African bishops is not inferior to the authority of the other bishops."1 The historian, Aubé, after giving an account of this incident, and after quoting the passage from S. Cyprian's letter to S. Cornelius, which we have been considering, says, "On ne saurait trouver un texte plus formel, et de date plus précise, ni d'authenticité plus incontestable pour établir l'indépendance des grands sièges épiscopaux en face du siège de Rome au milieu du iii' siècle. En dehors de cette thèse, du reste, toute cette lettre de Cyprien ne se comprend plus."2 Assuredly one may say with confidence concerning the passage quoted from De Marca, and also concerning the passage quoted from Aubé, "This witness is true."

NOTE 19 (see p. 55).—The Emperor Philip, according to a very respectable tradition, was a baptized Christian (see Aubé, Les Chrétiens dans l'Empire Romain, pp. 467–488); and in any case the Church enjoyed a profound peace during his reign. One of the seven bishops was S. Trophimus, the first Bishop of Arles (see Duchesne, Fastes, tom. i. p. 101).

NOTE 20 (see p. 56).—On the appearance of the metropolitical system in Gaul at the end of the fourth century, see Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chrétien, p. 31, and also Fastes, tome i. pp. 89, 90, 103; but compare also pp. 31, 101, which seem to suggest that Marseilles and perhaps Arles enjoyed a certain metropolitical authority earlier in the century. See also the remarks of the Ballerini in their Observationes in Dissert. quint. Quesnell., pars ii. cap. v. (Opp. S. Leon., Patrol. Lat., tom. lv. col. 607 et seq.), and in their disquisition, De Antiq. collection. et collector. canonum, pars i. cap. v. § 4 (Opp. S. Leon., Patrol. Lat., tom. lvi. coll. 43, 44).

NOTE 21 (see p. 57).—“ Dirigantur in provinciam et ad plebem Arelate consistentem a te litterae quibus abstento Marciano alius in loco ejus substituatur et grex Christi qui in hodiernum ab illo dissipatus et vulneratus contemnitur colligatur." The word “quibus" depends on "substituatur’ and "colligatur." Even if one were to grant that, so far as grammar is concerned, it might depend also on "abstento," yet it is clear that in fact it does not depend on "abstento," because S. Cyprian has already implied in the previous paragraph that the duty of excommunicating Marcianus belonged to the bishops of Gaul. In any case, the ablative "quibus” denotes in this passage a remote and not an immediate instrumentality. One may describe the case of "quibus " as the ablativus causae moventis. Stephen's letters would not directly gather together the scattered flock. That gathering would be a remote result of the consecration of the new bishop, which consecration would itself be a remote result of the pope's

De Marca, De Concord. Sacerd. et Imp., lib. vii. cap. i. § iii., coll. 987, 988, edit. 1708). It may be worth noting that S. Cyprian carried out his doctrine about the finality of provincial decisions, in the advice which he gave to the Spanish churches in connexion with the case of Basilides and Martialis (see pp. 59-61).,

2 Aubé, L'Église et l'État dans la seconde moitié du iii siècle, p. 272, n., edit.

1886.

admonitions. It would seem that S. Cyprian is urging Stephen to write three letters, one to the bishops of Gaul, pressing on them the duty of excommunicating Marcianus; one to the lay people of Arles, pointing out that, when Marcianus has been excommunicated, it would become their duty to elect a successor; and one to the bishops of Gallia Narbonensis, the province in which Arles was situated, and which was called "the Provincia" par excellence, urging them to come to Arles, and to preside at the election, and to consecrate the bishop elect. When the election and consecration had taken place, Stephen would of course be informed of the name of his new colleague.

NOTE 22 (see p. 58). The episode of Marcianus supplies no confirmation of the papalist theory.—If any one wishes to see a discussion of the episode of Marcianus of Arles from an Ultramontane point of view, let him refer to Dr. Rivington's Primitive Church and the See of Peter, pp. 70-72. Dr. Rivington on p. 75 actually says, "It is astonishing how any one could fail to see in the affair of Marcian of Arles an emphatic testimony to the strictly papal method of government as existing in the Church at that time, and taken for granted by S. Cyprian." But one must not suppose that all Ultramontane writers give expression to such wild views. It is a pleasure to quote by way of contrast the candid words of a really learned Vaticanist writer like Professor Funk. Speaking of this case of Marcianus, he says, "I cannot see in this an evidence of the Roman primacy, and therefore cannot on this ground regard it as undeniable 'that Cyprian here concedes to the successor of Peter the ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over external dioceses, and therefore over the whole Church.'1 The case of Bishop Marcianus of Arles proves in my eyes only the primatial position of the Roman Church in the West,2 and to realize this we need only ask how Cyprian would have acted had a similar case occurred in Africa. If I am not quite mistaken as to his character and his Church principles, there can be no doubt that he would have done, as supreme metropolitan (Obermetropolite) what he here advises the pope to do, and what he had himself already begun, and probably carried out, in the case of Fortunatianus, Bishop of Assuras (Ep. 65). Just as little as the one case compels us to assign the primacy of the universal Church to Cyprian, so little is the other an evidence of Roman primacy." 3

NOTE 23 (see p. 61).-Dr. Rivington discusses the case of Basilides and

1 These words between marks of quotation are cited by Dr. Funk from Peters, Der heilige Cyprian, p. 479. One of Dr. Peters' comments on this episode of Marcianus is characterized by Archbishop Benson (Cyprian, p. 319, n. 1) as "shameless."

