| 1952. Vol. 8. Col. 1974-1976; Scheidweiler F. Novatian und die Engelchristologie//ZKG. 1954/1955. Bd. 66. S. 126-139; idem. Novatians-Studien//Hermes. Stuttg., 1957. Bd. 85. N 1. S. 58-86; Wolfson H. A. The Philosophy of the Church Fathers. Camb. (Mass.), 1956. Vol. 1: Faith, Trinity, Incarnation; Barbel J. Zur «Engelchristologie» bei Novatian//Trierer Theol. Zschr. 1958. Bd. 67. H. 2. S. 96-105; Simonetti M. Alcune osservazioni sul «De Trinitate» di Novaziano//Studi in onore di A. Monteverdi/Ed. G. G. Marcuzzo. Modena, 1959. Vol. 2. P. 771-783; idem. Ilario e Novaziano//Rivista di cultura classica e medioevale. R., 1965. Vol. 7. Pt. 2. P. 1034-1047; idem. A proposito di un recente libro su Novaziano//VetChr. 2011. Vol. 48. P. 5-21; idem. Note Novazianee//Augustinianum. R., 2013. Vol. 53. N 1. P. 77-90; Dani é lou J., Marrou H. The Christian Centuries. N. Y., 1964. Vol. 1: The First Six Hundred Years. P. 194-202; Kelly J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. L., 19684; Dani é lou J. Bulletin critique: Histoire des origines chrétiennes//RechSR. 1969. Vol. 57. N 1. P. 75-130; idem. Novatien et le «De mundo» d " Apulée//Romanitas et Christianitas: Studia J. H. Waszink oblate/Ed. W. den Boer. Amst., 1973. P. 71-80; idem. Les origines du christianisme latin. P., 1978; Vogt H. J. Coetus sanctorum: Der Kirchenbegriff des Novatian und die Geschichte seiner Sonderkirche. Bonn, 1968; idem. Αθετω im Brief des Dionys von Alexandrien über Novatian//StPatr. 1970. Vol. 10. P. 195-199; idem. Novaziano//Nuovo dizionario patristico e di antichità cristiane/Ed. A. Di Berardino. Genova; Mil., 2006. Vol. 2. P. 3556-3560; Diercks G. F. Note sur le traité «De Trinitate» de Novatien//Sacris erudiri. 1969/1970. Vol. 19. P. 27-31; idem. Some Critical Notes on Novatian " s «De bono pudicitiae» and the Anonymus «Ad Novatianum»//VChr. 1971. Vol. 25. N 2. P. 121-130; idem. Novatien et son temps// Novatiani Opera. 1972. P. VIII-XIII; DeSimone R. J. The Treatise of Novatian the Roman Presbyter on the Trinity: A Study of the Text and the Doctrine. |
| History of Dogma. Boston, 1901. Vol. 2. P. 313-316; idem. Novatian, Novatianism//The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge/Ed. S. M. Jackson. Grand Rapids (Mich.), 1910. Vol. 8. P. 197-202; Hermann Th. Das Verhältnis von Novatians «De Trinitate» zu Tertullians «Adversus Praxean»: Diss. Marburg, 1918; D " Al è s A. Le corpus de Novatien//RechSR. 1919. Vol. 10. P. 293-323; idem. Novatien moraliste//RQH. Ser. 3. 1923. T. 3. P. 5-37; idem. Novatien: Étude sur la théologie romaine au milieu du IIIe siècle. P., 1924; D ö lger F. J. Die Taufe des Novatian//Antike und Christentum. Münster, 1930. Bd. 2. S. 258-267; idem. Zum Oikiskos des Novatian: Klausnerhäuschen oder Versteck?//Ibid. 1941/1950. Bd. 6. S. 61-64; Amann É . Novatien et Novatianisme//DTC. 1931. T. 11. Col. 816-849; Kriebel M. Studien zur älteren Entwicklung der abendländischen Trinitätslehre bei Tertullian und Novatian: Diss. Marburg, 1932; Kleibach G. Divinitas Filii ejusque Patri subordinatio in Novatiani libro De Trinitate//Bogoslovska Smotra. Zagreb, 1933. Vol. 21. N 3. P. 193-224; Koch H. Novatian// Pauly, Wissowa. R. 1. 1936. Bd. 17. Hbd. 33. Sp. 1138-1156; idem. La lingua e lo stilo di Novaziano//Religio. R., 1937. Vol. 13. P. 278-294; idem. Il martire Novaziano//Ibid. 1938. Vol. 14. P. 192-198; Eynde D., van den. L " inscription sépulcrale de Novatien//RHE. 1937. Vol. 33. P. 792-794; Mohlberg L. C. Osservazioni storico-critiche sulla iscrizione tombale di Novaziano//EphLit. 1937. Vol. 51. P. 242-249; Casamassa A. Gli scrittori cristiani dell " Occidente nel III secolo: II. Novaziano. R., 1948; Mohrmann C. Les origins de la latinité chrétienne à Rome//VChr. 1949. Vol. 3. N 2. P. 67-106; N 3. P. 163-183; Daly C. B. Novatian and Tertullian: A Chapter in the History of Puritanism//Irish Theol. Quarterly. Maynooth, 1952. Vol. 19. N 1. P. 33-43; Dekkers E. Note sur les fragments récemment découverts de Tertullien//Sacris erudiri. Turnhout, 1952. Vol. 4. P. 372-383; Frutaz A. P. Novaziano, cimitero detto di//EC. |
