2

opening speech, he said, "It remains for us each to deliver our sentiments on this matter, judging no one, nor removing any one, if he be of a different opinion, from the right of communion. For no one of us sets himself up to be a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror compels his colleagues to the necessity of obedience, since every bishop, according to the absolute independence of his liberty and power,1 possesses a free choice, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all await the judgement of our Lord Jesus Christ, who singly and alone has the power both of setting us up in the government of His Church, and of judging our proceedings." Obviously, when S. Cyprian says, "No one of us sets himself up to be a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror compels his colleagues to the necessity of obedience," he is alluding to St. Stephen's haughty attitude and to his threats of excommunication. So plain is the reference, that even Cardinal Baronius admits it. But if the pope be by divine appointment all that the Vatican Council has declared him to be, what words could be too strong to denounce S. Cyprian's attitude towards Stephen? On that hypothesis he was an insolent rebel; and his eighty-four colleagues, who made no protest, were sharers in his sin. Now, it so happens that S. Augustine has quoted these very words of S. Cyprian, and it is interesting to observe the impression which they made on him. Does he reprobate them as being rebellious? or does he try and excuse them by some charitable interpretation only half concealing his disapproval? He does neither of these things. He expresses his unqualified admiration. He says, He says, "Quid mansuetius?

"Pro licentia libertatis et potestatis suae." On the meaning of the word licentia, as an attribute of the episcopal authority, see Bishop Sage's Vindication of the Principles of the Cyprianic Age, chap. v., sections xl.-xliv. (Works, vol. iii. PP. 244-250, edit. 1846). It should be observed that "S. Cyprian uses the singular throughout. No one can judge or be judged by any other one. He does not say, no one can be judged by all, as though he were independent of the college collectively as well as individually, but the only One (unus et solus) who can judge a bishop is Christ Himself" (see an article on Jurisdiction, by John Walter Lea, Union Review for 1866, p. 363, n.).

2 Sententiae Episcoporum, Opp., i. 435, 436.

Cf. Baron. Annall., s.a. 258, § 42, ed. Antverp., 1617, ii. 521. In his own Italian province the pope was practically a bishop of bishops, as his brother of Alexandria was in Egypt and Libya (see note on p. 14). There is, however, no reason to suppose that either of these prelates ever called himself by that proud title. Tertullian, after he had become a rigid Montanist, applied the title "bishop of bishops" in bitter irony to Callistus (A.D. 217-222), who had been modifying the antique rigour of the penitential discipline of the Roman and of the Italian churches (see Tertull., De Pudicit., cap. i., and compare S. Hippol. Philosophum., ix. 7). S. Cyprian implies that Stephen, by his arrogant threats, "constituted himself (se constituit) a bishop of bishops" outside his own province. But the Africans would not give place in the least degree to these threats, or to the baseless claim which, either consciously or unconsciously, was implied in them.

S. Aug., De Bapt., lib. iii. cap 3 (Opp., ed. Ben., 1688, tom. ix. col. 110).

F

quid humilius ?" "What can be more gentle? What more humble?" What fills him with admiration is that S. Cyprian1 does not retort on Stephen the threats of anathema which the latter had so lavishly poured forth. S. Augustine quotes S. Cyprian's words again further on, and he there remarks that they prove that S. Cyprian's "soul was peace-making and overflowing with the milk of charity." 8 S. Augustine makes these laudatory remarks because he is absolutely unconscious of any taint of rebellion or of impropriety in S. Cyprian's attitude when he uttered these words. S. Augustine equally with S. Cyprian accepted the Catholic system of Church government, and knew nothing of the theories which the Vatican Council afterwards formulated and imposed under pain of anathema. S. Cyprian's words produced the same impression on him as they do on us, because his view and our view, in regard to the government of the Church, are substantially the same; whereas his view and the Ultramontane view are separated by an impassable gulf. S. Augustine's favourable judgement of S. Cyprian's general attitude is the more remarkable, because on the particular point in dispute he agreed absolutely with Stephen, and was therefore in disagreement with S. Cyprian. But he agreed with Stephen, not because he thought that Stephen was infallible, but because he considered that the doctrine and practice which Stephen maintained had been afterwards accepted by the Church. He never once suggests that S. Cyprian was wrong in having held to his own opinion in defiance of the pope's definition. He says that "without doubt holy Cyprian would have yielded, if the truth of this question had been thoroughly sifted, and declared, and established by a plenary council."4 But why should Cyprian need to wait for a plenary council, when the infallible pope had spoken, and had threatened to excommunicate those who differed from him? The answer, of course, is that nobody dreamed that obedience was due to the pope. Assuredly the eighty-five bishops who sat in council at Carthage took his view. They unanimously upheld the invalidity of heretical baptism, and repudiated the

'S. Jerome also dwells on the fact that S. Cyprian had put forth his views on the rebaptizing of heretics, without anathematizing those who disagreed with him; and he specially quotes S. Cyprian's letters to Stephen and Jubaianus, to show that he did not propose to enforce his views either on the pope or on other bishops, by separating them from his communion (cf. Dial. adv. Luciff., 25, P.L., xxiii. 179, 180).

