By Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop of Vereya The idea that was first clearly and definitely expressed about the Church during the time of St. C…
By Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop of Vereya
The idea that was first clearly and definitely expressed about the Church during the time of St. Cyprian—namely, that the Church is a Divine institution for the moral perfection of people and that it alone possesses the necessary grace-filled means for this—was finally adopted and forever preserved in the Church’s consciousness. In this regard, there was no longer a history of dogma in the proper sense. Even St. Cyprian decisively applied this very concept of the Church to Church practice, and after St. Cyprian, one might say, came the predominant history of Church discipline. The forms of penitential discipline constantly change, but behind these changing forms one can always sense the unchanging fundamental concept of the Church as a hospital for the aching conscience and, in general, the educator of the human race. The forms of discipline change to best adapt to this very purpose of the Church. As early as the end of the third century, we encounter certain speculations among representatives of the Eastern Church that, in a different form, convey the same dogmatic teaching on the Church that we have seen expressed in particular detail by Western writers. Among such speculations, we note the teaching of Methodius of Patara as the most characteristic of Eastern theology.
In his teaching on the Church, St. Methodius proceeds from an allegorical interpretation of the creation of Eve. For him, Adam and Eve are real types of Christ and the Church. Just as Eve was created from the rib of the sleeping Adam, so from Jesus Christ, as he lay in the sleep of death, the Holy Spirit emanated, from Whom the Church was formed. One can also say of the Church that she is bone of Christ’s bones and flesh of his flesh. For the sake of the Church, the Logos left the Heavenly Father and descended to unite with His wife. He fell asleep in the ecstasy of suffering, voluntarily dying for her, in order to present her to Himself glorious and immaculate, having purified her with the bath. She receives the blessed and spiritual seed, which the Logos sows into the depths of the spirit. The Church receives this seed and develops it, like a woman, multiplying and nurturing virtue. 3 Thus the words are fulfilled: “Increase and multiply” (cf. Gen. 1:28)! The Church grows daily in greatness, beauty, and numbers (είς μέγεθος καί καλλος καί παῆθος) thanks to the cooperation (διά σῦνερξιν) and communion of the Logos. 4 He descends into each individual and is revealed in moral life. Christ, as it were, dies anew in each person and unites him with the entire Church, so that he receives certain gracious powers in her. Thus, all receive a return. But what happens to each individual, Christ first did in relation to the Church, and only by communing with the Church can an individual grow spiritually. “The imperfect and those still beginning the saving teaching grow and are formed, as it were, in a mother’s womb, by the more perfect, until they, having reached the maturity of rebirth and then, upon progress, having themselves become the Church, will contribute to the birth and upbringing of other children in the receptacle of the soul, as if in a womb, steadfastly fulfilling the will of the Word.” 5 This is why St. Methodius calls the Church the mother. By the apocalyptic woman who was with child and cried out in the pains and agony of birth, St. Methodius means the Church. “Those who are enlightened receive the features, the image, and the masculine appearance (τούς χαρακτῆρας καί τὴν έκτύπωσιν καί τὴν ἀῤῥενωπίαν) of Christ; the image of the Word is imprinted in them and is born in them through true knowledge and faith, so that in each one Christ is spiritually (νοητῶς) born. For this reason the Church bears in the womb and experiences the pangs of birth, until Christ, born in us, is formed (μορφωθῆ), so that each of the saints, through communion with Christ, is born an anointed (χριστός). “Those baptized into Christ with the communion of the Spirit are anointed, and the Church here contributes to the image of the Word in them and their transformation.”6 For St. Methodius, the Church is the entire assembly of believers, but at the same time, it possesses special powers that regenerate people, and therefore, in the true sense, it is the mother of all believers.7
In the teachings of St. Methodius, we can see the same ideas that had already been revealed in the West, only these ideas receive a mystical justification. One noteworthy feature is that St. Methodius attaches particular importance to the individual, which is understandable given the mystical understanding of the entire historical mission of the Church.8 Given the more external and legalistic nature of the questions addressed to the Church in the West, the individual was, of course, ignored and not a subject of discussion.9
In the fourth century, many aspects of church life in both the East and West were defined in close connection with the concept of the Church as the educator of the human race, spiritually giving birth to children of God. The teaching of the great Eastern Fathers—St. Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom—on pastoral ministry can be summarized as follows: pastoral ministry is the ministry through which the Church regenerates sinful people. Here, we will focus in particular on one of the most important aspects of the Church’s general educational activity: penitential discipline. This discipline, according to fourth-century church teaching, aims precisely at healing the sinner, not at punishing him or protecting the sanctity of the Church. This very view is expressed in the most important penitential monuments of that century: the letters of St. Basil the Great to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, and the letter of St. Gregory of Nyssa to Litoius, Bishop of Melitene. These epistles, canonized by the second canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, retain their unquestioned authority in the Orthodox Church to this day and are included in the “Book of Rules.” Later penitential literature constantly refers to Basil the Great. 10