| Schol. Hist. eccl. I 10; Sozom. Hist. eccl. I 22; Daly. 1952. P. 39; Papandrea. 2008. P. 40). Нек-рые общины новациан не допускали отпущения тяжких грехов даже на смертном одре. В М. Азии в список тяжких грехов под влиянием монтанизма было включено второбрачие ( Theodoret. Haer. fab. III 5). Хотя новациане практиковали перекрещивание в отношении приходящих к ним кафолических христиан (см.: Cypr. Carth. Ep. 73. 2), когда они сами возвращались в Церковь, в отношении их как исповедующих правосл. веру перекрещивание не применялось ( Papandrea. 2011. P. 70; о др. особенностях богословия и культовых практик новациан см.: Hirschmann. 2015). Соч.: собрания: PL. 1844. T. 3. Col. 861–970; Novatiani Opera/Ed. G. F. Diercks. Turnhout, 1972. (CCSL; 4); отдельные издания: Epistula de cibis Iudaicis/Hrsg. G. Landgraf, C. Weyman//Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik. Lpz., 1900. Bd. 11. S. 221–249; Novatiani Romanae urbis presbyteri De Trinitate liber/Ed. W. Y. Fausset. Camb., 1909; Novatianus. De Trinitate: Über den dreifaltigen Gott/Hrsg. H. Weyer. Düss., 1962 [с нем. пер.]; Novaziano. La Trinità/Introd., testo crit., trad., commento, glossario e indici V. Loi. Torino, 1975 [с итал. пер.]; Novaciano. La Trinidad/Introd., ed. crit., trad., coment. e índices C. Granado. Madrid, 1996 [с испан. пер.]; переводы: Novatian. The Trinity/Transl. R. J. DeSimone. Wash., 19812. (The Fathers of the Church; 67); The Rule of Truth: A New Transl. of the «De Trinitate» of Novatian// Papandrea. 2008. P. 367–472; Novatian. On the Trinity. Letters to Cyprian of Carthage. Ethical Treatises/Transl. J. L. Papandrea. Turnhout, 2015. (CCTS; 22); переводы на рус. язык: Новациан. О Троице: [Отрывки: Гл. 1, 2, 11, 29, 31]/Пер.: А. Р. Фокин//Святые отцы и учители Церкви: Антология/Общ. ред.: митр. Иларион (Алфеев). М., 2017. Т. 1: Церковная письменность доникейского периода (I — нач. IV в.) С. 321–334. Лит.: Gregory C. R. The Essay «Contra Novatianum»//AJTh. 1899. Vol. 3. N 3. P. 566-570; Harnack A. |
| 61 Rankin D. Tertullian’s vocabulary of the divine “individuals” in “Adversus Praxean”//Sacris erudiri 40 (2001). P. 5–46. 62 MacCruden K. B. Monarchy and economy in Tertullian’s “Adversus Praxeam”//Scottish Journal of Theology 55 (2002). P. 325–337. 74 Spanneut M. Le stoïcisme des Peres de l’Eglise. De Clement de Rome a Clement d’Alexandrie. Paris, 1957. 77 Stead G. C. Divine Substance in Tertullian//Journal of Theological Studies, 14 (1963). P. 46–66. 86 D ’Ales A. Novatien. Etude sur la theologie romaine au milieu du III e siecle. Paris, 1924. 87 Kriebel M. Studien zur älteren Entwicklung der abendländischen Trinitätslehre bei Tertullian und Novatian. Diss. Marburg, 1932. 89 Kleibach G. Divinitas Filii ejusque Patri subordinatio in Novatiani libro De Trinitate//Bogoslivska Smotra, 21 (1933). P. 193–224. 90 Simonetti M. Alcune ossrvazioni sul “De Trinitate” di Novaziano//Studi in onore di Angelo Monteverdi, 2. Modea, 1959. P. 771–783. 91 De Simone R. J. The Treatise of Novatian the Roman Presbyter on the Trinity: a Study of the Text and the Doctrine. (Studia Ephemeridis «Augustinianum», 4). Rome, 1970. 