–646. Part 1. pp. 237–238. Epist. 55–43 ad Antonien. P. 20. R. 638. Part 1. P. 231. Cfr.: Epist. 8. P. 2: “The Church stands in faith, although some have strayed.” – R. 487. Part 1. P. 118. See in detail the priest. A. Molchanova: St. Cyprian of Carthage. pp. 285–313. Epist. 73–60 ad Iubajan. P. 21. R. 795. Part 1. P. 346. Epist. 69–62 ad Magnum S. 4. R. 753. Part 1. P. 363. De unitate ecclesiae. P. 6. R. 214. Part 2. P. 181. Compare: Harnack A. Novatian. RE 3.XIV. S. 237. Epist. 55–43 ad Antonian. P. 29. R. 647. Part 1. P. 239 Cfr.: P. 17: “Exomologesis apud inferos non est.” R. 636, 8. P. 229. Epist. 55–43 ad Antonian S. 29. R. 647. Part 1. P. 239. Epist. 54–41 ad confessor. P. 3. R. 623. Part 1. P. 209. Poschmann. Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche. S. 54–56. St. Cyprian rebelled against the fact that some presbyters proclaimed the name of the penitents in prayers and taught them the Eucharist. Epist. 16–9 ad clerum. Ch. 2. R. 518–519. Part 1. P. 124; Epist. 17–11 ad plebem. Ch. 2. R. 522. Part 1. P. 130; Epist. 15–10 ad mart. Ch. 1. R. 514. Part 1. P. 127; De lapsis. P. 16. R. 248. Part 2. P. 159. The Roman clergy already speaks about this in a letter to [Cyprian] of Carthage: “We did not leave such people who separated from us, but so that they, left by us, would not become worse, we convinced and convince them to repent in the expectation that they can somehow receive remission from the One who has the power to grant it.” – Epist. 8. P. 2. R. 487. Part 1. P. 118. Epist. 68–55 ad Stephan. S. 4. R. 746–747. Part 1. P. 311. It is remarkable that further St. Cyprian cites from the prophet Ezekiel reproaches to careless shepherds for the fact that they did not support the weak, did not heal the sick, etc. (Ezek. 34:4-17), that is, the same words that we saw in the edict of Callistus and with which he justified the acceptance of sinners into church communion. And previously it was already accepted in the Church that not only for serious sins, but also for lighter sins, a sinner must undergo public repentance. St. also testifies to this. Cyprian: “Sinners of lesser sins must repent within the prescribed time, must make confession (exomologesis) according to the rules of discipline, and then, through the laying on of the hands of the bishop and clergy, receive the right to communion.” – Epist. 16–9 ad cleruim. P. 2. R. 518. Part 1. P. 124. On repentance according to Cyprian, see Poschmann. Die. Sichtbarkeit der Kirche. S. 143–146. Epist. 19–13 ad clerum. P. 1. R. 525. Part 1. P. 132. Wrote about this: Harnack. Lapsi RE 3. XI. S. 287; Funk. Die Busstationen im christlichen Altertum Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen. I. S. 182–209; Smirnov S.I. Spiritual father. pp. 245–247, 249–251; Frank. Die Bussdisciplin der Kirche. S. 555 ff. Frank notes that at first Cyprian does not know any degrees of repentance (S. 547, 549), although he knows public repentance as a firmly defined institution (S. 548). The Novatian schism, according to Frank, did not serve as a reason for the establishment of different types of repentance, since the penitential institution developed in the East, where Novatianism had no meaning (S. 555–559). Epist. 57–49 ad Cornel. P. 2. R. 651. Part 1. P. 283. Epist. 57–49 ad Cornel. S. 1. R. 651. Cfr.: Epist. 72–59 ad Stephan S. 2: “Those caught in death outside the Church died without communication and peace.” – R. 777. Part 1. P. 330. Eusebius. History Ecclesias. VI, 44; Creations of St. Dionysius the Great in Russian translation pp. 55–56. Epist. 55–43 ad Antonian. P. 18. R. 636. Part 1. P. 230. This view is expressed predominantly by Protestant scholars. For a presentation of these views and their detailed analysis, see Poschmann (“Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche.” S. 147–161). Wed. [with this] brief remarks by Schanz Die Absolutionsgewalt in der alten Kirche. – Theologische Quarterschrift. 1897. S. 67–69. In Poschmann, S. 147, Anm. 4, Catholic literature is also indicated. Epist. 36. P. 1. R. 573. Part 1. P. 153–154. Epist. 27–19 ad presbyt et diac. P. 3. R. 543. Part 1. P. 146. Epist 55–43 ad Antonianum. P. 13. R. 632. Part 1. P. 226. Epist. 55–43 ad Antonianum. P. 22. R. 639. Part 1. P. 232. Epist. 55–43 ad Antonianum. P. 22. R. 640. Part 1. P. 233. Epist. 55–43 ad Antonianum. P. 29. R. 647. Part 1. P. 239. Epist. 15–10 ad martyr. P. 1. R. 514. Part 1. P. 127. See: Epist. 16–9 ad clerum. S. 2. R. 519. Part 1. P. 124; De lapsis. S. 16. R. 248–249. Part 2. P. 159. According to Poschmann, this argument alone is sufficient to prove that reunification with the Church was at the same time the forgiveness of sins. – Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche. S. 151. Epist 55–43 ad Antonianum P. 7 r. 628. Part I. P. 220. Epist. 55–43. pp. 21–23. R. 638 sqq. Part 1. P. 232 et seq. Compare: Peters. Der heilige Cyprian von Karthago. S. 228–229; P. Batiffol expresses the opinion that in Rome, although the fallen were accepted into church communion, this was not associated with the conviction that sin was forgiven (Études d’histoire et de theologie positive 2. P. 122–124); It is only to justify this very original opinion that he does not present any convincing evidence. Wed. comments loh. Stufler'ä "Die Behandlung der Gefallenen zur Zeit der decischen Verfolgung." – Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie. 1907. S. 584–587. Huther. Cyprians Lehre von der Kirche. S. 180–182; Peters. Der heilige Cyprian von Karthago. S. 226–227. De lapsis. P. 29. R. 258. Part 2. P. 169. Cfr.: P. 36. R. 263. P. 175. Poschmann. Die Sichtbakeit der Kirche. S. 135. St. Cyprian repeatedly quotes the words of the Lord (Matthew 18:18; John 20:23); De unit. eccl. Ch. 4. R. 212. Part 2. P. 179; Epist. 