Did St. Cyprian Change the Doctrine of the Church?

Protopresbyter George Grabbe

In the pages of the Paris journal The Way, one could often read about
the supposed perniciousness of the "Byzantine Period" in the life of the
Church. Then, in their books, the contributors to this journal began to
criticize the doctrine of the Holy Fathers, even those such as Athanasius the
Great and Cyril of Alexandria (Archpriests Bulgakov and Kartashev). Now
one can see that the criticism of the Paris theologians has begun to reach
even further back into antiquity, and N. Zernov who recently received his
doctorate from Oxford University has published an analysis of the doctrine
of St. Cyprian entitled "St. Cyprian of Carthage and the Unity of the
Oecumenical Church". Contrasting the period before Cyprian with the one
after, he accuses the Holy Father of errors which, in his words, had an
extremely harmful effect on the subsequent life of the Ecumenical Church,
and were in part responsible for bringing the Church of Carthage to ruin.
N. Zernov's article is so characteristic of a man who has been
spiritually nurtured by the inter-confessionalism of the West, it is full of such
gross errors which are unpardonable in an Orthodox doctor of theology
(who, even though he received his degree from a heterodox university, has
also finished studies under an Orthodox theological faculty), that it is
worthwhile to examine it.
The author begins with the statement that the most recent striving for
unity which has appeared in the separate contemporary confessions "places
before the Orthodox consciousness a most crucial task--that of defining with
precision not only the essence of the Ecumenical Church, but also her visible
boundaries." Orthodoxy, in his words, possesses extremely rich material for
this however, not systematized by "the catholic consciousness of the
Church. The writings of the Holy Fathers, the canons of the councils offer
various attempts to find an answer to the question of Church unity. They are
often not only in disagreement, but sometimes even contradict each other."
Orthodoxy, in consequence, "has no ready answers to the series of enquiries
belonging to our time, and does not solve those new perplexities and
problems which characterize the mutual relations of the Churches in the
twentieth century." Then the author begins an exposition and criticism of St.
Cyprian's doctrine of the Church. But before we move on to this criticism, we
will say a few words about the propositions quoted above.
Unfortunately, the author does not point out what those new problems
and perplexities are which are characteristic of the mutual relations of the
1

various denominations in the twentieth century. It would seem, however,

that here it is to be borne in mind that the confessions which in their day fell
away from Roman Catholicism are now declaring their friendliness to, and
esteem for, the Orthodox Church. Instead of controversies and
recriminations, friendly greetings are heard on both sides, and indications of
a truly very touching concern sometimes appears. Herein lies the difference
between the present era and that of the Ecumenical Councils, when it was
usual for non-Orthodox confessions of faith to struggle fiercely with the
Eastern Church, and when, confronting confessions alien to the Church, the
Church employed only the language of refutation and the exhortation to be
united to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
In spite of N. Zernov's rather bold statement, it is impossible to find in
the works of the Holy Fathers or in the Holy Canons contradictions in the
doctrine of the unity of the Church. From the most ancient times, beginning
with the words of the Apostle, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph.
4:5), Orthodox Christians have confessed that there is only one true Church,
to which the promise has been given that "the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it" (Matt. 16:18). And we also think that no matter how hard N.
Zernov tries, he will not find this notion contradicted either in the works of
the Holy Fathers or in the Holy Canons.
In prescribing, for various situations, three modes of being joined to
the Church sometimes through baptism, sometimes through the
renunciation of heresy and chrismation, at other times simply through
repentance the Holy Canons and all the Holy Fathers consistently support
the conclusion that only the Orthodox Church unites with Christ and saves,
whereas all other confessions are deprived of grace-giving and saving
mysteries. Therefore the canons call those who are united to the Orthodox
Church "those of the number of the heretics who are saved" (Canon 7 of the
Second Ecumenical Council; Canon 95 of the Council in Trullo). Likewise, the
differing practices employed in uniting heretics to the Church do not in the
least alter the eternal doctrine of the Orthodox Church that she alone is true,
saving, and "the dove [Song of Songs 2:14], and the unique mother of
Christians, and [that it is she] in whom all the eternal and life-giving
mysteries are received to salvation, and who subjects those who are in
heresy to great censure and punishment" (Canon 68 of the Council of
Carthage).1 This doctrine is expressed with particular vigor in the 46th
Canon of the Holy Apostles: "We order that a bishop or presbyter who has
accepted the baptism or sacrifice of heretics to be cast out. What concord
has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?"
2