92 Dunn G. D. The diversity and unity of God in Novatian’s “De Trinitate”//Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 78 (2002). P. 385–409. 93 Papandrea J.L. The Trinitarian Theology of Novatian of Rome. A Study in Third-Century Orthodoxy. Lewiston, Queenston, Lampeter, 2008. 103 Pichon R. Lactance. Etude sur le mouvement philosophique et religieuse sous le regne de Constantine. Paris, 1901. 105 Thomas L. Die Sapientia als Schlüsselbegriff zu den Divinae Institutiones des Laktanz. Freiburg, 1959. 107 Perrin M. Le Platon de Lactance//Lactance et son temps. Recherches actuelles. Actes du IV Colloque d’ Etudes Historiques et Patristiques. Chantilly, 21–23 Septembre 1976/Ed. J. Fontaine et M. Perrin. Paris, 1978. P. 203–231. 112 Courcelle P. Les sages de Porphyre et les “viri novi” d’ Arnobe//Revue des etudes latines, 31 (1953). P. 257–271; idem. Anti-Christian Argument and Christian Platonism from Arnobius to Saint Augustine//The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the IV cent./Ed. A. Momigliano. Oxford, 1963. P. 151–192. |
| Two Books Concerning Repentance. Introduction. These two books were written against the Novatian heresy, which took its name, and to a considerable extent its form, from Novatus, a priest of the Church of Carthage, and Novatian, schismatically consecrated bishop at Rome. It was the outcome of a struggle which had long existed in the Church upon the question of the restitution to Church privileges of those who had fallen into grievous sin, and the possibility of their repentance. The severest ground was taken by the Novatians, who were condemned successively by many councils, which maintained the power of the Church to admit those guilty of any sin whatsoever to repentance, and prescribed various rules and penalties applicable to different cases. The heresy, however, lasted for some time, becoming weaker in the fifth century, and gradually fading away as a separate body with a distinctive name. “Novatianism, in the tests which it used, its efforts after a perfectly pure communion, its crotchetty interpretations of Scripture, and many other features, presents a striking parallel to many modern sects.” [See Dict. Chr. Biog., Blunt, Sects and heresies, Ceillier, II. 427, etc.] St. Ambrose, in writing against the Novatians, seems to have had some recent publication of theirs in his mind, which is now unknown. He begins by commending gentleness, a quality singularly wanting in the sect; speaks of the power committed to the Church of forgiving the greatest sins, and points out how God is more inclined to mercy than to severity, and refutes the arguments of the Novatians based on certain passages of holy Scripture. In the second book, after urging the necessity of careful and speedy repentance, and the necessity of confessing one’s sins, St. Ambrose meets the Novatian arguments based on Heb. vi. 4–6, from which they inferred the impossibility of restoration; and on St. Matt. xii. 31, 32, our Lord’s words concerning sin against the Holy Spirit. As regards the date of this treatise, it must have been somewhat before the exposition of Ps. xxxvii., which refers to it, but there is nothing else which can be taken as a certain guide. Possibly the Benedictine Editors are right in assigning it to about a.d. 384. |