For the entire penitential discipline, St. Basil the Great specifies only one goal: “to draw sinners from the snare of the evil one”11 and “to overthrow and destroy sin in every way.”12 For excommunication, St. Basil the Great has almost no other name than “healing.”13 The epistle of Gregory of Nyssa is nothing less than a beautiful treatise on pastoral theology. Here, St. Gregory calls sin a disease and constantly speaks of the healing of sin. “Just as in physical healing, the goal of the medical art is one—the restoration of health to the sick—but the method of treatment varies, for each illness requires a suitable method of treatment according to the variety of ailments. So too, in mental illness, due to the multitude and diversity of passions, a variety of healing care becomes necessary, which produces a cure corresponding to the ailment.”14 St. Gregory speaks not only of the medicinal significance of temporary excommunication from the Church, but also of the purpose of special penitential feats. “Let him heal his ailment with an exercise contrary to his passion, by distributing his possessions to the poor, so that by squandering what he has, he will show himself cleansed from the disease of covetousness. For one who has nothing but the body, the apostle commands him to heal that passion through bodily labor.”15 This is the general teaching on repentance and the significance of penance. 16
The system of public repentance was later replaced by the institution of secret confession, which gave rise to a number of Nomocanons, in one way or another associated with the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople, John the Faster. 17 These Nomocanons are very characteristic in clarifying the concepts of the Church that had finally become firmly established in the ecclesiastical consciousness. All later Nomocanons differ from the canons of St. Basil the Great only in that they are more suited to the treatment of the moral ailments of the individual. The canons of Basil the Great primarily speak of lengthy periods of excommunication from ecclesiastical communion. 18 Later Nomocanons significantly shorten the period of excommunication for the penitent, but they also prescribe special fasting, prostrations, prayers, and other pious deeds. 19 Assessing this fact from a fundamental standpoint, it must be said that church penitential discipline was most closely aligned with the teaching on the Church that was clearly expressed as early as the third century: the holiness of the Church does not consist in its intolerance of those who have mortally sinned, whom it completely excommunicates, but in its healing of those who have fallen into grave illnesses through repentance and granting them the grace-filled powers of the Holy Spirit for their moral perfection.
We have briefly indicated how church discipline changed, increasingly adapting to the dogmatic teaching on the holiness of the Church. Church writers of that time pose the question more directly, and the answer to it, which had already been given since the beginning of the third century, receives detailed and abundant argumentation. The development of the dogmatic teaching itself, however, cannot be noted here. The history of the dogma of the Church itself after the time of St. Cyprian was concentrated in the Western Church and touched on points that were barely touched upon during the life and work of St. Cyprian. Cyprian and did not receive their full revelation at that time: ecclesiastical thought focused on clarifying the nature and validity of the grace-filled sanctifying means in the Church. This question was particularly brought to the fore by the Donatist schism and was resolved in the struggle against it. It is to an exposition of this struggle and its dogmatic results that we now turn.
The persecution of Decius, which broke out under St. Cyprian, quickly passed. But the question of the fallen arose with no less urgency during the final and most severe persecution of Diocletian at the beginning of the fourth century, when some bishops were among the fallen. In Africa, the question arose of whether those guilty of the betrayal of sacred books and of apostasy in general could administer the Sacraments. Some bishops resolved this question negatively at one of the Councils of Carthage, when it was declared invalid ordination of Bishop Caecilian was invalidated on the grounds that the bishop who ordained him was suspected of treason. Caecilian was deposed and Majorinus was elected in his place, but the bishops of other provinces, some sided with Caecilianus, others with Majorinus. This is how the schism that later became known as Donatism arose. The issue, which, as we saw at the end of the previous essay, had already been raised in the mid-3rd century, urgently demanded its resolution at the beginning of the 4th century.
The external history of Donatism is very turbulent and complex, but is of no significance for the history of the dogma of the Church. What is significant for this history are the polemical works of ecclesiastical writers directed against the Donatists. On the exposition of the dogmatic teaching of the Church, revealed in these works, we will proceed now.
