letters of communion from the pope, returned to Spain and canvassed to be restored to the see which he had resigned. Martialis seems to have followed the same course. At any rate, in some way, not fully described, he tried by "deceit to get put back into his bishopric. Certain bishops, following the pope's bad example, admitted both Basilides and Martialis to their communion. The result of all this was that the churches in Spain were thrown into confusion; and in their trouble they wrote to S. Cyprian for his advice and aid. Their application was discussed in a synod, consisting of thirty-seven African bishops, over whom S. Cyprian presided. It is interesting to observe what action S. Cyprian and the African synod took. Did they say with the Vatican Council that "the judgement of the apostolic see cannot be revised by any one, and that no one may pass judgement on its decisions"? Did they say that "all the pastors and all the faithful are bound to the pope by the obligation of true obedience"? Did they therefore exhort the Spanish Catholics to restore the deposed bishops to communion, and to take counsel with the pope as to their being reinstated in their sees? or, if that seemed impossible, did they suggest that a humble petition should be sent to Rome, begging that the case might be reheard? They say nothing of the kind. They say that Felix and Sabinus are in full canonical possession of their sees; and that the mistaken action of the pope "cannot rescind an ordination rightly performed." They say that the effect of what took place at Rome was not to efface but to increase the crimes of Basilides. They say that, although some of the bishops (and the pope was one of them) think that the heavenly discipline of the Church is to be neglected, and rashly communicate with Basilides and Martialis, this ought not to disturb our faith, since the Holy Spirit threatens such bishops in the Psalms, saying, "But thou hatest to be reformed, and hast cast My words behind thee: when thou sawest a thief, thou consentedst unto him, and hast been partaker with the adulterers." They express their belief that these bishops, who are mingled in unlawful communion with sinners who abstain from doing penance, are polluted with the commerce of the guilty, and being joined in the guilt are not separate in the punishment. Finally, they exhort the Spanish Catholics to pay no heed to the action of the pope, and to refuse to communicate with the two profane and polluted bishops, who had been deposed.

The whole incident illustrates admirably the Catholic

charitable view of Stephen's action. On p. 61, n. 1, will be found a short account of a similar application made by the "Tall Brothers" to S. Chrysostom, whose action was much more in accordance with the canons than was that of Stephen.

system of Church government. The sentence of the synod of the province is held to be final. The pope's decision in regard to a matter which had taken place outside his jurisdiction, is considered to have no force in itself. It is neither able to reverse nor suspend the decision of the province. The Spanish churches are exhorted to ignore it; and all who act upon it are warned that they will share in the guilt and in the punishment of the miserable men whose actions had caused all the trouble. We learn also from this incident that when any church was in trouble, it could apply for help to any foreign church which it might select. It might apply to Rome, if it chose, as the bishops of Gaul did in the case of Marcianus; but it might apply also to Carthage, if it preferred that course, as the Catholics of Spain did in the present instance. The African bishops had normally no right to exercise jurisdiction in Spain, any more than the Bishop of Rome had either in Spain or in Gaul; but they could give advice and comfort, and could help to strengthen the Spanish churches in maintaining the wholesome discipline of the gospel.2

S. Cyprian's action in this Spanish dispute is an admirable illustration of what S. Gregory Nazianzen meant, when he said that Cyprian "presided not only over the Church of Carthage and over Africa, ... but also over all the countries of the West, and over nearly all the regions of the East and of the South and of the North." 8 It is scarcely necessary to add that this presidency which S. Cyprian exercised was not (outside of Africa) a presidency of jurisdiction, but a presidency of love and honour, and, as a consequence, of influence.