In the Kormchaia Knigna ["Book of the Helmsman"], in the "Canonical

Answers of St. Timothy, Archbishop of Alexandria," we find an authoritative
explanation that reception into communion without baptism is neither a
contradiction of that doctrine, nor an admission by the Church of the grace
of the baptism (and consequently of the other religious rites) of heretics, but
only an exceptional order of uniting those people to the Church whom the
prospect of repeating the baptismal rite might alienate from Orthodoxy. To
the question, "Why do we not baptize heretics who turn to the Catholic
Church?", St. Timothy answers: "If this were done, hardly any man would
turn from heresy, since he would be embarrassed by the baptism; however,
the Holy Spirit can also come by the laying-on of the priest's hand, and by
prayer, as the Acts of the Holy Apostles bear witness" (Kormchaia Knigna,
Ch. 60).2 One must believe that Timothy of Alexandria, who took an active
part in the Second Ecumenical Council, is fully authoritative in explaining a
principle which lay at the foundation of the seven canons of that Council. It
ought to be pointed out that even St. Cyprian, a defender of
uncompromising procedure as regards the uniting of heretics to the Church,
admitted the possibility, from a dogmatic point of view, of their being united
to the Church without rebaptism: "But someone will say, 'What will happen
to those who before this turned from heresy to the Church, and were
received into the Church without baptism?' The Lord in His mercy is able to
grant them forgiveness, and those who have been received into the Church
and who fell asleep in the Church He does not deprive of the gifts of His
Church" (Epistle to Jubaianus, Works, Kiev Theological Academy, 1891, Vol.
I, p. 347 [Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. V, p. 385]). Although St. Cyprian
admitted that to introduce such leniency was dogmatically permissible, he
thought, nevertheless, that in practice it should not be allowed as a norm,
because on account of it, belief in the Church as the unique custodian of
grace would be weakened since "there will be no reason for the heretics to
turn to us, when, since they have baptism, they think they have all the rest.
On the contrary, when they learn that outside the Church there is no
baptism and that remission of sins cannot be granted, they will the more
eagerly and quickly come to us and will humbly ask for the treasures and
gifts of Mother Church, knowing that they absolutely cannot attain the true
promise of divine grace if they do not turn first to the true Church" (ibid., p.
348 [Ante-Nicene Fathers, loc. cit.]).
The unity of the Church is uniformly confessed by the Apostles, the
Holy Councils, and the Holy Fathers both before and after St. Cyprian; and
to tell the truth, it is only through prejudice that one could say there is any
sort of contradiction in this doctrine. It is a pity that N. Zernov left his
3

assertion without proofs. In any case, to try to prove it would be wasted

effort on his part.
But if we are convinced that only one of the groups which claims to be
the Church is really the Church, we must answer the question: "Where is the
Church?" On this point, N. Zernov claims that St. Cyprian made "a change in
the area of the doctrine of the unity of the Church." In what does this
change consist? Not, he writes, in the claim that only members of the
Church can receive the saving gifts of the Holy Spirit the author admits
that "similar thoughts were widespread among Christians of that time" (we
would say, however, that such has always been the belief of the entire
Church), but the "new element was his attempt to define with precision the
visible boundaries of the One True Church. He taught that the earthly
Church corresponds in full with the ecumenical brotherhood of those
Christian communities which confess the true faith, preserve the moral
instructions of the New Testament, and observe communion with each
other... But since the understanding of true faith and high morality cannot
be finally verified by human reason, St. Cyprian sought some kind of
criterion of the true Church that would be comprehensible to all; so, he
joined a third sign, which he considered decisive, to the two foregoing-namely, the presence in the Church of the special institution of the
episcopate, which was founded by Jesus Christ Himself and which received
from Him the task of preserving the unity of the Church... Subordination to
one's lawful pastor became the objective guarantee of being in communion
with the Holy Spirit a guarantee which the Church before St. Cyprian could
not offer to Her members." N. Zernov call this doctrine "a grandiose reform
in the life of the Church."
But is this so? Is this a reform or is it St. Cyprian's statement of the
original doctrine of the Church?
Let us turn to Apostolic times. Does not common sense tell us that if
we were seeking the true Church among the various communities and
confessions, we should seek the one which was in union with the Holy
Apostles, who were chosen and taught by the Saviour Himself with those
Apostles to whom our Lord Jesus Christ said, "He that heareth you heareth
Me" (Luke 10:16)? And after their death, it would be natural, by applying the
same criterion for finding the true Church, to recognize union with their
lawful successors. So it was in the ancient Church even before Cyprian. St.
Irenaeus of Lyons referred to the episcopate in succession from the Apostles
as one of the signs of the true Church. He wrote, "We can enumerate the
bishops who were appointed in Churches by the Apostles and their
4