33–17 ad laps. S. 1: “The Lord, determining the dignity of the bishop and the government of His Church (episcopi honorem et ecclesiae suae rationem disponens), speaks (see Matthew 16:18–19).” R. 566. Part 1. P. 139; Epist. 73–60 ad Iubajan S. 7. R. 783. Part 1. P. 336; Epist 69–62 ad Magn. P. 11. R. 759. Part 1. P. 369. Cfr.: Epist. 75 Firmiliani ad Cyprian. P. 16. R. 820–821. Part 1. P. 383. However, for the most part the words of the Lord St. Cyprian refers to the forgiveness of sins in baptism, but sometimes he also brings them in application to repentance. That Cyprian is no stranger to referring to Matt. 18:18 to the forgiveness of sins through repentance, already shows epist. 57–49 ad Cornelium. P. 1. R. 651. Part 1. P. 283. See: Heinrich Bruders. Matt. 16:19 ; 18und In. 20, 22, 23 in frühchristlicher Auslegung. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie. 1911. S. 93–111. See about this in Poschmann (S. 163, Anm). The full implementation of the episcopal church system coincided with the introduction of an unlimited right to forgive sins. See: A. Harnack. Dogmengeschichte 4, I. S. 444; Novatian. RE 3.XIV. S. 236–237. “The bearer of the church office, the bishop, defeated the bearer of the Spirit, the martyr.” S. I. Smirnov. Spiritual father. P. 240. In monasticism, according to K. Goll, enthusiasm was revived, suppressed by the hierarchically structured Church in the person of the Montanists and confessors. – Enthusiasmus und Bussgewalt. S. 153. Epist. 15–10 ad Martyr. Ch. 1. R. 513. Part 1. P. 126: “And until now I was confident that the presbyters and deacons who are there with you guide you with their advice and instruct you in the most complete manner (plenissime) in the law of the Gospel, as was always done before under our predecessors: then the deacons were obliged, when visiting prisons, to give direction with their advice and the instillation of the commandments of Scripture (gubernarent) to the wishes of the martyrs.” See his essay “On the Fallen,” ch. 1–2, 20. R. 237–238, 252. Part 2. pp. 147–149, 163. Epist. 16–9 ad clerum P. 3. R. 519. Part 1. P. 124. Epist. 16–9. S. 3. R. 519–520. Part 1. pp. 124–125. Cfr.: Poschmann, op. cit, S. 137–138. Epist. 17–11 ad plebem. P. 1. R. 521. Part 1. P. 129. So Lucian writes to Celerin about two women: “When the Lord gives peace to the Church, then, according to the commandment of Paul and our reasoning, having laid out the case before the bishop and made a confession (facta exomologesi), may they have peace.” – Epist. 22. P. 2. R. 535. Part 1. P. 149–150. About this see: Stufler. Die Behandlung der Gefallenen zur Zeit der decischen Verfolgung. – Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie. 1907. S. 581–582; Poschmann. Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche. S. 138. St. has it. Cyprian even indicates that libelli pacis received meaning after the death of the confessor who gave them. Epist. 23. R. 536. Part 1. P. 138. Epist. 26–16. R. 539. Part 1. P. 138. Epist. 33–17. P. 1. R. 566. Part 1. P. 139. R. Batiffol calls this letter “premiére esquisse du De umitate.” – L'église naissante et le catholicisme 3 . P. 423. Epist. 27–19. S. 2, 3. R. 542–543. Part 1. pp. 144,145. Cfr.: Epist. 35–22. R. 571–572. Part 1. pp. 152–153: “Some of the fallen, rejecting the need for themselves to repent and satisfy God, out of deliberate audacity, sent me a letter in which they do not ask that peace be given to them, but demand peace as if it had already been given to them, because - so they say - Paul gave peace to everyone.” Epist. 36. P. 1, 2. R. 573–574. Part 1. P. 154. In addition, here the Roman clergy considers the demand for peace on the grounds that it has already been given by the martyrs, contrary to the law of the Gospel. De lapsis. P. 20. R. 252. Part 2. P. 163. Ibid. P. 18. R. 250. Part 2. P. 161. Ibid. S. 16. R. 248–249. pp. 159, 160. Cfr.: R. Batiffol. Études d'histoire et de théologie positive 2 . P. 116–120. Vgl.: Schanz. Theologische Quartalschrift 1897. S. 62, 64–67; Stufler. Die Behandlung der Gefallenen zur Zeit der decischen Verfolgung. Zetschr. für katholische Theologie. 1907. S. 581. Eusebius. History Ecclesias. VI, 42, 5–6. Creations of St. Dionysius Vel. in Russian translation. P. 55. We consider it impossible to agree with the interpretation of this testimony given by S.I. Smirnov, who sees here an indication that the martyrs “Everywhere were the highest authority in matters of church discipline”, that “there was no authority above them that would check and approve their decision” (Spiritual Father. pp. 231, 232), that “the role of martyrs in the matter of accepting the fallen was in Alexandria incomparably more important than the episcopal one” (ibid. P. 239, note 2). Vgl.: Schunz. Theologische Quarterschrift. 1897. S. 64. See the letter of the Roman presbyters to St. Cyprian (Epist. 30. P. 5. Part 1. P. 221). Here we read: “Until now we do not have a bishop who would put all this in order and could judge the matter of the fallen with dignity and prudence.” Epist. 55–43 ad Antonianum. S. 6. R. 627–628. Part 1. pp. 218–219. Vgl.: Poschmann. Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche. S. 139–140; P. Batiffol Etudes d'histoire et de theologie positive. P. 127–128. Epist. 57–49 ad Cornel. P. 650 sqq. Part 1. pp. 282–287. Eusebius. Cit. op. VI, 41, 11–13. Creations of St. Dionysius. P. 51. GrchSch. 9, 2. S. 604. Ibid. VI, 44, 4. GrchSch. 