No writings by the Donatists themselves have survived, and their views can only be judged from the works of church writers.
In their dogmatic views on the Church, the Donatists based their views on the sanctity of the Church and its unity. A Church that accepts traditors into communion cannot be holy. Traditor bishops cannot impart any grace; therefore, a Church with traditor bishops has no sacraments. The personal unworthiness of a bishop deprives the entire Church of grace. Baptism is also irrelevant in the Church, and therefore anyone wishing to leave the Church for the Donatist community, which is the one true and holy Church, must be baptized. It can be seen that the Donatists adopted some of St. Cyprian’s ideas and turned them against the Church. The Donatists were close to the views of the Novatians, who did not recognize church baptism as valid, but they differed from the ancient heretics, who did not baptize those who converted to them from other heresies, but only administered Holy Communion. St. Cyprian, as is well known, completely equated heretics and schismatics, considering the baptism of both to be invalid. However, this view constitutes a certain peculiarity of St. Cyprian’s ecclesiology. The distinction between heresy and schism, however, has always been noted in the Church; this can be seen in St. Irenaeus of Lyons. St. Cyprian’s very terminology shows that he was aware of the distinction between heresy and schism: he often uses both terms—heresy and schism—side by side, and he felt the need to prove the heresy of schismatics. For the first time, ecclesiastical thought encountered a schism such as Novatianism, and therefore it is understandable that it was treated in an extreme manner: Novatian baptism was declared invalid. However, the Novatians, and Cyprian himself, did not resolutely establish dogmatic grounds for the question of baptism, leaving the matter to local practice. The Donatists, however, lent their dogmatic foundation to this practice: an unworthy person could not administer the Sacraments.
Even at the very origin of Donatism, we see conciliar decrees regulating the treatment of schismatics. The Council of Arles (314) decreed in its eighth canon that only those heretics who did not confess the Trinity should be baptized; the African custom of baptizing all converts to the Church was declared private and unworthy of approval.27
Throughout the fourth century, we encounter a number of conciliar decrees recognizing the validity of the Sacraments administered in schismatic societies. Thus, at the First Ecumenical Council, a decree was made regarding the Novatians, according to which their clergy were to be received into the Church while retaining their rank. “They must confess in writing that they will adhere to and follow the decrees of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, that is, they will be in ecclesiastical communion with both bigamists and those who fell during persecution, for whom a time of repentance has been established and a term of forgiveness has been appointed… Where, either in villages or in cities, all those who are found in the clergy are found to be ordained from among themselves alone, let them be in the same rite.”28 The baptism and ordination of the followers of Paul of Samosata and other anti-Trinitarians was rejected, although at baptism they pronounced the baptismal formula with the invocation of the name of the Holy Trinity.29 The decree of the Council of Arelate was repeated at the Council of Carthage in 348.30 At the same Council, the decree of the First Ecumenical Council on the admission of members of the schismatic hierarchy into the Church while retaining their rank was extended to the Donatists. 31 The issue of baptism of heretics is examined in detail from a practical perspective by Basil the Great in his letter to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium. “The ancients,” writes St. Basil, “determined that baptism should be accepted as in no way deviating from the faith; some they called heresy, others schism, and others a self-proclaimed assembly.” “Heretics they called those who had completely rejected and become estranged from the faith itself; schismatics they called those who had divided opinions on certain ecclesiastical matters and on questions that could be treated… Why did the early Fathers wish to reject the baptism of heretics altogether, and to accept the baptism of schismatics, as those not yet alien to the Church (ἔτι ἐκ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ὄντων).” St. Basil goes on to say that the question should only arise about who exactly should be considered a heretic and who a schismatic. He knows that St. Cyprian and Firmilian of Caesarea also considered the Cathars to be heretics, but he himself believes that the Cathars are among the schismatics and their baptism should be accepted.32 However, St. Basil allows room for established, different practices. The Second Ecumenical Council also determined which of the contemporary erring ones, upon their joining Orthodoxy and the part of the saved, should be received by anointing with holy myrrh, and which should be received as pagans, that is, through baptism.33 The decree of the Second Ecumenical Council, with additions, was subsequently repeated by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. 34 This practice is obviously based on a somewhat different dogmatic teaching on the Church’s relationship to the Sacraments than the teaching of St. Cyprian, according to which the Church is the exclusive possessor of grace. As is evident from the words of St. Basil the Great, the basis of the established practice was based on the idea that schismatics were not entirely alien to the Church. Only heretics who distorted the very concept of the Trinity of the Godhead were placed on an equal footing with pagans.