successors down to our own time, who taught and who knew nothing of
what these heretics are raving about" (Against the Heresies, III, iii, 1). In
another place, St. Irenaeus unequivocally states the doctrine which N.
Zernov reports as an innovation of St. Cyprian: "So, where the gifts of the
Lord are, there one ought to learn the truth, from those who have
succession in the Church from the Apostles" (ibid., IV, xxvi, 5). And
Tertullian, who was then still Orthodox, writes of the heretics: "Let them
declare a line of bishops which would be continued with a succession such
that the first of the bishops would have as his inaugurator and predecessor
one of the Apostles or one of the men of the Apostles who were for a long
time connected with them. For this is exactly how the lists of the Apostolic
Church are made. The Church of Smyrna, for example, presents Polycarp,
enthroned by John; the Roman Church Clement, ordained by Peter; in the
same way, the other Churches point out those men elevated to the
episcopate by the Apostles themselves, whom they had among themselves
from the branches of the Apostolic seed" (De prescript. haeret., 32). We
advise N. Zernov to read the even earlier works of St. Ignatius the Godbearer, who summoned the people to full obedience to the bishops with
particular distinctness, saying that "where the bishop is, there the people
should be, even as where Jesus Christ is, there also is the Catholic Church"
(Ch. VII).3 Clement of Rome (I Clem. 42 and 44) and many other Holy
Fathers pointed to the hierarchy as the primary guardian of the truth, and
consequently as one of the criteria for defining where the true Church is.
And finally, this criterion received a most authoritative sanction from an
Ecumenical Council, when, among a number of other attributes and signs of
the true Church, it was confessed that she is Apostolic.4
N. Zernov's second error is that he ascribes to St. Cyprian a teaching
which is foreign to him. St. Cyprian never taught that unity with the
episcopate is the unique and decisive criterion in the definition of what it
means to belong to the Church. He of course knew well that even bishops
sometimes stray from the truth. But he had the norm in view. On earth
nothing can be absolute. Thus the norm that to be in union with the Church
one must be in union with a bishop is inapplicable when the bishop himself
has fallen into heresy and has separated himself from the Church. But such
a falling away is an abnormal phenomenon. St. Cyprian reveals the norm
when he writes about the union of the whole episcopate. In this case, he has
in mind what should be, what the hierarchy should strive for. To think that
he wanted to testify to a fact is in this case very naive.
N. Zernov writes much about St. Cyprian's teaching on the Apostle
Peter as "the founder of the Ecumenical Church." Is not this a little too
5

strongly stated the founder of the Church? I have found no such teaching
by St. Cyprian, but only a teaching on the Apostle Peter as the starting-point
of the hierarchy. The founder of the Church, according to the teaching of the
Saint, is our Lord Jesus Christ.5 But it seems to me that N. Zernov gives too
much significance to this particular point in St. Cyprian's teaching. If St.
Cyprian's assertion that the power to bind and loose was given to the
Apostle Peter before all the others led to the notion that he and his
successors have some sort of primacy according to their chair, then it would
be very essential and important. But as things stand, all one can discover in
St. Cyprian's reflections is the wish to find one more demonstration of the
Church's structural unity, and an additional stimulus for preserving unity
among the bishops. "Of course," he writes, "the other Apostles were the
same as Peter they had dignity and power equal to his but in the
beginning one is pointed out in designation of the unique Church" (On the
Unity of the Church [Chap. IV], Works, p. 179 [Ancient Christian Writers,
No. 25, p. 46]). This idea that Peter is the Apostle on whom the foundation
of the hierarchy was laid by the Lord was and could be the only sort of
"innovation" to be found in St. Cyprian's teaching, but it is an innovation
having such a small, limited meaning that it is not worthwhile to dwell upon
it. The doctrine of the episcopate, you observe, does not originate from this,
but from the fact that the hierarchy is founded by the Lord Jesus Christ, that
the bishops are the successors in grace of the power of the Apostles, whom
the Lord commissioned to tend, on earth, the flock faithful to Him. And in
whatever order the Apostles were called to this service, is really not so
essential in any given case.
Summing up his criticism of St. Cyprian's doctrine of the Church as
Apostolic, and of union with a lawful hierarchy as the principal sign of
belonging to the Church, N. Zernov writes: "The Gospel also writes that the
true boundaries of the Church and her nature will be revealed only at the
end of the history of mankind. This secret of the Church escapes the
attention of St. Cyprian, and we can now assume that his fundamental error
consists exactly in his precise and clear definition of her boundaries ... he
mistakenly defines her boundaries according to a canonical-disciplinary line."
From beginning to end this is not true. Of course, it is difficult to refute
such an obscure reference to the Gospel. One can only guess that the author
had in mind the narrative of the Last Judgment. But there nothing is said
about revealing the boundaries of the Church; its Theandric nature, as far as
it is accessible to human perception, is already revealed now, if only in the
Epistle to the Ephesians.
6