9, 2. S. 624. Works of St. Dionysius. P. 56. Cfr.: Batiffol P. Etudes d'histoire et de theologie positive 2 . P. 136; Priest A. Druzhinin. Life and works of St. Dionysius the Great. P. 184. Eusebius. Cit. op. VI, 45. Works of St. Dionysius. pp. 48–49. Ibid. VI, 46, 2. These messages have not survived. Ibid. VI, 41–41. Creations of St. Dionysius. pp. 49–56. Ibid. VI, 46, 3. More details about the Council are given by the priest. A Druzhinina (“The Life and Works of St. Dionysius the Great.” pp. 190–192). Harnack A. Chronologie. II, S. 62; Eusebius. Cit. op. VII, 4–5, 2: “Dionysius said that after the end of the persecution, all the Churches that turned to Novato’s innovation (νεωτεροποιίαν) were reconciled among themselves. He writes like this: “Know, brother, that all the Eastern and even more distant Churches, having once been divided, have now come to unity. Their leaders everywhere agreed in their way of thinking, filled with great joy at the unexpected establishment of peace: Demetrius in Antioch, Theoctistus in Caesarea, Mazabanus in Aelia, Marinus, after the death of Alexander, in Tire, Iliodorus, after the repose of Philimidros, in Laodicea, Helen in Tarsus, and all the Cilician Churches, Firmilian and all Cappadocia. Not wanting to make my message long and my speech difficult, I named only the most famous bishops. All the Syrian regions and Arabia, where you always send your aid and where you are writing at the present time, also Mesopotamia, Pontus and Bithynia - in a word, everyone and everywhere rejoices in unanimity and brotherly love, praising God.” GrchSch. 9, 2. S. 638–640. For a detailed account of the history of the issue of the fallen and the attitude towards Novationism in the East, see Priest. A. Druzhinina (“The Life and Works of St. Dionysius the Great.” pp. 170–194). Smirnov S.I. Spiritual father. P. 239. See: Harnack A. Novation. RE 3. Bd. XIV. S. 229 ff. Funk. Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen. I. S. 158 ff. S. I. Smirnov. Spiritual father. pp. 227–228. Eusebius. History Ecclesias. VII, 8. Works of St. Dionysius in Russian translation P. 63. Harnack considers it to be the work of the Roman Bishop Sixtus II and dates it to 257–258. See: Chronologie. II. S. 387–390. See: Chronologie. II. S. 387–390. P. 14: “O te impium scelestumque, haeretice Novatiane, qui post et tanta in ecclesia a quibusdam retro voluntarie commisea crimina. quae et tu ipse in domo Dei priusquam apostata esses cognoveras, et haec posse aboleri de memoria succedente bono utique docueras, secundum fidem scripturae dicentis...” (Ezech. XVIII, 2); "tu hodie retractas an debeant lapsorum curari vulnera, qui nudati a diabolo ceciderant." CSEL, 3, 3. p. 64. See Epist. 55–43 ad Antonian S. 5. R. 627. Part 1. pp. 217–218. Epist. 3. P. 1. PL. T. 13. Col. 1063D-1064B. Ibid. P. 5. PL. T. 13. Col. 1067A-B. Ibid. P. 27. PL. T. 13. Col. 1082A Ibid. P. 2. PL. T. 13. Col. 1064B. Ibid. P. 24. PL. T. 13. Col. 1079C-D. A thorough justification of these provisions is given by Johann Stufler in the article “Die Behandlung der Gefallenen zur Zeit der decischen Verfolgung”. – Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie. 1907. S. 579–618. Wed. some comments from the priest. A. Molchanova: “St. Cyprian of Carthage." pp. 330–335. See also: Kasitsyn D. F. Schisms of the first centuries of Christianity. pp. 197–200 (additions to the works of the holy fathers. 1889. Part 44. pp. 400–403). Dölliger also admits that the lenient practice regarding the fallen was known in the Church even before St. Cyprian; this practice, in his opinion, was established by Kallistus, who supplemented the edict that Tertullian speaks of (De pudic S. 1) and which, according to Döllinger, was issued by Zephyrinus (Hippotytus und Kallistus. S. 126–130). Const. ar. II, 11, 2. Ed. Funk. P. 47, 26–30. Russian translation P. 27. Vgl.: Achelis und Flemming. Die Syrische Didascalia. TU 25, 2. S. 80–81, 299–307. Const. ap. II, 18, 3. Ed. Funk. P. 65, 24–26. Russian translation P. 37. Wed. the work "Desaleatoribus" known by the name of Cyprian. P. 1: “quoniam in nobis divina et paterna pietas apostolatus ducatum contulit et vicariam Domini sedem caelesti dignatione ordinavit et originem authentici apostolatus super quem Christus fundavit ecclesiam in superiore nostro portamus, accepta simul potestate solvendi ac ligandi et curatione peccata dimittendi.” CSEL 3, 3, 93, 1–6. For the time of writing this work and the author, see: Harnack AChronol. IL S. 370–381. Const. ar. II, 20, 9–10. Ed. Funk. R. 75, 26–77, 3. Russian. translation P. 42. Ad Donatum. P. 4. R. 6. Part 1. P. 91. The teaching of St. Cyprian about grace is briefly but fully presented in the study of A. Katansky “The Doctrine of the Grace of God in the Works of the Ancient St. fathers and teachers of the Church until the blessed. Augustine." St. Petersburg, 1902, pp. 91–103. Testimon. adv. jud. lib. 3. P. 25. R. 140. Part 2. P. 87. Epist. 63 ad Caecil. pp. 8, 9. R. 706, 707. Part 1. pp. 392, 393. Details about baptism, according to the teachings of St. Cyprian, see Poschmann (“Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche.” S. 106 ff.). Epist. 74–61 ad Pompejum. P. 7. R. 804. Part 1. P. 355. Cfr.: Epist. 69–62 ad Magnum. P. 15. R. 765. Part 1. P. 373. Epist. 73–60 ad Iubajan. P. 9. R. 785. Ch. 1. P. 337. Cfr.: P. 6. R. 783. P. 335–336. Epist. 72–59 ad Stephan. P. 1. R. 775. Part 1. P. 329. For details on the communication of the gifts of the Holy Spirit during the laying on of hands, see Poschmann, S. 115–121. However, Poschmann is tendentious in this department - he justifies the Catholic teaching on confirmation. The sanctifying action of the Holy Spirit is introduced by St. Cyprian into the general concept of grace with a wide, however, scope of this concept. – A. Katansky. Teaching about the grace of God. P. 103. Epist. 70–57 ad Ianuar. P. 2. R. 768. Part 1. P. 323. Epist. 