Hitherto I have been speaking about acts and words of S. Cyprian, which are generally held to have preceded the breaking out of the quarrel between Carthage and Rome on the subject of the validity of heretical baptism. Let us now proceed to consider the light which that quarrel throws on

1 Church history is full of the records of such applications, made either by churches or by individuals. To name one celebrated case, which occurred about a century and a half later. When the "Tall Brothers " had been most unjustly excommunicated by Theophilus of Alexandria, they took refuge with S. Chrysostom at Constantinople, who very rightly refused to admit them to the participation of the Mysteries, until their case had been judicially investigated; but he permitted them to be present at the Holy Sacrifice among the consistentes; and he wrote to Theophilus, "desiring him to receive them back into communion, as their sentiments concerning the Divine Nature were orthodox" (cf. Sozomen, H. E., viii. 13). It need hardly be said that S. Chrysostom had no jurisdiction over Theophilus.

2 See Additional Note 23, p. 451.

3 Orat. xxiv. 12, Opp., ed. Ben., i. 445.

Possibly, however, the case of the Spanish bishops may have occurred during the baptismal controversy.

I

the position of the see of Rome in the Cyprianic age. shall not attempt to go fully into the controversy, but shall confine myself strictly to that which has a bearing on our general subject. The rough outline of the dispute must be familiar to every one here. S. Cyprian, and the African bishops generally, rebaptized converts from the sects, whether they had been previously baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity or not. The Africans considered that all baptism administered by persons living in heresy or schism was invalid. With the Africans agreed the bishops of Asia Minor, under which term I include Phrygia, Cappadocia, Cilicia, and other neighbouring provinces.1 The Roman Church accepted the baptism of heretics and schismatics as valid when the right form had been used, and refused in such cases to rebaptize converts from heresy or schism, but admitted them into the Church, after proof of repentance and faith, by confirmation. Both sides appealed confidently to ancient tradition and custom. S. Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, says that the custom of rebaptizing heretics, which was maintained in Asia Minor, was based on that which had been "delivered by Christ and His apostles." 2 "Nor do we," he says, "remember that this ever had a beginning among us, since it has ever been observed here." On the other hand, the very able author of the treatise De Rebaptismate speaks of the usage upheld by Stephen as agreeing with "most ancient custom, and with the tradition of the Church," and as being "an old and memorable and most established observance of all the veteran saints and believers," and which has in its favour "the authority of all the churches." 8 Both sides had a great deal to say for themselves. We in England at the present day follow the practice which was upheld by Stephen, but we have no right to say that it is the only allowable practice. The controversy has never been decided by an authority which binds the whole Church. It is very commonly supposed that the Council of Nicaea settled the matter in favour of the custom of Pope Stephen, but that is a mistake. S. Athanasius, who must have known if any such action had been taken, says, "How should not the baptism which the Arians administer be wholly vain and profitless, having a semblance but nothing real as an aid to holiness?" and the post-Nicene Eastern

1 See Additional Note 24, p. 453.

Ep. S. Firmil., inter Cyprianicas lxxv., § 19, Opp., ii. 822.

3 Lib. de Rebapt., ap. S. Cyprian. Opp., iii. 69-92. Dr. Mason, speaking of the authorship of this treatise, says, "It seems safe to consider" it "as the production of one of the prelates in the entourage of Stephen" (Relation of Confirmation to Baptism, p. 124). See Additional Note 25, p. 453.

