the Philocalian collection of 354 the name of Stephen occurs in the Depos. Episcoporum, and not in the Depos. Martirum; whereas the name of Xystus appears in the latter.1

NOTE 33 (see p. 71). S. Cyprian never retracted. In regard to a supposed retractation of Cyprian before his death, Father de Smedt drily observes, "Cyprianum ante mortem errorem suum retractasse, magis pie quam probabiliter assereretur."2 Mgr. Duchesne, writing about the reunion of Rome with Carthage and Caesarea in the time of S. Xystus, points out that it was Rome that gave way, and not Cyprian or Firmilian. He says, "L'union ne se rétablit pas aux dépens de l'usage de Saint Cyprien et de Saint Firmilien; Saint Basile au iv° siècle appliquait la même discipline que son célèbre prédécesseur. Elle était encore en vigueur dans les églises africaines au temps du concile d'Arles (314)."3

ADDITIONAL NOTES ON APPENDIX A.

NOTE 34 (see p.73). In S. Cyprian's time the African custom of rebaptizing prevailed in the larger part of the Church.—I have ventured to say in the text that it is probable that Stephen excommunicated a majority of all the Catholic churches then in existence. On the other hand, in Dr. Rivington's book, Authority, may be read the following passage: It is notorious that Stephen did not stand alone. S. Augustine says that S. Cyprian's party consisted of 'some fifty Orientals, and seventy or a few more Africans, against many hundreds of bishops, to whom this error was displeasing, throughout the whole world.'"4 The trustful reader who, without verification, is willing to accept as S. Augustine's the words which Dr. Rivington professes to quote from that Father, would naturally suppose that S. Augustine meant that hundreds of contemporary bishops sided with Stephen against Cyprian. But such an impression would be wholly erroneous, and would be due to the very curious method of translation which Dr. Rivington has in this case adopted. S. Augustine's words are, "Contra tot millia episcoporum, quibus hic error in toto orbe displicuit." It is obviously most misleading to translate "tot millia," "many hundreds." Why not go a little further and translate "tot millia," 72 66 many decades," or "many units"? As it is certain that in the third century the Catholic episcopate did not number "many thousands of bishops," S. Augustine is clearly speaking, not of Cyprian's contemporaries, but of all the generations of bishops who had held office in the Church during the century and a half which intervened between Cyprian's age and his own. Even when we have made this correction, it will still remain the fact that S. Augustine was misinformed in regard

Authority, p. 105, 2nd edit.

S. Augustin., Contra Cresconium Donatistam, lib. iii. cap. iii., Opp., ed. Ben., tom. ix. col. 437.

to the view which the Easterns took of this question.2 The great majority of the Eastern churches from the time of S. Cyprian until this nineteenth century have denied in principle the validity of heretical baptism, though in the case of some particular heresies they have been prepared to dispense with re-baptization, and to admit converts from those heresies by confirmation. The historical proof of this fact has been often set forth, and the reader may be specially referred to the treatise on the Minister of Baptism, by the Rev. W. Elwin. If we consider the state of things which existed at the time when the baptismal controversy first broke out, we shall find that the bishops of Italy, Egypt, and perhaps Palestine,3 were on the side of Stephen; and to these must probably be added the few bishops in Spain, Gaul, and perhaps Greece; while on the side of Cyprian must be reckoned the bishops of Africa, Asia Minor, Syria, Mesopotamia, and the further East. I should suppose that there can be no doubt that the number of bishops who sided with Cyprian was considerably larger than the number of those who sided with Stephen; and, if we take into consideration the fact that, as Duchesne says, "Christians were incomparably more numerous in the East than in the West," 5 it will be seen that Stephen had entered on a course which would have ended in an attempt to excommunicate the larger part of the Catholic Church. When S. Augustine speaks of "fifty

1 Archbishop Benson (Cyprian, p. 379) says, "No one doubts Eusebius's ignorance of the West, or Augustine's of the East."

2 There can be no doubt that S. Augustine imagined that Stephen was supported by a majority of the episcopate. Cf. S. Aug., De Unic. Bapt. contr. Petil. cap. xiv., Opp., ed. Ben., ix. 538.* But, as Fr. De Smedt says very truly, "In hac re ejus [sc. Augustini] auctoritas non est major quam scriptoris recentioris " (Dissert. Select., p. 242).

Duchesne (Origines Chrétiennes, p. 433) says, "Sur ce point, comme sur beaucoup d'autres, la Palestine parait avoir suivi l'usage d'Alexandrie. Je le conclus de la manière dont Eusèbe (H.E., vii. 2) parle de la coutume romaine." But for a passage which looks the other way, see S. Cyrill. Hierosol. Procatech., cap. vii.