73–60 ad Iubajan P. 7. R. 783. Part 1. P. 336. Cfr.: P. 9, 10. R. 784, 785. P. 337: “In the bosom of the one Church, which alone is given the right to impart the grace of baptism (gratiam baptismi) and to absolve sins... baptism is given to one and only one Church.” Sentent. 79 Clari a Masculä “Quibus (apostolis) nos successimus eadem potestate ecclesiam Domini gubernantes et credentium fidem baptizantes.” P. 459. Cfr.: Sententiae episcoporum 1. Caecilius a Biltä “Unum baptismum quod soli ecclesiae a Domino concessum est.” P. 437. Cfr.: ibid. sentent. 2 Primi a Misgirpa, 14 – Theogenis ab Hippone, 20 – Privati ​​a Sufibus, 21 – Hortensiani a Laribus. P. 437, 443, 444, 445. Epist. 73–60 ad Iubajan P. 10, 11. R. 785, 786. Part 1. P. 338. Cfr.: Sententia 17 Fortunati a TuccaborI, “Potestatem baptizandi episcopis dedit, non haereticis.” P. 444. Epist. 74–61 ad Pompejum. P. 6. R. 804. Part 1. pp. 354–355: “One Church, united and united with Christ, spiritually gives birth to sons.” – P. 7. R. 804. P. 355: “The birth and consecration of baptism is in the bride of Christ alone, who alone can produce spiritually and give birth to sons of God.” Epist. 74–61 ad Pompej. P. 11. R. 809. Part 1. P. 359. Cf.: Epist. 69–62 ad Magnum. P. 2. R. 751. Part 1. P. 362: “Only those who are in the Church can be baptized.” “Whoever, having received grace in the Church, retreats and leaves the Church will be guilty of himself, that is, he must blame himself for his destruction.” – Epist. 69–62 ad Magnum. S 4. R. 753. Part 1. P. 363. Epist 73–60 ad Iubajanum. P. 15: “Nihil eis ad gratiam ecclesiasticam et salutarem licere.” – P. 789, 18. Part 1. P. 342. Compare: P. 11: “Hujus (ecclesiae) et gratiam pariter et gloriam fideli devotione defendimus.” RUR 786.10 1. P. 338. Epist. 73–60 ad Iubajanum. P. 23. R. 796. Part 1. P. 347. Epist. 73–60 ad Iubajanum. P. 24. R. 797. Part 1. P. 348. Epist. 71–58 ad Quint. P. 1. R. 772. Part 1. P. 326. De unit. eccl. P. 23. R. 231. Part 2. P. 197. Epist 75 Firmiliani. C 7: “Omnis potestas et gratia in ecclesia constituta est.” – P. 814, 29–30. Part 1. P. 378. Epist. 75 Firmiliani. P. 18: “Non nisi in ecclesia sola valere posse Christi nomen, cui uni concesserit Christus caelestis gratiae potestatem.” –P. 822, 16–17.H. 1. P. 384. Ibid. P. 17. R. 822, 1. Part 1. P. 384. See about this in A. Katansky (“The Doctrine of the Grace of God.” P. 96). This last thought is especially clearly expressed in Firmilian’s message: “Christ said to Peter alone: ​​if he is bound on earth, he will be bound in Heaven; and even if you have loosed it on earth, it will be loosed in Heaven (Matthew 16:19); Then we read in the Gospel that Christ, when he breathed on some of the apostles (in solos apostolos insufflavit), said to them: receive the Holy Spirit; For whose sins you forgive, their sins will be forgiven; and even as you hold on, you hold on (John 20:23). This means that the power to forgive sins was granted to the apostles and the churches established from them - the messengers of Christ, and then to the bishops who succeeded (successerunt) them by succession of consecration (ordinatione vicaria).” – Epist. 75 Firmil. P. 16. R. 820–821. Part 1. P. 383. Scientific literature on this dispute is indicated in N. v. Soden'a. Der Streit zwischen Rom und Karthago über die Ketzertaufe. S. 1–2. Vgl: Bohringer. Die alte Kirche. IV. S. 1013; H.v. Soden. Streit zwischen Rom und Karthago. S. 35. Epist. 75 Firmil. P. 18. R. 822. Part 1. P. 384; Epist. 69–62 ad Magnum. P. 7. R. 756. Part 1. P. 366; Epist. 74-61 ad Pompejum P. 5: “The validity (effectum) of baptism is attributed to the greatness of the name, so that all those baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, wherever and however it may be, are therefore considered to be already renewed and sanctified.” R. 802–803. Part 1. P. 353. Some of the African bishops doubted whether it was necessary to baptize heretics, and gave the reason that there is only one baptism. See Epist. 71–58 ad Quint S 1. R. 771. Part 1. P. 325. See: Tertull. De bapt. P. 15. CSEL, 20.1. R. 214. Cfr.: remark of Adhemar d’Alès. La Téologie de Tertullien. P. 335. The African Council under Agrippina decided to rebaptize heretics. See Epist. 71–58 ad Quint. P. 4. R. 774. Part 1. P. 328; Epist. 73–60 ad Iubajan P. 3. R. 780. Part 1. P. 333. In Asia Minor, having examined the subject with all care, at the Council in Iconium they decided to completely reject any baptism that is performed outside the Church. – Epist. 75 Firmil. ad Surr. P. 19. R. 823. Part 1. pp. 384–385. Similar Councils were held in Sinnad and other cities. – Eusebius. History Ecclesias. VII, 7, 5. Cfr.: Clem Alex. Strom. I, 19, 96, 3: " λογιζομένη ". GrchSch. 15. S. 62, 3–4. In practice, these regulations rarely had to be applied, and therefore there were no disputes. Cfr.: Fechtrup. Cfr. hl. Cyprian. S. 198. Epist. 75 Firmiliani. P. 19. R. 822. Part 1. P. 384; Epist. 71–58 ad Quintum. P. 4. R. 774. Part 1. P. 328. Epist. 71–58 ad Quint S. 1. R. 771. Part 1. P. 325. Epist. 69–62 ad Magnum. P. 3. R. 752. Part 1. pp. 382–363. Epist. 73–60 ad Iubajanum. P. 11. R. 786. Part 1. pp. 338–339. Cfr.: sent. 44 Pelagiani a Luperciana. R. 452. Epist. 73–60 ad Iubajan S. 15. R. 789. Part 1. P. 341. Cfr.: sententiae episcoporum. 24: “Secundinus a Carpos dixit: Haeretici christiani sunt an non? Si christiani sunt, cur in ecclesia Dei non sunt? Si christiani non sunt, fiant" (other reading: "quomodo christianos faciunt"). P. 445. Cfr.: sentent. 51. Saturnini a Victoriana. P. 453. Epist. 69–62 ad Magnum. P. 1. R. 749. Part 1. P. 360. Epist. 73–60 ad Iubajanum P. 4. R. 781. Part 1. P. 334–335; Epist. 74–61 ad Pompejum P. 7. R. 805. Part 1. P. 355. Cfr.: sent. 52 Saturnini a Tucca. R. 454. Epist. 69–62 ad Magnum. P. 1. R. 750. Part I. P. 361. Epist. 76–62 ad Magnum. P. 6: “Ostendit schismaticos gentilibus adaequari.” P. 756.Ch. 1. pp. 365–366. Epist. 