2 Though no one would deny that the Roman Church enjoyed a primacy of honour and influence in the West, yet it would perhaps be more accurate to say that this letter of S. Cyprian to Stephen proves that in the third century Rome exercised metropolitical authority, not only over Italy, but also in a measure over the infant churches in Gaul, which had been founded by missionaries who had been sent forth from Rome (compare pp. 55, 56).

Theologische Quartalschrift for 1879, p. 149. I owe the quotation from Dr. Funk's article to the kindness of the Rev. E. W. Watson of Salisbury.

Martialis in his Primitive Church and the See of Peter (pp. 72-75). It will, I think, be sufficient if I refer to two of his observations.

On p. 73 he says, "The probability is, as Baronius thought, that " the two bishops, Sabinus and Felix, who had been substituted by the Spanish episcopate for Basilides and Martialis, "were sent to Rome [by S. Cyprian] with the [African] conciliar letter to help towards their acceptance by the pope." No doubt, on Ultramontane principles that would have been a not unnatural course to adopt; but there is not the slightest trace of any such mission in the conciliar letter. S. Cyprian and his colleagues give their decision against Basilides and Martialis absolutely, and in no way suggest that it will need ratification at Rome before it can rightly influence the action of the Church in Spain. Moreover, if they had wished to induce the pope to modify his action, they would surely have written a very different letter. As Mgr. Duchesne observes, "The synodal letter of the African council . . . was not worded in such a way as would be likely to please the pope." Evidently Dr. Rivington in his heart of hearts agrees with M. Duchesne, for he says on p. 75, "It looks as if it would not be difficult for the Evil One to produce a rupture between these two saints. . . . 'Coming events [that is, the quarrel about the validity of heretical baptism] cast their shadow before.' If S. Cyprian had been an Ultramontane, he would have sent the two bishops straight to Rome to plead their cause before Stephen. Not being an Ultramontane, but a sound Catholic, he sent them back to Spain with a letter bidding the Spanish Church pay no attention to the Roman decision in favour of the apostates.

But Dr. Rivington makes another observation. He says, "Not a word has S. Cyprian to say against the possibility of a bishop being replaced in his bishopric by the pope." 2 But why should S. Cyprian say anything on the matter? We have no proof that Stephen had ventured to claim the right of restoring Basilides to his bishopric. It is to me a far more probable supposition that the pope contented himself with admitting Basilides to the communion of the local Roman Church. Such a course was bad enough, and S. Cyprian does well to warn the Spanish bishops against imitating it, and to point out the guilt of any who should do so. But the pope's action, though faulty, was not invalid. It no doubt took effect at Rome, but it did not necessarily involve any invasion of the rights of the Spanish Church. It was a case for fraternal admonition in a letter to Stephen, rather than of protest on the score of invalidity in a letter addressed to the Spanish Christians.

1 Origines Chrétiennes, p. 428.

2 Prim. Ch., p. 74.

"to be

3 No doubt, when Basilides went to Rome, his ultimate aim was replaced unjustly in the episcopate from which he had been rightly deposed." But we have no proof that he expected Stephen to replace him. If he could get Stephen to admit him to communion, and to give him a letter certifying that he had been so admitted, he might carry such a document back to Spain and might use it there with good effect, with the object of bringing about his restoration to his bishopric. On p. 74 Dr. Rivington himself says, "We do not know . . what exactly his [Stephen's] judgement was." Precisely so. And until we do know, there is very little force in Dr. Rivington's argument.

NOTE 24 (see note 1 on p. 62).—The African custom of rebaptization seems also to have been followed at Antioch and in Syria, but not in Palestine. The Church in Palestine on this point, as on so many others, appears to have followed the lead of Alexandria. Compare Duchesne, Origines Chrétiennes, pp. 432, 433. But see note 3 on p. 461.

NOTE 25 (see note 3 on p. 62). On the nationality of the author of the treatise, "De Rebaptismate.”—Archbishop Benson (Cyprian, pp. 394, 406) is quite convinced that the author of the treatise De Rebaptismate was not an Italian, but an African. He appeals to the fact that the author never refers to the tradition of the Roman Church, and also to his use of African idioms. I do not venture to contest the Archbishop's conclusion; but I feel a difficulty in understanding how an African bishop, writing about the year 255, could appeal, as he does (cap. i.), against Cyprian to "the venerable authority of all the churches," and to "the ancient and memorable and most solemn observance of all the holy and faithful men who have deserved well," without saying a word about the fact that his own African Church was committed to the practice of rebaptizing by the Council of Carthage under Agrippinus, held about forty years previously. Might not the writer be one of the Spanish bishops? One ought to know whether African idioms and speech were confined to Africa.