As for her boundaries, the Church has always known both before and
after St. Cyprian who belongs to her and who does not. She has always
confessed that that person belongs to her who is in union of faith, prayers,
and sacraments with her, and that outside of her are pagans, heretics,
schismatics, and grave sinners who have been cut away from the Church.
Almost every simple priest knows whom to admit to the Holy Cup and whom
not to admit; consequently, he also knows the boundaries of the Church.
The desire to wipe out, if not all, than at least some of these
boundaries, to spread the purely Protestant notion that the Orthodox Church
is not the unique, true, and grace-giving Church, but only one of many such
churches (although perhaps the most in the right), so that even those who
are not in communion with the Orthodox Church can still belong to the
Mystical Body of Christ forces N. Zernov to make a sorry attempt to
criticize the doctrine of St. Cyprian, a most great and ardent champion of the
Orthodox belief in the unity and uniqueness of the Church.
He takes such a disparaging view of St. Cyprian that he ascribes the
ruin of the Church of Carthage to the application in life of this Holy Father's
doctrine of Church unity. Nevertheless, the credits of the Church of Carthage
in the sight of Orthodoxy are great. At the Councils she made an extremely
rich contribution in the refutation of the Donatists (408 and 411) and
Pelagianism (412, 416, 418). There the canon regarding yearly episcopal
councils was observed more strictly than anywhere else, and the definitions
worked out at fourteen of these councils are, in their dogmatic depth and
wisdom, perhaps the finest ornament of the Book of Canons. And in the life
of the Ecumenical Church, Carthage occupied a most honorable place until
her conquest and annihilation by the barbarians. Even after the first yoke of
the Vandals, which lasted almost a hundred years (from 439 to 533) the
Church of Carthage was still so impressive that in 535 her bishop received
the title of Patriarch and was equal in position to those of Rome and
Constantinople. But in the seventh century a new invasion of the Moorish
hordes of Abdulmelek turned Carthage into ruins. However, Christianity
continued to exist even under this yoke until the eleventh century. Thus it
was not the teaching of St. Cyprian, but purely external causes, that led to
the annihilation of the Church of Carthage. One should not slander the Holy
Fathers of the Church.
What N. Zernov would wish from his Orthodox contemporaries i.e., a
denial of the teaching of St. Cyprian and a return to the supposed order
before him, an order he does not clearly characterize in his article, which is
full of omissions and silences is simply an effort to remove all obstructions
7

from the way of inter-confessionalism. However, not only does St. Cyprian
block his way, but so do all the Holy Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils, and
the Holy Scriptures. In order to agree with N. Zernov, one would have to
deny the confession of the Orthodox Church as One and Apostolic; one
would have to strike these words from our Symbol of Faith.
____________________
1

According to the Russian Book of Canons.

Cf. A. S. Khomiakov in his third letter to Palmer, when he says that by making
peace with the Church, "the imperfect heretical rite receives perfection and
fullness."

Cf. many other places in the same St. Ignatius, and specifically the following:
"Jesus Christ, our common life, is the thought of the Father, just as the bishops,
placed to the ends of the earth, are in the thought of Jesus Christ. Therefore, you
should agree with the thought of the bishop, which you do" (To the Ephesians, III,
IV). Or: "He for whom I am bound is my witness, that I learned not from human
flesh, but the Holy Spirit informed me: Do nothing without the bishop" (To the
Philadelphians, VII).

It may be interesting, after the testimonies cited, to quote the conclusion of a

well-known Anglican bishop and scholar, Dr. Charles Gore, according to whose
opinion the fact that the Church hierarchy "with exceptional unanimity was
recognized as having divine authority in the whole Christian world, so that
belonging to the Church could be attained by union with it, is an indispensable fact
of history from the middle of the second century to the Reformation" (The Holy
Spirit and the Church [London, 1924], p. 301).

Works, pp. 100-101 and elsewhere.

____________________
The foregoing article, written in 1934, is taken from the book The Church
and Her Doctrine in Life by Protopresbyter George Grabbe (Montreal, 1964),
and was translated from the Russian by Mrs. George Jerinic.