* * *
Notes:
1.It should be noted that St. Cyprian enjoyed enormous respect and exerted great influence throughout the Western Church for an entire century after his death. His authority was very high. See on this: Tillemont Memoires. Vol. 4. pp. 185–187; Monceaux, R. Histoire littéraire de l’Afrique chrétienne. Vol. 2, pp. 358–368; A. Harnack. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. 4-te Aufl. III. Tübingen, 1910, pp. 23 and Anm. 2.
2.See: A. Harnack. Dogmengeschichte, I. S. 785, 788. See [the works of] Methodius, “Convivium decem virginum.” III, 4, 8. PG. Vol. 18, col. 72C. Saint Methodius, bishop and martyr, father of the Church of the 3rd century. A complete collection of his works, translated from Greek, edited by professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy Evgraf Lovyagin. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg, 1905. Pp. 47, 51.
3.”Ὑποδέχεται δὲ καὶ μορφοῖ δίκην γυναικὸς ἡ Ἐκκλησία εἰς τὸ γεννᾷν τὴν ἀρετὴν καὶ ἐκτρέφειν”.
4.Conviv. III, 8. PG. T. 18. Col. 73. Wed. Russian translation. P. 51.
5.Ibid. III, 8. PG T. 18. Col. 76. Wed. Russian translation. P. 52.
6.Ibid. VIII, 8: “Συμβαλλούσης ἐνταῦθα τὴν ἐν τῷ Λόγῳ τράνωσιν αυτῶν καὶ μεταμόρφωσιν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας.” PG. T. 18. Col. 149B-C. Russian translation pp. 95–96. Cfr.: VIII, 7: “The Church bears in her womb those who are baptized.”
7.Ibid. III, 8: “In the Scriptures the very society and assembly (το ἄθροισμα καὶ το στῖφος) of believers is often called the Church, where those who are most perfect in progress (κατὰ προκοπὴν) are united into one person and body, the Church.” PG. Vol. 18. Col. 73D. Russian translation. P. 52; Conviv. VIII, 5: “The Church in its proper and precise sense is our mother, a certain power, in itself distinct from children (ἑτέρα τῶν τέκνων), a power striving for enlightenment (παρωρμημένη φωτίζεσθαι)… is the Church, whose children will all come to her together after the resurrection, having flocked to her from everywhere.” PG. Vol. 18. Col. 145B – S. Russian translation. Pp. 92,93.
8.Harnack sees in St. Methodius the beginnings of the subjectivism of monastic mysticism and, in general, of the contemplative realistic theology of the East. – Dogmengeschichte4, I. S. 788, 789, 790 and Anm. I. Cf. F. Loofs. Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte, § 30, 6d S. 229.
9.However, even in the early period Western writers also found a doctrine of the mystical relationship between the person and Christ, but this doctrine is not connected with the doctrine of the Church, as in St. Methodius. See on this Harnack’s work Dogmengeschichte4, 1. S. 615, Anm. Cf. 788, Anm 2. Origen also very often calls the human soul the bride of Christ. – De orat. S. 17, 2. GrchSch. 3. S. 330. PG. T. 11. Col. 472B. Cfr.: in Matth. T. XVII, 21: «Νύμφης ψυχῆς γαμουμένης Λόγῳ. PG. T. 13. Col. 1540C. In Cant. cant lib. 4, v. 15. PG. T. 13. Col. 193B.
10.The beginning of the penitential nomocanon of the Eastern Church should be traced back to Basil the Great. See on this: Prof. N. A. Zaozersky. “The Nomocanon of John the Faster in its Georgian, Greek, and Slavic Editions”. Moscow, 1902. Preface. P. 64. Prof. A. I. Almazov considers this opinion exaggerated, but he himself acknowledges that the compilers of later penitential nomocanons drew on the views of Basil the Great. See: Canonary of the Monk John. Notes of the Imperial Novorossiysk University. 1907. Vol. 109. P. 143.
11.”Book of Rules.” Rule. 84.
12.Ibid. 29.
13.Ibid. 2.
14.Ibid. 1. Cf. Rules 4, 6, 8.
15.Ibid. 6.
16.Cf. the teaching on repentance of St. John Chrysostom in his homilies on repentance, on the priesthood, and on the Epistle to the Corinthians. Particularly, see: Works. Vol. 2. Pp. 312, 313, 314, 315, 317, 323, 324, 359, 363. The same is found in ancient monastic rules, for example, in the rule of the Tabennisiot community. See: Bishop Theophan. Ancient Monastic Rules. Moscow, 1882. Pp. 146 ff. All repentance is presented in the image of the treatment of a seriously ill patient by John Climacus. On penances, see S. I. Smirnov: “The Spiritual Father.” Pp. 134–148, esp. p. 141.