Duchesne (loc. cit.), after having mentioned that the African rule about rebaptizing heretics was in force in Asia Minor, goes on to say, "Elle était également observée à Antioche et en Syrie." No doubt the use of Antioch prevailed in Cilicia, Mesopotamia, and the East, which were all in a measure subordinate to Antioch. Compare Duchesne (Origines Chrétiennes, p. 337, n. 1). One must note that S. Denys the Great, in a letter to the Roman priest, Philemon (ap. Euseb. H.E., vii. 7), says that the Cyprianic opinion was adopted "long ago in the most populous churches."

Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chrétien, p. 21. As regards the comparative number of bishops who sided respectively with Stephen and with Cyprian, it may be observed that, according to Bingham (Antiquities, book ix. chap. v. § 1, Works, edit. 1843, vol. iii. p. 126) there were about 300 bishoprics in the seventeen provinces of Italy; whereas it is computed that in Africa there were no less than 470 (Cf. P. L., tom. xi. col. 834). It will be understood that these figures represent the numbers, not in the third century, but in the fifth century or later. But the proportion was probably much the same in the third century. In the summer or autumn of 251 S. Cornelius assembled sixty bishops in synod, who must have been mainly Italians; whereas a few years before, in the time of Cyprian's predecessor, Donatus, ninety African bishops had deposed Privatus of Lambesis. Similarly, Dr. Neale (General Introduction, vol. i. pp. 115, 116) gives a list of 104 bishoprics subject to Alexandria, but he says (p. 126) that "in the time of its glory, Antioch seems to have had about 250 suffragan sees," and the numbers in Asia Minor were very large.

Orientals," he is either mistaken or he may be referring, as De Valois1 supposes, to the numbers who were present at the Council of Iconium, twenty-five years before Stephen began the quarrel.

Of

NOTE 35 (see note I on p. 75). On the meaning of a certain phrase in Eusebius' History.-After reading Dr. Rivington's note (Prim. Ch., p. 81), in which he discusses the meaning of the words, is oùdè èkelvois Rowwvhowv, words which occur in a passage quoted by Eusebius 2 from a letter addressed by S. Denys to S. Xystus of Rome, in which S. Denys is summarizing a letter written by Stephen, I wrote to Professor Jebb of Cambridge, asking him to be so kind as to give me his opinion as to the meaning of the Greek expression. In his reply Sir Richard Jebb says, “The words of Stephen, as quoted by Dionysius, would naturally mean that, from the time at which he was writing, he would refuse to communicate with the bishops in question. The ground of this resolve is described as existent, not as contingent: ἐπειδὴ . . . ἀναβαπτίζουσι. course the Greek words do not actually exclude some qualifying, but unexpressed, thought, such as, 'he would (ultimately) cease to communicate with them,' if they persisted in re-baptizing. But this is not the natural or obvious meaning. If we said in English, 'he declared that he would not communicate with them, since they re-baptized heretics,' the plain sense would be that he intended to take such a course thenceforth. The case is precisely the same with the Greek words here. (It may be noted in passing that the use of the future participle by Dionysius, or Stephen, is not in accordance with pure classical Greek idiom, though it was very common in days when the Latin use of the future participle had infected Greek usage. A Greek writer of the fifth or fourth century B.C., would have said, not κοινωνήσων, but μέλλων κοινωνήσειν, Οι κοινωνεῖν Bouλóuevos, or the like.)" In a second letter Dr. Jebb writes, " You are quite at liberty to quote my letter, provided you make it clear that I was dealing with the verbal question only, and not expressing any opinion concerning the historical facts to which Dionysius refers. I am not competent to form any judgment as to what Stephen actually did; and I should not wish to appear as taking any side in the controversy on that question. But as to the natural meaning of the words which you quote, I have no doubt at all."

I am very grateful to Sir Richard Jebb for answering my question so fully, and for allowing me to make his answer public; and I naturally rejoice to find that my own interpretation, which is also that of Baronius and Mansi, is supported by the judgement of so distinguished a scholar.

NOTE 36 (see note 2 on p. 75).—I have said in the text that S. Denys of Alexandria in that fragment of a letter of his to S. Xystus II. of Rome, which is quoted by Eusebius (H. E., vii. 5), “dealt entirely with Stephen's relations with the Eastern bishops, and said nothing of his relations with the Church of North Africa." This statement is literally true; but

1See a note of De Valois' on Euseb. H. E., vii. 5, and compare Abp. Benson's Cyprian, p. 340.

2 H. E., vii. 5.

nevertheless the word οὐδέ in the expression—ὡς οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις κοινωνήσων implies that in a previous passage of this letter S. Denys had been referring to other persons with whom Stephen had refused to communicate, because they re-baptized heretics; and there can be no doubt that in that previous passage, which Eusebius does not quote, S. Denys had been speaking of Stephen's rupture of relations with S. Cyprian and the African bishops. It is important to notice that S. Denys by his use of the word "póτepov (previously) implies that the excommunication of the Easterns preceded the excommunication of the Africans.