69–62 ad Magnum. S. 7, p. 756. Part 1. P. 366. Cfr.: Epist. 70–57 ad Ianuar. C 2: “Sins cannot be forgiven from heretics who do not have a Church. So, those who claim that heretics can baptize must either change the question or admit the truth - unless they also attribute the Church to those who, according to them, have baptism.” – R. 768. Part 1. P. 323. Epist. 74–61 ad Pompejum. P. 4. R. 802. Part 1. P. 353. Compare: p. 7. R. 805. P. 355: “Not only no heresy, but even any schism cannot have the sanctification of saving baptism.” Epist. 75 Firmiliani ad Cyprian. P. 7. R. 814–815. Part 1. P. 378. Vgl.: Fechtrup. Derhl. Cyprian. S. 199–200; Schwane. Dogmengeschichte der vornic Zeit 2. S. 529. Epist. 69–62 ad Magnum. P. 3. R. 752. Part 1. P. 363. Cfr.: p. 4. R. 753. P. 364. Ibid. S. 8. R. 757, 25. S. 367. Ibid. P. 11. R. 759–760. P. 369. Cfr.: Epist. 70–57 ad Ianuar. P. 2: “Who can give what he does not have? Or how can someone who has lost the Holy Spirit accomplish spiritual things?” – R. 769. Part 1. P. 323. Epist. 69–62 ad Magnum. P. 10. R. 759. Part 1. P. 368. Scholars disagree on this point. Some admit that Stephen did not demand a repetition of the ordination, and this was only attributed to him in polemics by Cyprian and Firmilian. Poschmann [wrote about this, see: Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche. S. 118–121; Schwane. Dogmengeschichte der vornicäischen Zeit 2 . S. 536. True, in the part of Stephen’s edict that has come down to us on the recognition of the baptism of heretics (Epist. 74–61 ad Pompejum) there is no indication of a new ordination, but it is completely incomprehensible how Cyprian and Firmilian could refute what Stephen did not write, and they focus a significant amount of attention on this point (see Epist. 69–62 ad Magnum. P. 10: “In hoc ipso a nobis tenentur”. Part 1. P. 368). Poschmann also admits that Stephen considered the heretical laying on of hands to be invalid, and by this laying on of hands can only be understood as confirmation (Firmung) (S. 121). According to Schwane, Stephen meant by the laying on of hands only a rite of reunification with the Church of penitents. See: Dogmengeschichte der vornic. Zeit 2. S. 536. Fechtrup admits that Cyprian attributed to Stephen the opinion of the author of the work “De rebaptismate”; in fact, Stephen did not demand a repetition of the laying on of hands that followed baptism. See: Derhl. Cyprian. S. 224–228. Also see: Peters. Der heilige Cyprian von Karthago. S. 526–527, 533–535. See Epist. 75 Firmiliani. P. 18: “He who is baptized into Christ receives the grace of Christ.” R. 822. Part 1. P. 384. Cfr.: p. 12: “Illud etiam quale est quod vult Stephanus, his qui apud haereticos baptizantur adesse praesentiam et sanctimonia Christi?” P. 818. The Russian translation (P. 381) is not accurate. See about this in A. Katansky (“The Doctrine of the Grace of God.” pp. 92–95). Cfr.: H.v. Soden. Streit zwischen Rom und Karthago. S. 38. During a dispute about the baptism of heretics by an unknown opponent, St. Cyprian published a special work in defense of extra-church baptism - “Liber de rebaptismate” (see Harnack A. Chronologie. II. S. 393–396). The views on baptism in this work, while somewhat similar to the views of the Roman bishop and his supporters, are distinguished by even greater originality and features in the direction of belittling baptism itself. Baptism does not involve the giving of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is given without the water of baptism (P. 5, CSEL, 3, 3. R. 75, 22 sqq). Baptism is performed by invoking the name of Jesus and is, as it were, some beginning of the Lord's Sacrament, common to members of the Church and all others (commune nobis et ceteris omnibus). Afterwards it must be replenished, without which it would remain useless on the day of Judgment (S. 7. R. 78, 20 sqq. Cfr.: p. 12. R. 84); in baptism the body is only washed (per aquam lavari corpora – p. 18, pp. 91, 30). It should, however, be noted that the doctrine of baptism in the “Liber de rebaptismate” meets with different interpretations from scientists, about which see: Dr. Johann Ernst. Die Tauflehre des "Liber de rebaptismate". – Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie. 1907. S. 648–699· Cp. Harnack A. Dogmengeschichte, I. S. 474–475. A comparison of the doctrine of baptism in the Liber de rebaptismate and that of Cyprian is given by Peters (“Der heilige Cyprian top Karthago.” S. 516–530). At the end of the letter to Magnus (69–62) St. Cyprian, touching on the issue of clinical baptism, precisely states that “the Holy Spirit is not given in measure (non de mensura), but the whole (totus) is poured out on each believer,” that “spiritual grace, which in baptism is equally (aequaliter) received by believers, is then either diminished or multiplied by our behavior and actions.” – P. 14. R. 763. Part 1. P. 372. Sent 16: "Succesus a Abbir Germaniciana dixit: Haereticis aut nihil aut totum licet." P. 443. Epist. 74–61 ad Pompejum. P. 5. R. 803. Part 1. P. 354. Cfr.: Epist. 75 Firmiliani. P. 12: “nisi si a Christo spiritum dividunt ut apud haereticos sit quidem Christus, non sit autem illic Spiritus sanetus.” – P. 818. Compare: Part 1. P. 381. Ibid. 69–62 ad Magnum. P. 11. R. 760. Part 1. P. 369. Cfr.: Epist. 75 Firmil. P. 12: “Si induit Christum, accipere potuit et spiritum sanctum qui a Christo missus est, et frustra illi veni-enti ad accipiendum spiritum manus imponitur.” – P. 818. In Russian. translation (from 381) there is no last phrase. Cfr.: sent 65 Quinti ab Aggya. R. 456. Sent. 70 Veruli a Russicadë “Homo haereticus dare non potest quod non habet: multo magis schismaticus quod habuit amisit.” P. 457. Cf. still sent. 10 Mannuli a Girba. P. 442. St. Cyprian sometimes calls the name pronounced at baptism the name of Christ. Epist. 