repudiating the false theories set forth by the Vatican Council. I am not professing to write an exhaustive monograph on S. Cyprian's teaching about the government of the Church; and it is impossible for me, within the limits assigned to me, to attempt to deal with the various misrepresentations of his sentiments which have been from time to time devised by Roman Catholic controversialists. A careful consideration of the context, or of parallel passages in other writings of his, will generally suffice to make his meaning clear. Any one who wishes to go more fully into the subject will find much to help him in Archbishop Laud's Conference with Fisher, and also in a review of Wilberforce on the Supremacy, which appeared in the Christian Remembrancer for April, 1855. I proceed to give an account of an incident in S. Cyprian's life, which has been represented as bearing witness to the supreme jurisdiction of the Roman see. The facts of the case are these: Marcianus, Bishop of Arles, had joined himself to the Novatian schism, but still retained his position as chief pastor of the Church in Arles. Thereupon, the bishops of Gaul, and amongst them Faustinus, Bishop of Lyons, wrote to Pope Stephen, the second successor of S. Cornelius, asking him, apparently, to give them advice and guidance in their difficulty. The question naturally arises-Why did the Gallican bishops apply for advice to Rome? In order to answer this question it will be necessary to set forth a few facts concerning the state of the Church in Gaul at that time. Mgr. Duchesne has given strong reasons for believing that until towards the middle of the third century there was only one bishop in Celtic Gaul, having his see at Lyons. But it would seem that shortly before the year 250 several churches were founded in Gaul by missionaries who came from Rome. S. Gregory of Tours speaks of seven missionary bishops sent from Rome in the middle of the third century. Tillemont (iv. 132) has argued that this mission took place during the reign of the Emperor Philip5 (A.D. 244–249). It would archbishop had done; and there would assuredly be no stress laid on the principle that the judgement of the archbishop is subject to God only, nor surprise expressed at his having reported to Rome the determinations at which he had arrived. In Appendix B, with its Addendum (pp. 77-95), I have dealt with those Cyprianic passages which have been twisted into a Roman sense. ** Our knowledge of this incident is entirely derived from S. Cyprian's Ep. lxviii. ad Stephanum, Opp., ii. 744-749. * Duchesne, Fastes Episcopaux de l'Ancienne Gaule, tome i. pp. 30, 31, 32, 38-42, 59, 74, 101. S. Greg. Turon., Historia Francorum, lib. i. cap. 28; compare Duchesne, Fastes, tome i. pp. 47, 48. See Additional Note 19, p. 450. thus appear that in the time of S. Cyprian the churches of Gaul, with the exception of the Church of Lyons (and perhaps that of Marseilles), were struggling infant missions planted in a heathen country. It appears also that there were no metropolitans in Gaul' until the end of the fourth century; so that these scattered missions, having no hierarchical organization of their own, would naturally look for help in difficulties to Rome, as being the mother-church, which had sent forth their missionary bishops. Doubtless if Gaul had been evangelized from Egypt, the bishops of Gaul would, under similar circumstances, have applied for help and counsel to the Bishop of Alexandria. Or if it had been evangelized from Syria, they would have gone to the Bishop of Antioch. It would seem as if Stephen had been somewhat remiss in giving the advice for which he had been asked. The Bishop of Lyons, therefore, wrote more than one letter to S. Cyprian at Carthage, who was the second great metropolitan in the Latin-speaking portion of the Church; and S. Cyprian came to the conclusion that he would write to Stephen to urge him to help the afflicted Church of Gaul. No doubt S. Cyprian held that he had a perfect right to help that Church himself. But as he was living far away, and had no special connexion with the bishops in Gaul, and had only heard from Faustinus, whereas Stephen was near at hand, and was bishop of the church from which the missionary bishops in Gaul had been sent forth, and had had an application from all the Gallican bishops, it was more fitting that the answer should come from Stephen. In his letter to Stephen, S. Cyprian begins by laying down the principle that it is the duty of the bishops generally to give their help in such a case: "It is ours, dearest brother, to look to this affair and to remedy it. . . . Wherefore it behoves you to write a very full letter