Cf. Orat. ii., contr. Ariann., §§ 42, 43. See Dr. Pusey's Note G on

Fathers for the most part teach that baptism administered by heretics is invalid, even though the right formula be used; but they also hold that the Church can, by a high exercise of its authority, validate that which of itself would be invalid. This seems to be the view of the Eastern Church up to the present time.1 However, our business is with the controversy between S. Cyprian and Pope Stephen. The question had been discussed for more than a year in Africa before it was brought to the knowledge of Stephen. But in A.D. 256 a council was held at Carthage, at which seventy-one bishops were present. S. Cyprian presided; and in the name of the council he wrote to Stephen, reporting the decision at which the assembled bishops had arrived. He informs the pope that the council had determined that those "who have been baptized without the Church, and have among heretics and schismatics been tainted by the defilement of profane water, when they come . . . to the Church . . . ought to be baptized;" and he concludes his letter thus: "These things, dearest brother, by reason of the office which we share and our single-hearted affection, we have brought to thy knowledge, believing that what is alike religious and true will, according to the truth of thy religion and faith, be approved by thee also." We must observe that S. Cyprian hardly seems to realize that he is writing to one on whom had "been divinely conferred the gift of never-failing truth and faith," as was the case if the Vatican decrees are true. He does not submit the decision of his province to the pope's infallible correction. He tells his correspondent that the African decision is "alike religious and true," and he expresses his belief that, as the pope is also a religious man, he will agree with what has been decided. No doubt he had a shrewd suspicion that the pope would disagree, and he therefore adds, "But we know that some will not lay aside what they have once imbibed, nor easily change their resolves, but, without interruption to the bonds of peace and concord with their colleagues, retain certain peculiarities which have once grown into usage among themselves." 4 He then proceeds to add that he does not propose to enforce the African view Tertullian (Lib. Fath. tr., pp. 286, 287), and Dr. Bright's Notes on the Canons of the First Four General Councils, pp. 67, 68 (Nicaea, xix.), and compare the authorities mentioned in the Additional Note 26 on p. 453. On the whole subject see The Minister of Baptism, by the Rev. W. Elwin, a very learned and thorough book; but Mr. Elwin hardly does justice, as it seems to me, to the strength of the argument in favour of the validity of heretical baptism.

See Elwin, pp. 80, 86, 132, 267, 268; compare Gore's Church and the Ministry (1st edit., p. 194, n. 2).

Ep. lxxii. ad Stephanum, Opp., ii. 775-778.

⚫ Collectio Lacensis, vii. 486, 487.

See Additional Note 27, p. 454.

by cutting off the pope from his communion if he disagrees; he considers that this is a matter in which the two views may co-exist side by side in the Church. His words are: "In this matter we neither do violence nor give the law to any one, since each bishop hath, in the administration of the Church, his own choice and will free, hereafter to give an account of his conduct to the Lord. We bid you, dearest brother, ever heartily farewell." How is it possible to suppose that S. Cyprian could have written in this strain, if he had believed the pope to be the infallible monarch of the Church? His words breathe throughout the spirit of brotherly equality.

To this letter Pope Stephen wrote a harsh reply, which unfortunately has not been preserved, although small fragments of it may be found embedded in the letters of S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian. S. Cyprian, when referring to it, speaks of the "proud," "impertinent," "inconsistent remarks." which Stephen had written "rashly and improvidently." He refers to the bursting forth of "the harsh obstinacy of our brother Stephen." He asks, "Does he [Stephen] give honour to God, who, the friend of heretics and the enemy of Christians, deems the priests of God, maintaining the truth of Christ and the unity of the Church, worthy of excommunication?"1 It is evident from these words that the pope had threatened to excommunicate the African Church if the bishops of that church continued to maintain their practice in regard to the rebaptism of heretics. Stephen was therefore attempting to issue a command, and to enforce it by every weapon that he had at his disposal. If it be indeed true, as the Vatican Council teaches, that "all the pastors and all the faithful . are bound to the authority of the pope by the obligation of true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in things pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world," now was the time for S. Cyprian and the African bishops to show that they realized their obligation. What actually happened was this: S. Cyprian convoked another council, at which eightyfive bishops were present. At its first meeting, in his

Ep. Ixxiv. ad Pompeium contra epistolam Stephani, Opp., ii. 799–805. S. Augustine was referring to S. Cyprian's indignant remarks about Stephen in this letter to Pompeius, when he said (De Bapt., v. 25, Opp., ed. Ben., ix. 158), "I will not review what he poured out against Stephen under irritation, because there is no need to do so." S. Augustine, who was arguing against the Donatists, had been reviewing the principal points in this letter of S. Cyprian, but the latter's personal remarks about Stephen had no bearing on S. Augustine's controversy with the Donatists, though they have a bearing on our controversy with Rome. S. Augustine adds that "although S. Cyprian was somewhat moved by his indignation, yet it was in a brotherly way" (quamvis commotius, sed tamen fraterne indignaretur).

2 See p. 4.

See Additional Note 28, p. 454.