73–60 ad Iubajan. P. 16: “Those who were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, wherever and in whatever manner, received the grace of baptism” (opinion of Stephen). R. 789–790. Part 1. P. 341. Cfr.: p. 18. R. 791. P. 343. But it can hardly be assumed that Stephen considered even baptism not performed in the name of the Holy Trinity to be valid. Firmilian knows the words of Stephen (Epist. 75. P. 18. R. 822. Part 1. P. 384), but he also writes: “It is also absurd that they do not consider it necessary to ask who baptized? on the basis that the baptized could receive grace through the calling of the Trinity in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (ibid. P. 9. R. 815. P. 379). St. Cyprian by the name of Christ means the baptismal formula with the name of the Holy Trinity. He only insists that some heretics have a wrong concept of the Holy Trinity, although the formula is pronounced accurately (see Epist. 73-60 ad Iubajanum. P. 5, 18. R. 782, 792. Part 1. P. 334-335,343; Epist. 74-61 ad Pompejum. P. 7. R. 805. Part 1. P 355). For more information on this, see Johann Ernst “Die Ketzertaufangelegenheit in der altchristlichen Kirche nach Cyprian”. Forschungen zur christlichen Literatur und Dogmengeschichte, herausg. von Dr. A. Ehrhard and Dr. I. P. Kirsch. Bd. II. Heft 4. Mainz, 1901. S. 13–18; Papst Stephan I. S. 93 ff. Ch. remarks H.v. Soden'ä "Streit zwischen Rom und Karthago". S. 37, Anm. I; Batiffol P. L'église naissante et le catholicisme 3 . P. 465, not. 3; Tillemont Memoires. T. 4. P. 625–629; Fechtrup. Derhl. Cyprian. S. 210, 220–224; Ios. Schwane. Dogmengeschichte der vornic. Zeit. S. 533–534. However, Stephen, recognizing the validity of the baptism of even the Marcionites, gave many reasons for various reproaches. Rettberg considers it possible to assume that Stephen, at least in the beginning, did not pay due attention even to the baptismal formula of the heretics. See: Th. S. cyprianus. S. 160–164. The underlined words clearly show that Cyprian is referring specifically to Stephen’s recognition of the heretical laying on of hands that accompanies baptism as invalid. Epist. 74–61 ad Pompejum. P. 5. R. 802–803. Part 1. pp. 353–354. Cfr.: Epist. 70–57 Ianuar. P. 3: “Whoever could baptize could also give the Holy Spirit. If he cannot give the Holy Spirit, because, being outside the Church, he does not abid with the Holy Spirit (foris constitutus cum sancto spiritu non est), then he cannot baptize the one who comes; since there is one baptism, and one Holy Spirit, and one Church.” – R. 769. Part 1. P. 324. Ibid. 75. P. 9: baptism is valid “when the baptizer has the Holy Spirit and baptism itself is not performed without the Spirit.” – R. 816. Part 1. P. 379; With. 8: “Spiritual birth without the Spirit is impossible.” – R. 815. P. 378. Sentent. 5: “Neque Spiritus sine aqua separatim operari potest nec aqua sine Spiritu.” – P. 439, 5–6. Epist. 71–58 ad Quintum. S. 1. R. 771–772. Part 1. P 325. Ibid. 71–58 ad Quintum. S. 1. R. 772, 7–8. Part 1. P. 326; Epist. 74–61 ad Pompejum. P. 2: “Mendacia et contagia profanae tinetionis.” – P. 800, 6–7.H. 1. P. 351. Ibid. 73–60 ad Iubajanum. P. 21. R. 795. Part 1. P. 346; De unitate ecclesiae. P. 11: “People do not wash themselves there, but only become more defiled; Sins are not cleansed, but only aggravated. Such a birth produces children not of God, but of the devil.” – R. 219. Part 2. pp. 185–186. Ibid. 75 Firmiliani. P. 8: “Nec eos qui ab haeresi ad ecclesiam veniunt post inlicitam et profanam eorum tinetionem baptizare dubitemus.” – P. 815, 18–20.H. 1. P. 379. Ibid. 75 Firmil. P. 13: “Ac per hoc aqua qua tinguntur lavacrum est illis carnale tantum, non baptismi sacramentum.” –P. 819, 9–10. Part 1. P. 381. Sentent. 35: "Adelphius a Thasvalthe dixit: Sine causa quidam falso et individioso verbo impugnant veritatem ut rebaptizare nos dicant, quando ecclesia haereticos non rebaptizet, sed baptizet." – P. 449. In general, Sententiae episcoporum constantly repeats the thoughts and arguments of St. Cyprian. See: N. v. Soden. Streit zwischen Rom und Karthago. S. 39–40; Batiffol P. L'eglise naissante el le catholicisme. P. 471. Epist. 73–60 ad Iubajan. P. 24. R. 797. Part 1. P. 348. Ibid. 72–59 ad Stephan. P. 2. R. 776. Part 1. pp. 329–330. Cfr.: sentent. 1 Caecilii a Biltha "Sacerdotium administrat profanus, ponit altare sacrilegus." – P. 437. The famous contemporary of Western debates about baptism, the Alexandrian bishop Dionysius, also wrote extensively on the issue of baptism of heretics. In his various epistles, as Eusebius says, he “discussed this subject for quite a long time” (H. E. VII, 7, 5), spoke a lot about heretics (H. E. VII, 9, 1), “subjected the question of baptism to extensive research” (VII, 9, 6). But from all these messages Eusebius preserved small fragments, which are not enough to characterize the dogmatic views of their author. From the blessed Pope Heracles to St. Dionysius adopted the rule: people converting from heresies and falling away from the Church... should be brought into the Church and not require a second baptism from them due to the fact that they previously received the Holy Spirit (from him, that is, when they belonged to the Church). But in the Syrian language a fragment of the epistle to Dionysius and Stephen, primates of the Roman Church, has been preserved, where St. Dionysius writes: “Those who are baptized in the name of the Three Persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit should not be rebaptized, even if they were baptized by heretics, if only these heretics profess the Three Persons. And let baptism