to our fellow-bishops established in Gaul, that they no longer suffer the froward and proud Marcianus. to insult over our college (ie. the Catholic episcopate), because he seemeth as yet not to be excommunicated by us, who this long while boasts and publishes that ... he has separated himself from our communion.... How idle were it, dearest brother, when Novatian has been lately repulsed and cast back and excommunicated by the priests of God throughout the world, were we now to suffer his flatterers still to mock us, and to judge respecting the majesty and dignity of the Church! Let letters be addressed from thee to the Province [ie. the region of Gaul in which Arles is situated], and to the people dwelling at Arles, such letters as 2 See note on p. 8. ... 1 See Additional Note 20, p. 450. that, in consequence of them, when Marcianus shall have been excommunicated [by the bishops of Gaul], another may be substituted in his room, and the flock of Christ, . . . be gathered together." Thus S. Cyprian presses on Stephen the duty of writing a letter of counsel and help to those who had begged to be advised and helped. It was not the case of a new heresy or schism arising; that could hardly have been settled without a council of bishops. Nor was it a case in which the facts were doubtful. Marcianus himself boasted that he had separated himself from the Catholic communion. All that was needed was that the bishops of Gaul should be encouraged to do their duty and excommunicate their erring brother, and that then a new bishop should be elected, and consecrated, and be peaceably accepted by the church people of Arles. But again I must point out that, while S. Cyprian thought that, under the circumstances, Stephen was the appropriate person to convey the counsel of the Church at large to the Gallican brethren, he takes good care to make it clear that essentially the duty was one which might have been discharged by any other bishop, whose advice might have been asked. He does not write to Stephen in the style of the Vatican decrees. He does not say, "You have the 'full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church,' and this your 'power is ordinary and immediate over all and each of the churches, and over all and each of the pastors and of the faithful;'"2 but he says, "For therefore, dearest brother, is the body of bishops so large, united together by the glue of mutual concord and the bond of unity, that if any of our college should attempt to introduce heresy... the rest may come in aid, and as good and merciful shepherds gather the Lord's sheep into the fold.... For what greater or better office have bishops, than by diligent solicitude and wholesome remedies to provide for cherishing and preserving the sheep?... For although we are many shepherds, yet we feed one flock, and ought to gather together and cherish all the sheep which Christ has acquired by His own Blood and Passion. . . . Signify plainly to us who has been substituted at Arles in the room of Marcianus, that we may know to whom we should direct our brethren, and to whom write. I bid you, dearest brother, ever heartily farewell." It seems almost incredible that any one should have discovered in this letter of S. Cyprian an argument for the modern Roman claims. Every sentence in it, almost, is a 1 Ep. cit. §§ 2, 3, Opp., ii. 745. On the construction of the sentence see the Additional Note 21, p. 450. 2 Collectio Lacensis, vi. 485. 3 Ep. cit. §§ 3-5, Opp., ii. 746-749. contradiction of the papal theory. The pope is urged, no doubt, to write and give his advice; but it is carefully pressed upon him, that he is to write as one of the college of bishops, to all of whom it belongs to provide for the cherishing and preserving of the sheep. He is to write, because application has been specially made to him. If the application had been made to S. Cyprian by the bishops of Gaul, undoubtedly he would have felt that he was fully entitled to do all that was necessary. About the same time he did receive a similar application from some of the churches in Spain, and he wrote very vigorously to them, bidding them abide by the action of the bishops of their province, and pay no attention to a mistaken dictum of Pope Stephen. But in the present instance the application of the Gallican episcopate had been made to Stephen, and therefore S. Cyprian had no locus standi for directly interfering. Rather more than a hundred years afterwards, in A.D. 390, we find the bishops of Gaul again in need of external help and counsel. They were still without the full metropolitical system. But by that time Milan had become the metropolitical see of North Italy, and