2 Cf. S. Aug., De Bapt., v. 25, Opp., lx. 158. See Additional Note 29, p. 458. Ibid., vi. 6, Opp., tom. ix. col. 164.

Ibid., ii. 4, Opp., tom. ix. col. 98.

Archbishop Benson says (Smith and Wace, D.C.B., i. 755), "Cyprian is totally unconscious of any claims made by the [Roman] see, and resists Stephen purely as an arrogant individual.”

view put forth by Stephen, disregarding his threat of excommunication.

8

S.

Having come to this decision, the council sent certain bishops1 of their number as legates to the pope, to announce to him what they had decided. When these legates reached Rome, Stephen "would not admit them even to the common intercourse of speech;" and "he commanded the whole brotherhood, that no one should admit them into his house; so that not only peace and communion, but shelter and hospitality were denied them." These facts we learn from S. Firmilian's letter to S. Cyprian; a letter written in Greek, but translated into Latin in part by S. Cyprian, and published under his authority, and forming part of the Cyprianic correspondence, which happily still remains. Firmilian also tells us that Stephen carried out what he had threatened, and cut off the Church of North Africa from his communion. Moreover, the pope had shortly before excommunicated the Churches of Cappadocia, Cilicia, Galatia, and the neighbouring provinces, because they, like the Church of North Africa, were accustomed to re-baptize heretics.6 The excommunication of the Easterns is mentioned not only by S. Firmilian, but also by S. Denys the Great of Alexandria,' who, though agreeing with Stephen on the disputed question of heretical baptism, strongly disapproved of the high-handed way in which he was trying to enforce his views. The excommunication of the Africans is not only distinctly mentioned by S. Firmilian, but is implied in the way in which the pope treated the African bishops who came to Rome as legates from the Carthaginian council.8 It must have been after

"Legatos episcopos" (Ep. S. Firmil., inter Cyprianicas lxxv., § 25, Opp., ii. 826). Ep. S. Firmil., ut supra.

3 Loc. cit.

• Bossuet (Gallia Orthodoxa, cap. lxx.) says, "Consensit ei [sc. Firmiliano] Cyprianus, ejusque epistolam Latinam fecit, et ad ecclesias edidit." Compare Tillemont, iv. 158. The Bollandist Father Bossue (Acta SS., tom. xii. Octobr., p. 491), after mentioning that Rigault and Dom Maran were of opinion that S. Firmilian's letter was translated into Latin by S. Cyprian, says, "Similiter sentiunt Tillemontius aliique passim." Compare Archbishop Benson's note x., in Smith and Wace, D.C.B., i. 751; and see Additional Note 30, p. 458.

"Te a tot gregibus scidisti. Excidisti enim te ipsum.' Quid enim humilius aut lenius quam cum tot episcopis per totum mundum dissensisse, pacem cum singulis vario discordiæ genere rumpentem, modo cum Orientalibus modo vobiscum, qui in meridie estis" (Ep. S. Firmil., inter Cyprianicas Ixxv., §§ 24, 25, Opp., ii. 825, 826).

• See Additional Note 31, p. 458.

? Euseb., H. E., vii. 7. To avoid confusion between S. Dionysius the Great of Alexandria and his contemporary, S. Dionysius of Rome, I use the English form, Denys, when speaking of the Alexandrine saint.

8

According to primitive practice, even ordinary Christian laymen, when travelling, if they brought letters of communion from their own bishop, were received in hospitality, and diligently cared for, as well-known and dear friends