NOTE 37 (see note 2 on p. 77).-Maran's principal argument in favour of his view that the African legates, who were rejected by Stephen, were sent by the second council on baptism and not by the third, depends on his theory that, if the legates had been sent by the third council, which was opened on the first of September, there would not have been time for S. Cyprian's deacon, Rogatianus, to carry his letter to S. Firmilian in Cappadocia and to return to Carthage before winter had set in. Archbishop Benson, who accepts Maran's view that the legates were sent by the second council, makes it clear that he does not attribute force to Maran's argument from the lateness of the season, when the third council met. He says (Cyprian, p. 373, n. 1), "Supposing the delegates to have left Carthage about the end of the first week of September, there were eight weeks for them to go to Rome, to return to Carthage, then for Rogatian to make his way to Caesarea and be back in Carthage 'before winter, which, for navigation purposes, began at this era about November 3. This would be time enough." "1 It does not seem to me to be certain that Rogatianus must necessarily have got back to Carthage before November 3. Aubé (L'Église et l'État dans la seconde moitié du iiie siècle, edit. 1886, p. 329) thinks it sufficient to say, "Ce fut seulement à la fin de l'année 256 que la réponse de Firmilien arriva à Carthage." Dr. Rivington agrees (Prim. Ch., ch. viii.) that the legation to Rome, which was repulsed by Stephen, was subsequent to the third council. The mission of Rogatianus to Caesarea was unquestionably posterior to the repulse of the legation.

NOTE 38 (see note 3 on p. 77).-Father De Smedt discusses the question "Utrum Stephanus in Cyprianum et Firmilianum excommunicationis sententiam tulerit?" 2 He decides that we must come to the same conclusion as in the case of the controversy between Victor and the Asians. In that case after a full discussion of the various aspects of the matter, he had concluded that Victor had deprived the Asians of his communion. Hence it follows that De Smedt holds that Stephen deprived Cyprian and Firmilian of his communion.

1 Compare also Abp. Benson's Cyprian, p. 380.

2 Dissert. Select., pp. 238-244.

3 Op. cit., p. 242.

• Ibid., p. 73.

ADDITIONAL NOTES ON APPENDIX B.

NOTE 39 (see note 2 on p. 81).—That S. Cyprian regarded the Catholic Church as "the root and mother" of the separate local churches can be shown demonstratively by a passage in his treatise Ad Fortunatum (de exhortatione martyrii), where, having dwelt on the mystical number of the seven martyred Maccabees, and having pointed out that the number corresponds with that of the seven churches and their angels, to whom the Lord sent His commands and instructions in the Apocalypse, he goes on to say, "With the seven children there is evidently conjoined also the mother, their origin and root, who subsequently bare the seven churches, she herself having been founded first and alone by the voice of the Lord upon Peter." Obviously it was not the local Roman Church but the Church universal, who bare in her womb the seven churches of Asia, and who, as S. Cyprian implies, was their "origo et radix."

NOTE 40 (see note 3 on p. 81).—S. Cyprian says that the Novatian party at Rome had "refused the bosom and embrace of their root and mother." So at the third Council of Carthage on the baptism of heretics Felix of Uthina (26) speaks of " omnes haeretici qui ad sinum matris ecclesiae adcurrunt."2 Manifestly Felix is speaking of the bosom of the Catholic Church, not of the local Roman Church. The expression occurs in a speech, in which he is opposing the teaching and practice of the Roman Church. And who can doubt that the same interpretation must be given to the exactly parallel expression used by S. Cyprian in his letter to S. Cornelius? Evidently Mgr. Duchesne takes that view, for he quotes and glosses the passage thus, “Non tantum . . . matris [Ecclesiae] sinum adque conplexum recusavit."

3

NOTE 41 (see note I on p. 83). Bossuet's interpretation of the Cyprianic expression, "matrix et radix?"-Bossuet, when he is interpreting S. Cyprian, understands the "matrix et radix,” as I do, of the Church's unity.

"Cum septem liberis plane copulatur et mater origo et radix, quae ecclesias septem postmodum peperit, ipsa prima et una super Petrum Domini voce fundata" (Ad Fortunatum, cap. xi., P. L., iv. 694, 695). I have followed in this quotation Baluze's reading, Petrum, and not Hartel's reading, petram. On the true reading in this passage, see Mr. E. W. Watson's remarks (Studia Biblica, tom. iv. p. 256).

2 Opp. S. Cypr., ed. Hartel, i. 446.

3 Cf. Ep. xlv. ad Cornelium, § 1, Opp., ii. 600.

Duchesne, Origines Chrétiennes, p. 420, n. Dr. Rivington's gloss (Prim. Ch., p. 464) on the passage is very different. After quoting S. Cyprian's expression, "the bosom and embrace of the root and mother," he appends, as an explanation, the words "the legitimate bishop," adding, "For the legitimate bishop is the root of the Church in each region." To which gloss one might reply by the question, Is the legitimate bishop also the mother of the Church in each region? For it is obvious that a true gloss must suit "mater" as well as "radix." Instruction Pastorale sur les Promesses de l'Église (Euvres, edit. 1816, xxii.

4II, 412).