| CLEMENS ALEX. Excerpta ex libris Theodoti, 9, 651–98. HIPPOLYTUS Contra hæresim Noeti. 10, 803–30. Contra Beronem et Heliconem, 829–840. (Cum syllogismis Anastasii, 839–48.) CAIUS Parvus Labyrinthus, 10, 25–34. CAIUS. Adversus Proclum, fg., 10, 25–6. MALCHIO ex actis adversus Paulum Samosatenum, 10, 249–60. ADAMANTIUS. Dialogus de recta in Deum fide, 11, 1713–1884. ATHANASIUS. Contra Valentiaum, 26, 1223–4. Contra Novatianos, 26, 1315–8. Contra Sabellianos, 23, 95–112. EUSEBIUS [EMESENUS, CES.]. De fide adversus Sabellium, 1–2, 24, 1047–70. EPIPHANIUS Panarium, 41–42, h. 21–60. IO CHRYSOSTOMUS. Contra Catharos. 63. 491–4. EULOGIUS. Adversus Novatianos. 86, II, 2959–62. EUTHYMIUS ZIGABENUS, 130. tit. 9 et 10, 305–32. NICETAS ACOMINATUS, 139, torn. 4, 1241–1390. C) ADVERSUS MANICHÆOS [HEGEMONIUS] Disputatio Archelai cum Manete, 10, 1105–1528. BASILIUS. Hom. quod Deus non est auctor malorum, 81, 329–54. ALEXANDER LYCOPOLITANUS, 18, 411–48. SERAPION THMUITANUS, 40, 899–924. EPIPHANIUS Panarium, 42, h. 66, 29–172. TITUS BOSTRENSIS, 18, 1069–1264. DIDYMUS ALEX., 89, 1085–1110 ( Gregorius Nyssenus, 46, 541–2). ZACHARIAS MITYLENæUS, 85, 1143–4. ANONYMUS. Disputatio contra Photinum Mani-chæum, 88, 529–78. JOANNES DAMASCENUS. Dialogue contra Manichæos, 94, 1505–84. Orthodoxi disputatio cum Manichæo, 96, 1319–36. PETRUS SICULUS. Historia Manichæorum, 104, 1239–1304. Sermones 1–3 adversus Manichæos, 1305–50. PHOTIUS, 102, 15–264. MICHAEL PSELLUS. De operatione dæmonum (Dialogus contra Euchitas), 122, 819–76. Vide EuthYmium ZigabenUm, 130, 7–24 (adversus Paulicianos) et infra, sub littera I, de Massaliani. D) ADVERSUS ARIANOS ALEXANDER ALEX. Epistolæ 1–3 et Depositio Arii, 18, 547–84. EUSTATHIUS ANTIOCHENUS. Fg., 18, 675–96. EUSEBIUS CÆS. Epistola ad Cæsarienses, 20, 1535–44. ATHANASIUS. Oratio adversus Arianos 1–3, 26, 11–468; 4,467–526. Ad Serapionem 1–4, 529–676. De incarnatione et contra Arianos, 983–1028. Apologia contra Arianos, 36, 234–410. – ad Constantium, 25, 595–642. |
| 259 См. Pseudo-August. Quaest. 102: «Nec ego renuo agendam poenitentiam admissae idololatriae, sed ego remitiere non audeö quia crimen hoc ab со remittendum est, in quem admissum est. Hujus rei effectum aut denegas, aut scire se minime profiteris?» PL. T. 35. Col. 2310. 260 Новацианское учение о Церкви кратко, но точно излагает Гарнак. См.: Novatian. RE 3. XIV. S. 237–238; Dogmengeschiehte 4 , I. S. 450–452. Но Гарнак, конечно, повторяет и общепринятое протестантское мнение, по которому новацианство есть именно восстановление подлинной древнехристианской Церкви: «Die novatianischen Gemeinden haben unstreitig einen wertvollen Rest der alten Uberlieferung bewahrt». RE 3. XIV. S. 239; Dogmengeschiehte 4 , I. S. 452. 262 См.: Harnack. Novatian, RE 3. Bd XIV. S. 229. Не указывает ли на это и Киприан, когда говорит, что возмутители выдумывают обольстительные названия (nomina adulterata fingentes)? Epist. 69–62 ad Magnum. С. 1. Р. 750. Ч. 1. С. 361. 264 Haer. 59, 13: " περ τοτων τν δ Καθαρν λεγομνων, καθρ των δ, ε δε τληθ λγειν«. PG. T. 41. Col. 1037A. Творения. Ч. 3. С. 44. Ср.: Harnack A. Dogmengeschiehte 4 , I. S. 453. 265 Epist. 59–47 ad Cornel. С. 1. Р. 667. Ч. 1. С. 250; De unit. eccl. С. 6: «Incorrupta est et pudica». P. 214. 4. 2. С. 180. 268 См об этом: Seitz. Die Heilsnotwendigkeit der Kirche. S. 135; Poschmann. Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche. S. 52–54; Касицын Д. Ф. Расколы первых веков христианства. С. 170–191 (Прибавления к творениям свв. отцов. 1889. Ч. 44. С 373–394). 272 Epist. 55–43 ad Antonian. С. 16, 17. Р. 635. Ч. 1. С. 229: «Будем считать не мертвыми, а скорее полуживыми (semianimes) тех, которых видим уязвленными бедственным гонением: если бы они были вовсе мертвы (in totum mortui), то никогда из них потом не было бы ни исповедников, ни мучеников. Но у них остается нечто такое, что при содействии покаяния восстановляется для веры, через покаяние облекается силою для добродетели». 