NOTE 26 (see note 4 on pp. 62, 63). Before the Council of Alexandria in 362, S. Athanasius disallowed the validity of Arian baptism.—Dr. Rivington, speaking of the passage from S. Athanasius (Orat. ii. contr. Ariann., § 42) quoted by me on p. 62, says that "S. Athanasius does not deny the validity of baptism by heretics, but its sanctifying effects."1 Newman, on the other hand, in his note in loc., says, "The primâ facie sense of this passage is certainly unfavourable to the validity of heretical baptism." 2 In the succeeding paragraph S. Athanasius classes Arian baptism with that of the Paulianists and other heretics, who used the three Divine Names, but "not in a right sense," " nor with sound faith." Now, the Council of Nicaea in its 19th canon, had expressly ordered that Paulianists, who wish to return to the Catholic Church, should be rebaptized. As Hefele says, "The Council of Nicaea, like S. Athanasius himself, considered their baptism as invalid."3 Thomassinus understands the passage quoted from S. Athanasius about Arian baptism as I do. He thinks that S. Athanasius looked on that baptism as invalid. The same interpretation of the Athanasian passage is adopted by the Bollandist, Father Bossue, and by Dr. von Döllinger." The reader is also 1 Prim. Ch., p. 78, n.

2 It should be noted that S. Athanasius wrote his second Oration against the Arians before the year 362, the date of the celebrated Council of Alexandria. Had the Oration been written after that date, the passage which we are considering would not improbably have been differently worded. On the action taken at the council of 362 in reference to Arian baptism, see note I on p. 454. 3 Hefele, i. 431, E. tr.

Thomassin. Dissertat. ad Synodos sub Stephano Papa, § xl., Patrol. Lat., iii. 1291, 1292.

5 Acta SS., tom. xii. Octobr., p. 499.

Döllinger, Hippolytus and Callistus, p. 179, E. tr.

referred to the full note in Dr. Gwatkin's Studies of Arianism, pp. 130, 131.1

NOTE 27 (see note 4 on p. 63).—It seems to me clear that in the last paragraph of Ep. lxxii., S. Cyprian is giving expression to his expectation that Stephen would refuse to change the custom of his Church. Aubé takes the same view. The Ultramontane, Jungmann, thinks that it cannot be doubted that S. Cyprian, when he wrote this letter to Stephen, knew that the Roman Church disagreed with him on the baptismal question; and that his object was to induce the pope to treat the matter as appertaining to discipline rather than to doctrine, and as being a point on which each bishop might feel free to follow his own opinion.3

NOTE 28 (see p. 64). Stephen's threats of excommunication were received at Carthage before the final council on baptism.-Dr. Rivington thinks that Stephen's harsh reply to the synodical letter of the second Cyprianic council on baptism did not arrive at Carthage until after the third council was concluded. He bases his theory on certain arguments. A summary of each of these arguments will be found below, printed in italics. To the summary of each argument I have appended my reply.

1. Stephen's letter is not once mentioned in the Sententiae Episcoporum, which were delivered at the third council on baptism, and have been preserved for us by S. Augustine.

To this argument I answer that it would have been most unwise of S. Cyprian if he had read out at the council those remarks of Stephen, which he considered to be "arrogant, beside the purpose, and self-contradictory." We know that Stephen called S. Cyprian "a false Christ," "a false apostle," "a deceitful worker;" and it is quite possible that those abusive terms may have found a place in this very letter. Whether this was so or not, the letter contained "arrogant " remarks and threats of excommunication; and if it had been read it would necessarily have been inserted in the acts, and would have been sent all over Africa. For the sake of Stephen, and still more for the honour of the Catholic Church, it was important to prevent such a publication. S. Cyprian considered that, when he was presiding over a council, one of his duties was to

1 Dr. Gwatkin, however, admits that the Council of Alexandria of the year 362 did not require the rebaptism of Arians. It would seem that S. Athanasius, who in principle rejected Arian baptism, thought it permissible, for the sake of unity at that very critical moment in the Church's history, to receive back into the Church, without rebaptizing them, those who had been baptized by Arians. S. Eusebius of Vercellae would hardly have consented to the Alexandrine decrees if they had required Arians to be rebaptized. Even Lucifer accepted Arian baptism. In the East the admission of Arians without rebaptizing them became the rule, as may be seen by referring to the so-called seventh canon of the second Ecumenical Council.

2 Aubé, L'Église et l'État dans la seconde moitié du iïï siècle, p. 323, edit.

1886.

3 Cf. Jungmann. Dissertationes Selectae in Hist. Eccl., tom. i. p. 325, edit. 1880. See Prim. Ch., p. 89.

Ep. lxxiv. ad Pompeium, § 1, Opp., ed. Hartel, ii. 799.

Ep. S. Firmil. inter Cyprianicas lxxv. § 25, Opp., ed. Hartel, ii. 827.