be performed on those who turn to the Holy Church from other heresies” (Pitra. Analecta sacra. T. 4. Parisiis, 1883. R. 170, 413–414. Works of St. Dionysius. P. 58). Consequently, Dionysius considered heretical baptism invalid, which is why Blessed Jerome says that on the issue of the baptism of heretics, Dionysius agreed with Cyprian and the African Councils (De viris illustr. P. 69, PL. T. 23. Col. 677C, 679A. Creations. Part 5. P. 325), but this agreement was incomplete, since St. Dionysius considered the baptism of schismatics valid. St. Dionysius knows about the decrees of the African and Asia Minor Councils. Dionysius treats these Councils with complete respect, calling them “most significant” (μεγίσται). But Dionysius does not want to provoke anyone to competitions and strife, remembering the words of Scripture: Do not foresee the limits of your neighbor, even as your fathers set (Deut. 19:14) (Eusebius. History Ecclesias. VII, 5, 5; 7, 5. Creations. P. 61, 63) and expressing the same thought on which St. insisted. Cyprian. “In courts and cases concerning individuals - how to treat those who are outside the Church, and how to treat those who belong to it - in our opinion, one should obey the primates of individual Churches, who, by virtue of Divine consecration, are at the head of the ministry. And we present the judgment of their deeds to our Lord” (Pitra. Analecta Sacra. T. 4. R. 171, 414. Creations. P. 60). Therefore St. Dionysius constantly urged the Roman bishops not to break peace with those who thought differently about the baptism of heretics. According to Duchenne (History of the Ancient Church. Vol. 1. P. 288), Dionysius was Irenaeus for the new Victor. Compare: Batiffol R. L’eglise naissante et le catholicisme. R. 476. Details about the participation of St. Dionysius in the debate about the validity of heretical baptism, see Priest. And Druzhinina: “The life and works of St. Dionysius the Great." pp. 209–237. But it should be noted that all passages of the epistles of St. Dionysius leaves us completely unaware of the dogmatic considerations with which he justified his recognition of baptism performed outside the Church. However, it is clear that, making a distinction between heresies, St. Dionysius did not proceed from the idea of ​​the unity of the Church, as did St. Cyprian, and put baptism in connection with the faith that is confessed at baptism. By recognizing schismatic baptism as valid, Dionysius thereby gives a positive answer to the question about the action of God's grace outside the Church. But in all that we have from St. Dionysius, the question of the validity of heretical baptism is not at all brought into any connection with the idea of ​​the Church. St. Cyprian, as we have seen, revealed in particular detail the doctrine of baptism and (according to our modern name) of confirmation. But for him, consecration (ordo), repentance, and the Eucharist are considered sacraments. For more details on this, see Poschmann’s “Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche”. S. 121–181. Also see priest. A Molchanov (“St. Cyprian of Carthage”. pp. 263–281). At St. Cyprian just did not give the same connection with the dogmatic teaching about the Church, in which baptism and laying on of hands (confirmation) are included. See: Harnack. Dogmengeschichte 4, I. S. 459–462, 469–479. Vgl.: Seeberg. Studien zur Geschichte des Begriffs der Kirche. S. 36. Vgl.: Huther. Cyprians Lehre von der Kirche. S. 67. Vgl.: S. 60–66. Ibid 65–45. pp. 1, 2, 3, 4. pp. 721, 723, 724, 725. Part 1. pp. 241–244 passim. Ibid 67–56. S. 1, 3. R. 735, 737–738. Part 1. pp. 314, 315, 316. Ibid 55–43 ad Antonian S. 11. R. 631–632. Part 1. P. 226. Compare: Epist. 67–56. S. 6. R. 739–740. Part 1. pp. 318–319. This includes the decree that ordinary laymen accept presbyters and deacons who were ordained in the Catholic Church, and then became traitors and rebels against the Church. See: Epist. 72–59 ad Stephan. P. 2. R. 776. Part 1. pp. 329–330. Ibid. 66–54. P. 5. R. 730. Part 1. pp. 304–305 – Here Cyprian, apparently, even expresses such an extreme thought that grace is not given through the sinned bishop from the very moment of his fall. We have outlined Harnack's thoughts: Dogmengeschichte 4, I. S. 447–449 · Compare: Novatiaa RE 3. Bd. XIV. S. 238–240. Loofs also speaks of the "Nachwirkung des alten Kirchenbegriffs" in Cyprian. See: Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte, § 29, 4. S. 209. Poschmann makes some comments (“Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche.” S. 185–189). In Poschmann the opposite Catholic tendencies are noticeable. – Previously, a different, but similar opinion was expressed by Richlem in Protestant literature. Ritschl draws attention to some passages in St. Cyprian, where he and other bishops refer to visions and special revelations (Epist. 57–49 ad Cornel. P. 5: “This is often proclaimed to us from above (divinitus ostendi).” R. 655. Part 1. P. 287; Epist. 