276 Epist. 59–47 ad Cornel. С. 13: «Часто составляя Соборы, мы общим приговором и даже с угрозами определили, чтобы братья приносили покаяние, чтобы не приносящим покаяния никто безрассудно не давал мира». – Р. 680. Ч. 1. C. 262. См.: Epist. 55–43 ad Antonian. С. 23. Р. 641. Ч. 1. С. 234. Vgl.: Ioh Stufler. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie. 1907. S. 592. Stufler особенно отмечает, что в увещаниях Киприана нет дажеотдаленного намека на то, будто древнейшая Церковь совсем не давала прощения и общения смертно согрешившим. Это, по мнению Stufler’a, есть доказательство отсутствия ригоризма в Церкви и до 250 года. |
| The Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils adopted a number of canons of a disciplinary and practical nature. The Council of Ephesus forbade the composition of a “different faith” from that of the first two councils (Canon 7). This canon has been used by the Orthodox in opposition to the addition of the word filioque to the Creed as it came to be used in the Western Churches. This Council also reaffirmed the ancient independent jurisdictional status of the Church of Cyprus against attempts by the Church of Antioch to hold ordinations there (Canon 8). The Council of Chalcedon, in basically repeating Canon 3 from the Second Ecumenical Council, gave to Constantinople, the New Rome, “equal privileges with the old imperial Rome” because the new capital city was “honored with the emperor and the senate” (Canon 28). The Roman Church, however, fearing that this canon would interfere with her growing aspirations to have universal authority over the whole Church, did not accept this canon of the Council of Chalcedon. The West Saint Augustine The Western Church was dominated intellectually and spiritually by the towering figure of Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (r. 386–430), near Carthage in western North Africa. Living in a kind of communal monasticism with friends on his estate, Augustine wrote massively in Latin. His City of God was the most extensive Christian reflection on human history and its ultimate destiny ever written up to that point. His Scriptural commentaries and his many letters have provided practical guidance for many generations of Western Christians. And his remarkably intimate Confessions became a model for many more such introspective spiritual analyses. Many of his writings were taken up with fighting three virulent heresies-Donatism, the rigorist sect of western North Africa similar to Novatianism; Manicheanism, a strictly dualist movement from Asia Minor; and Pelagianism, promoted by a British monk named Pelagius, who asserted that man could be saved by his own virtue, without the assistance of divine grace. In the heat of the polemics with these heterodox movements, Augustine did not always avoid the temptation of taking his position to the opposite extreme. |
| Hippolytus also accused these two of being too “soft on heresy,” as they were slow to condemn the teaching of Sabellius, another priest in Rome. Sabellius taught that “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” were just three different names for God, rather than being the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity. As a result, in 217 Hippolytus refused to recognize the newly elected Callistus as the legitimate bishop of Rome and started his own church. Thus he became the first of over twenty different anti-popes in the history of the Roman Church. But as it happened, some