Stephen had separated S. Cyprian from his communion1 that the latter sent a letter to S. Firmilian of Caesarea. This prelate was himself a saint, and was the friend of saints. S. Denys the Great speaks of him as one of the most illustrious bishops of his time.2 He was closely united in. brotherly love with S. Gregory the Wonder-worker. The great Council of Antioch, which condemned Paul of Samosata, and which was held shortly after the deaths of S. Denys and of S. Firmilian, couples them together, describing them as "men of blessed memory" (Toùç μaкapíraç). S. Basil quotes S. Firmilian as an authority on doctrine. S. Gregory of Nyssa, preaching a panegyric on S. Gregory the Wonder-worker, compares the virtue of S. Firmilian to the virtue of S. Gregory. The Church has been accustomed to celebrate his festival on the 28th of October. Even Cardinal Baronius, who for very obvious reasons excluded his name from the Roman Martyrology, is obliged to admit that "scarcely any of his contemporaries appeared to surpass him in learning and sanctity." 5 It was natural that the glorious S. Cyprian, when in trouble, should write to his brother saint of Cappadocia. I have already referred to S. Firmilian's reply; but it will be well to make one or two quotations from it, as illustrating the view which great saints of the third century took of Stephen's action. S. Firmilian says that, though in past times there has been in different provinces much variety in the way in which the sacramental ordinances have been celebrated, yet hitherto there had not been on that account any "departure from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church. This Stephen has now dared to make, breaking the peace with you [Cyprian], which his predecessors ever maintained with you in mutual affection

(cf. Sozom., v. 16). This was the contesseratio hospitalitatis spoken of by Tertullian as a mark of communion between different churches (De Praescript. haeret., xx.). When the pope forbade hospitality to be shown to the bishops sent as legates by the North African Church, he was manifesting in the most public fashion that the Roman see had completely separated herself from the communion of that church. Tillemont (iv. 155) rightly says, "Cette action paroist une rupture entière." The whole of Tillemont's 49th article on S. Cyprian should be

studied.

1 For further proof that Stephen not merely wrote threats, but actually separated S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian from his communion, see Appendix A, pp. 72-77.

Euseb., H. E., vii. 5.

"Le plus celebre Concile qui ait été tenu dans l'Église avant celui de Nicée " (Tillemont, iv. 308). Cardinal Newman, in an article which appeared in the Atlantis in July, 1858, and which its author republished in 1871, as note iv., appended to the third edition of the History of the Arians (p. 443), speaks of the Fathers of this council as being "bishops of the highest authority."

Tillemont, loc. cit.

Baron. Annall., s.a. 258, § 47. See also Duchesne (Origines Chrétiennes,

P. 437).

and respect."1 From another passage we learn that Stephen had laid stress on the fact that he was the successor of S. Peter in S. Peter's own chair. Firmilian says, "I am justly indignant at such open and manifest folly in Stephen, that he who so boasts of the seat of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, introduces many other rocks, and buildeth anew many churches. . . ." "Stephen, who proclaims that he occupies by succession the chair of Peter, is roused by no zeal against heretics." 2 Further on S. Firmilian apostrophizes Stephen indignantly. He says, "What strifes and dissensions hast thou stirred up through the churches of the whole world! And how great a sin hast thou heaped up against thyself, when thou didst cut thyself off from so many flocks! For thou didst cut thyself off; deceive not thyself; for he is truly the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of the unity of the Church. For while thou thinkest that all may be excommunicated by thee, thou hast excommunicated thyself alone from all. . . ." "This is to have kept the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, to cut himself off from the unity of charity, and in all things to make himself an alien to the brethren, and with the fury of contumacious discord to rebel against the sacrament and the faith!"4 These are doubtless strong words. They are the fervent utterances of a saint indignant at the schismatic course which was being taken by the bishop of the first see in the Church. Stephen had no right to complain. He had dared to call the blessed S. Cyprian a "false Christ," a "false apostle," a "deceitful worker," and it was quite time that the prelates of the Church should speak out in no faltering terms of his arrogant attitude and action. This task S. Firmilian undertook; and we may be sure that S. Cyprian approved, because there can be no doubt that he edited the Latin translation of S. Firmilian's letter, and authorized its Ep. S. Firmil., inter Cyprianicas lxxv., § 6, Opp., ii. 813.

5

2 Ep. cit., § 17, p. 821.

Ibid., § 24, p. 825.

Ibid., § 25, p. 826.

5 Dom Maran, the Benedictine editor of S. Cyprian's works, rightly says that "the love of unity breathes through the whole of Firmilian's Epistle" (Vit. S. Cypr., cap. xxxii., Opp. S. Cypr., ed. Ben., col. cxx.). Baluze makes a similar observation (Opp., S. Cypr. ed. Ben., p. 513).

S. Firmilian, in his letter to S. Cyprian, quotes these reviling words of Stephen (p. 827); Dom Maran points out that we have also S. Cyprian's own witness that the words were actually used by Stephen, because Cyprian “translated Firmilian's epistle into Latin, or at least authorized its publication" (Vita S. Cypr., cap. xxx., Opp. S. Cypr., ed. Ben., col. cxii.). It is obvious that Stephen would never have used, in a public document, such words about a great prelate like the Bishop of Carthage, if he had been still in communion with him.