17.On this nomocanon, see the preface to its edition by Professor N. A. Zaozersky. See also: Almazov. Secret Confession in the Orthodox Eastern Church. Vol. 1. Odessa, 1894; A. S. Pavlov. Nomocanon from the Great Trebnik. 2nd ed. Moscow, 1897. pp. 32–40, 455–491.
18.However, one should not forget that temporary excommunication from ecclesiastical communion has always been associated in the Church, since ancient times, with the performance of certain penitential feats. It is sufficient to recall exomologesis or interitus carnis, as Origen understood it.
19.The general leniency of the nomocanons is quite noticeable in the designation of all these feats, so that after concluding his exposition of the dietary regulations, the compiler of the oldest redaction of the nomocanon reasons thus: “I know that for these very lenient definitions I will be judged by our common Judge—God—but it is better for me to be condemned for this than to be known as unmerciful.” – Nomocanon, ed. N. A. Zaozersky and Khakhanov. P. 69. Cf. Georgian text. P. 72.
20.This decree is preserved in the work of an unknown author, “Contra Fulgentium Donatistam.” P. 26: “Thurificati, traditores, et qui in schismate a traditoribus ordinantur, manere in Ecclesia Dei non possunt, nisi cognito ululatu suo per poenitentiam reconcilientur. Unde Caeciliano in schismate a traditoribus ordinato non communicare oportet.” PL T. 43. Col. 774.
21.From the historical perspective, Donatism is examined in N. Kutepov’s work “The Schism of the Donatists.” Kazan, 1884. pp. 6–16.
22.Harnack, A., “The Pseudo-Augustinian Tractate “Contra Novatianum.” [The Pseudo-Augustinian Tractate “Contra Novatianum”]. [The Pseudo-Augustinian Tractate “Contra Novatianum”]. Munich, 1898. pp. 85 ff.
23.Idem. Dogmengeschichte, III. pp. 39–41.
24.Cyprian, epist. 73–60 ad Iubajan. P. 2, CSEL 3, 2. p. 779. Works. Part 1. p. 332.
25.Ibid. 74–61 ad Pompejum. C 4, CSEL, 3, 2. P. 802. Creations. Part 1. P. 353.
26.See Harnack about this: Dogmengeschichte4,1. S. 423–425.
27.“De Afris autem, quod propria lege sua utantur, ut rebaptisent, placuit ut ad Ecclesiam si aliquis haereticus venerit, interrogent eum Symbolum; et si perviderint eum in Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto esse baptizatum, manus tantum ei imponatur: quod si interrogatus Symbolum, non responderit Trinitatem, tunc merito baptizetur. PL T. 43. Col. 787. Here, obviously, those converting to the Church are required not only to be baptized in the name of the Trinity, but also to correctly confess faith in the Trinity in the Creed. Only in this latter case were they received without rebaptism. Cfr.: Ioh. Ernst. “The Book of Rules in the Old Christian Church after Cyprian. Confessions of the Christian Literature and the Creed, edited by Dr. A. Ehrhard and Dr. I. P. Kirsch. II Band. 4. Heft. Mainz. 1901. pp. 52–58.
28.”Book of Rules.” Rule 8.
29.Ibid. 19. See the interpretation of this rule in Ioh. Ernst’ä “The Book of Rules in the Old Christian Church.” S. 58–62.
30.See Historia Donatistarum: “Sancitum est illicitas esse rebaptizationes eorum, qui interrogati in Trinitate secundum Evangelii fidem et Apostolorum doctrinam confessi erant ac deinde aqua tincti.” P.L. T. 11. Col. 803B.
31.See Excerpta ad donatistarum historiam pertinentia. Si hoc paci christianae prodesse visum fuerit, in suis honoribus suscipiantur. P.L. T. 43. Col. 809 ad fin.
32.In the “Book of Rules” of St. Basil the Great is right. 1. See: Ioh. Ernst. Die Ketzertaufangelegenheit in der altchr. Kirche. S. 3–6.
33.”Book of Rules.” Rule 7.
Source in Russian: Troitsky, V.A. The Question of the Church in the Dogmatic Polemics with Donatism. / Theological Herald, 1912, Vol. 3, No. 9, pp. 247–271. (2nd pagination)
(to be continued)