time after 230, both Hippolytus and Bishop Pontianus (r. 230–235) of Rome, during a brief period of persecution, were sent to the mines in Sardinia, where they were reconciled before their deaths. This is what made it possible for Hippolytus to be recognized as Saint Hippolytus. After the Decian Persecution, a new rigorist sect arose in opposition to the Church’s policy of offering repentance to those who had lapsed and denied Christ during that period of persecution. This was Novatianism, founded by Novatian, a leading priest of Rome who led his followers into schism upon refusing to accept the authority of the newly elected Bishop Cornelius (r. 251–253), who favored mercy towards the lapsed if they were sincerely repentant. The virulent sect of Novatianism spread quickly through the Empire; it was still in existence in the 5th century. The greatest defender of the Catholic Church at this time was Saint Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (c. 200–258), who strenuously opposed the so-called “pure Church” of the Novatianists-and especially the divisiveness of that movement. Although a great reader of Tertullian (most of whose works were written before he became a Montanist), Saint Cyprian defended the Catholic Church, with Her unbroken apostolic succession of bishops, against the newly formed spiritualistic “churches” of the rigorists, or maximalists. He stated in one of his most famous works, entitled On the Unity of the Church, which he wrote to prevent schism occurring in his own church: |
| 312, – был величайшим со времен потопа. Сатана, князь тьмы, царь и бог языческого мира, был изгнан. Рыкающий лев был побежден Агнцем Божьим в самом сильном царстве, какое у него когда-либо было. Исполнились слова Иер. 10:11 : «Боги, которые не сотворили неба и земли, исчезнут с земли и из-под небес " ». Этот труд, до сих пор популярный в Америке и Англии, был написан задолго до разделения церкви и государства в Новой Англии, а именно, в 1739 г. (первое издание в Эдинбурге, 1774, через двадцать шесть лет после смерти автора). Существенное расхождение между мнением этого знаменитого пуританского богослова и мнением, которое преобладает в Америке в наши дни, – интересное доказательство того, что наше мнение об истории в значительной степени определяется обстоятельствами церковной жизни, в которых мы находимся, – а параллельно и того, что проблема взаимоотношений церкви и государства в целом не является обязательной для христианского богословия и этики. В Америке все конфессии, даже католики, довольны разделением, а в Европе, за редким исключением, дела обстоят иначе. 138 Уже в 326 г. Константин издал следующий закон (Cod. Theodos., lib. xvi, tit. 5, 1. 1): «Privilégia, quae contemplatione religionis indulta sunt, catholicae tantum legis observatoribus prodesse oportet. Haereticos autem atque schismaticos non tantum ab his privilegiis alienos esse volumus, sed etiam diversis muneribus constringi et subjici». Но Константин терпимо относился и к новацианам: в том же самом году он сделал такое добавление к закону (С. Theodos., xvi, 5, 2): «Novatianos non adeo comperimus praedamnatos, ut iis quae petiverunt, crederemus minime largienda. Itaque ecclesiae suae domos, et loca sepulcris apta sine inquietudine eos firmiter possidere praecipimus». См. восьмой канон Никейского собора, где также проявлено терпимое отношение к ним. 139 Munera publica, или λειτουργαι, касавшиеся отчасти личности самого подданного империи, отчасти владения имуществом (munera patrimoniorum). 142 «Si tributum petit Imperator, – говорит он в своей Orat. |
|
|