Milan was nearer to Gaul than Rome. The Gallican bishops, therefore, applied for advice and help to S. Ambrose of Milan, as well as to Siricius of Rome; and they got what they needed from the two great prelates to whom they wrote. The trouble which was then disturbing them was very similar to the trouble about Marcianus. It had to do with the schism of the Ithacians. Eight years later the Ithacian question came again to the front, and the Gallican bishops applied this time to S. Simplicianus, the immediate successor of S. Ambrose, and to him only. The council of the bishops of the province of Milan was held at Turin,2 and in its sixth canon it decreed as follows: "If any should wish to separate themselves from the communion of Felix [the friend of the Ithacians], they shall be received into the fellowship of our peace, in accordance with the former letters of Ambrose of blessed memory, and of the bishop of the Roman Church." 3 Here we notice that Milan is put first, and Rome second. Doubtless this order would have been unusual outside the province of Milan; but in that province it was the natural order to use, so long as the Catholic system of Church government prevailed. The bishops of Milan and Rome were brother-metropolitans, and the Milanese prelate was more to the bishops of the 1 See Additional Note 22, p. 451. The Jesuit, Padre Savio, has proved (Gli antichi vescovi d'Italia-Il Piemonte, 1899, pp. 564-566) that the Council of Turin was held in the year 398. It was undoubtedly a provincial council of the province of Milan. 3 Concilia, ii. 1383, ed. Coleti. Milanese province than the Bishop of Rome was. They therefore naturally gave him precedence in their own province. Of course, if the Fathers of the council had supposed that the Bishop of Rome was the infallible vicar of Christ, having immediate episcopal jurisdiction in Milan, Turin, and everywhere else, they would certainly have given a different turn to the wording of their canon. But those dreams had not then been invented. Let us now return to S. Cyprian. We have a letter written by him in the name of a council of African bishops to certain churches in Spain, which needed comfort and help.1 Two Spanish bishops, Basilides and Martialis, had in the course of the Decian persecution become what was technically called "libellatics;" in other words, they had made an unworthy and sinful compromise with idolatry. S. Cyprian tells us that in the public proceedings before the ducenary procurator Martialis had appeared, and had put in a declaration that he had denied Christ and had conformed to idolatrous worship. Basilides must have made some compromise of a similar kind, for they had both "been contaminated with the profane libellus of idolatry." Martialis had also joined himself to one of the heathen collegia or guilds, and had in connection with this guild frequented for a long while "the foul and filthy feasts of the Gentiles;" while Basilides, when lying sick, had blasphemed against God; and there were many other heinous sins in which both had become implicated. Basilides, pricked by his conscience, had confessed his blasphemy, and had voluntarily laid down his bishopric, and had betaken himself to do penance, accounting himself most happy if he might hope to be admitted some day to lay communion. It appears that Basilides' resignation was accepted by the bishops of the province, and that Martialis was by them deposed and excommunicated; and the vacant sees were soon filled by the consecration of Sabinus as successor to Basilides, and of Felix as successor to Martialis. Afterwards Basilides went to Rome and deceived Pope Stephen, who was ignorant of the true state of the case, and admitted him to communion as a bishop of the Church;2 and Basilides, furnished with 1 Ep. lxvii. ad clerum et plebes in Hispania consistentes, Opp., ii. 735-743.. A question may be raised as to the precise character of the pope's action in this case; whether, that is, he simply admitted the deposed bishops to his communion, notwithstanding the sentence of the Spanish bishops, which would be bad enough; or whether he attempted in any way to declare authoritatively that they were restored to their bishoprics, which would be far worse. The learned French Roman Catholic critic, Dupin, in the appendix to the 5th (al. 6th) volume of the Nouvelle Bibliotheque des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques (pp. 185-188), argues in favour of the first of these explanations. Whatever it was that the pope did, S. Cyprian and the African bishops held that it was wrong, and advised the Spanish bishops to ignore it. In the text I have preferred to take the more |