66–54 ad Pupian. P. 10: “Having honored me with His instructions and revelations (ostendere et revelare)..." further talks about dreams (R. 734. Part 1. P. 308) and expresses the idea that in his activities he relied on special revelations each time ("für jeden einzelnen Moment berechnete Inspiration") - "Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche S. 565. All evidence from the writings of Cyprian about various revelations is collected." A. Harnack in a special article “Cyprian als Enthusiast” – Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft and die Kunde des Urchristentums, herausgeg. von Erwin Preuschen 1902. S. 177–191. According to Harnack, all this evidence is “ein Stück urchristlichen Altertums”, and St. Cyprian is found in them “als ein Epigone der tertullianischen, ja einer noch früheren Epoche” (S. 177), so that, despite all his clericalism, he was “ein Christ alten Schlages” (S. 182). Cyprian does not associate any particular theory with all his reports of direct revelation. -Dogmengeschichte 4, I.S. 419, Anm. 1. In addition, it can also be noted that all these messages do not exclude the special grace of the priesthood, which the bishop possesses by office, since Cyprian also knows the sacramental activities of the bishop. Wed. remark by W. Poschmann “Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche”. S. 182, Anm. 2. Thomasius considers the special assistance of the Holy Spirit in certain cases of activity to be one of the prerogatives of the episcopal office, along with various other prerogatives. – Die Dogmengeschichte der alten Kirche. I. S. 585. This doctrine is discussed in detail by Carl Adam. See: Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullians. S. 190–229. Compare: S. 88–108, which sets out Tertullian’s views on this subject in the pre-montanist period. Adam says so. See: Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullians. S. 206–207. Philosopher IX, 12: “Οῦτος ἐδογμάτισεν δπως εἰ ἐπίσκοπος ἁ μάρτοι τι, εἰ και πρὸς θάνατον, μὴ δεῖν κατατίθεσθαι.” PG. T. 16. Col. 3386B. It is unlikely that Döllinger (Hippolytus und Kallistus. S. 134) translates “ἐδογμάτισεν” lehrte. However, on the very next page, when retelling, he uses hingestellt hat. Adam. Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullians. S. 228–229; Loofs. Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte, § 29, 4. S. 209; A. Harnack. Dogmengeschichte, I. S. 421–422, 447, 494, Anm 1. Did Callistus mean the cases of bishops falling away? And were such cases known at that time? Doesn’t Hippolytus mean by “εἰ και πρὸς θάνατον” sins against chastity, προς τὰς ἡδονάς, in the assessment of which he, as is known, disagreed with Callistus? Vgl.: E. Rolffs. Das Indulgenz-Edict. TU 11, 3. S. 137, Anm. I. Döliinger also denies that Callistus issued an order in an infinitely general sense. – Hippolytus und Kallistus. S. 135–139. Epist. 67–56. P. 6. R. 741. Part 1. P. 319. Is there any confirmation here of our understanding of Kallistov’s order? Ibid. 67–56. P. 5. R. 739. Part 1. P. 317. Cfr.: judgments about Stefan Poschmann “Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche”. S. 186. Ritschi (Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche. S. 567–569) believes that Stefan knew and recognized the order of Callistus and accepted Basilides quite consciously. Epist 67–56. P. 4. R. 738. Part 1. P. 316. Further St. Cyprian talks about the procedure for electing a bishop, pointing to the example of electing an apostle in the place of Judas (Acts 1:16). Ibid. 67–56. P. 4. R. 739. Part 1. P. 317; Cfr.: p. 2: “We must choose immaculate and pure leaders (immaculatos et integros), who, by worthily and holyly offering sacrifices to God, will be heard in their prayers offered for the salvation of God’s people.” R. 736. P. 315. Epist. 66–54 ad Fl. Pupian S. 5. R. 730. Part 1. P. 305. Y. v. Soden therefore considers Cyprian to be a Donatist before Donatism. See: Streit zwischen Rom und Karthago. S. 35. Compare: Schwane. Dogmengeschichte der vornic. Zeit. S. 530. Here, of course, the confidence of St. Cyprian in his correctness and the falsity of Pupian's accusations. Compare: Huther. Cyprians Lehre von der Kirche. S. 81–83. Cfr.: Peters. Der heilige Cyprian von Karthago. S. 270. Epist. 66–54. From 1. R. 727. Cfr.: p. 8. R. 733. P. 307. De rebaptism. P. 9, CSEL, 3, 3. R. 81, 16 sqq. Ibid. C 10: “quid dicturus es de his qui plerumque ab episcopis pessimae conversationis baptizantur: qui tarnen tandem cum Deus voluerit, in sceleribus suis convicti, etiam ipso aut prorsus etiam communicatione privantur? aut quid statues de eis qui ab episcopis prave sentientibus aut imperitioribus fuerint baptizati?” CSEL, 3, 3. P. 81, 20 sqq. Ibid. From 10: “dicturus es enim utique pro tua singulari diligentia hos quoque denuo baptizandos esse, cum maxime eis res desit aut obstet quo minus inviolabile illud divinum mysterium fidei intemeratum possint accipere.” CSEL, 3, 3. pp. 81, 30–82, 1. Vgl.: H.v. Soden. Streit zwischen Rom und Karthago. S. 85. This contradiction is noted by all scientific researchers of the issue. See: Huther. Cyprians Lehre von der Kirche. S. 81, 83. See: A. Ritschi. Die Enstehung der altkatholischen Kirche. S. 569; Cfr.: S. 566–567; K. Adam. Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullians. S. 207; Poschmann. Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche. S. 186–188; A. Harnack writes that it is quite surprising to find traces of an earlier era in a man who made the episcopate not only the core of Christianity, but also the foundation of the Church, and who in dozens of places writes like a medieval pope. – Cyprian als Enthusiast. -Zeitschr. für neuetestamentliche Wissenschaft., 1902. S. 177. Vgl.: Dogmengeschichte 4, I. S. 447; H.v. Soden. Streit zwischen Rom und Karthago. S. 36, 38. V.V. Bolotov also admits that Cyprian is already entering the slippery path of subjectivism in his views, although he has strong objective soil under his subjectivism. The grounds given by Cyprian for the invalidity of baptism performed by heretics go further than its actual purpose. – Lectures on the history of the ancient Church, vol. 2. P. 394. Poschmann. Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche. S. 187. According to Huther, Cyprian answered the question of what makes a bishop capable of communicating the Holy Spirit - office or personal dignity? - He answered: neither one nor the other, but both together. – Cyprians Lehre von der Kirche. S. 67, 68.