publication, that it might edify and instruct the Western portion of the Church.1

Shortly afterwards, under the Emperor Valerian, the persecution broke out afresh, and Stephen is said to have died a martyr's death. If he did so die, we may hope that he purged away in that second baptism whatever was amiss in his life. The dispute about baptism still went on in the time of his successor, S. Xystus; but Xystus was "a good and peace-making bishop," and he seems to have undone the harsh acts of his predecessor, and thus to have brought back the Roman Church into full unity with the churches of the East and of the South.5 As it was in the Paschal

1 See note 4 on p. 67.

4

8

2 The Roman Church invokes him as a saint. But it must be observed that Bishop Pearson throws doubt on the alleged martyrdom of Stephen. He says (Annal. Cypr., s.a. 257, § v., p. 60), "Pontii tamen verba praetereunda non sunt: 'Jam de Xysto bono et pacifico sacerdote, ac propterea beatissimo martyre, ab urbe nuntius venerat,' quibus Stephanum videtur perstringere, eumque negare, aut omnino martyrium subiisse, aut si subierit, verum et beatum martyrem fuisse." Mgr. Duchesne evidently takes the same view as Pearson. He says (Liber Pontificalis, p. 154, note 1), "Il semble donc que l'ancienne tradition liturgique, antérieure à la Passio Stephani ait été muette sur son martyre. Et ceci s'explique d'autant mieux que Saint Augustin ne parait en avoir rien su (vide Tillemont, Hist. Eccl., iv. 594), et que le diacre Pontius, biographe de S. Cyprien, se sert en parlant de Xystus II., d'une expression qui semble exclure le martyre de son prédécesseur (c. 14, p. cv., Hartel)." Compare also Lib. Pont., p. xcvii., and Origines Chrétiennes, p. 438, n. 3. See Additional Note 32, p. 459.

This is clear from the letters of S. Denys the Great, parts of which are preserved by Eusebius (H. E., vii. 5, 7, 9).

"Bonus et pacificus sacerdos." As has been already pointed out, they are the words which are used concerning Xystus by S. Cyprian's deacon and biographer, S. Pontius (Vita S. Cypr. per Pont. Diac., § 14, ap. Opp. S. Cypr., iii. cv.).

There is clear proof that S. Dionysius, the successor of S. Xystus, was in full communion with S. Firmilian (cf. S. Basil. Ep. lxx. ad Damasum, Ópp., ed. Ben., 1730, iii. 164). I am inclined to think that "the good and peace-making Xystus may have annulled the acts of his predecessor, or, at any rate, may have receded from them, in consequence of the letters of S. Denys of Alexandria (cf. Tillemont, iv. 160, 161). S. Denys wrote first to Stephen on the very grave difficulties which would arise out of his harsh action, and "entreated him" to follow a gentler course; but on Stephen he seems to have produced no effect. If Stephen had yielded, the controversy would have come to an end. S. Denys then wrote twice to two Roman priests, namely, Dionysius, afterwards pope, and Philemon, and he seems to have led them to change their views, so that they were more inclined to peace. Speaking of the way in which Stephen had thrown the churches of Asia Minor "into strife and contention," he says in one of his letters of Philemon, "I cannot endure " it. Then he wrote two letters, still on the same subject, to Pope S. Xystus, in one of which he recounts his previous efforts on behalf of peace. We may well believe that the "peace-making" propensities of the 66 good" Xystus prompted him to accede to the entreaties of his brothersaint of Alexandria, and to recede from the separatist position which Stephen had taken up. There was a final letter on baptism addressed by S. Denys and the whole Church of Alexandria to S. Xystus and the whole Church of Rome. This may well have been a letter of congratulation on the restoration of peace to the Church. Eusebius implies that in this final letter the whole subject of the rebaptism of heretics and of the toleration of variations of discipline in connexion with that matter was reviewed at length. The preceding summary of S. Denys' action is based on Euseb. H. E., vii. 5, 7, 9.

controversy, so it was in the Baptismal controversy; it was Rome that was compelled to give way, as it was Rome that had advanced unjustifiable claims. Africa and Asia Minor retained their baptismal discipline unchanged,1 and had the joy of welcoming back the Roman Church after its wanderings into the straight path of Catholic peace and charity. This happened before the martyrdom of S. Cyprian.

Perhaps it was to make some atonement for the outrageous way in which he had been treated by Stephen, that the Roman Church has paid such special honour to S. Cyprian ever since his glorious death. His name is apparently the name of the only man, neither martyred at Rome nor belonging to the local Church of Rome, which finds a place in the canon of the Mass, as used to this day in the Roman Church. It seems to me probable that his name was inserted in the canon by Pope S. Dionysius, the successor of S. Xystus. This latter died five or six weeks before S. Cyprian, and S. Dionysius was consecrated to the Roman see a few months after S. Cyprian's martyrdom, that see having remained vacant during the interval; so that, if S. Cyprian's name was inserted at the time when his death was still fresh in the minds of all Catholics, the insertion would have taken place by S. Dionysius' authority. It is interesting to notice that S. Denys the Great speaks in one of his letters of his namesake of Rome, as having "formerly held the same opinion as Stephen "8 in regard to that pope's high-handed policy of excommunication. The words seem to imply that S. Dionysius had changed his mind, and had been led to favour a more Christian mode of action. Following up this clue, it is worthy of observation that S. Dionysius, during his pontificate, wrote to the Church of Caesarea in Cappadocia, while S. Firmilian was still its bishop, to console it for the sufferings inflicted on it by the barbarians. He even sent agents into Cappadocia to ransom Christians of S. Firmilian's diocese, who had been carried away into captivity. I like to think of this great pope making some reparation for the treatment which S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian had received at the hands of his predecessor Stephen.

On the whole, I submit that, whether we look at the

1 See Additional Note 33, p. 460.

2 The names of the apostles and of other saints mentioned in Holy Scripture must of course be excepted.

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

'S. Basil. Ep. lxx. ad Damasum, Opp., ed. Ben., 1730, iii. 164. S. Firmilian was Bishop of Caesarea during the whole of the pontificate of Dionysius, with the exception of the last two months. They both died in the year 268; S. Firmilian in October, and S. Dionysius in December. The news of S. Firmilian's death would hardly have reached Rome during the two months that remained of S. Dionysius' lifetime.

history of the Paschal controversy in the time of Pope Victor, or to the celebrated passage about the Roman Church in the great treatise of S. Irenaeus, or to the line of action which S. Cyprian pursued in his dealings with the popes of his day,1 we find that the witness of the first three centuries is entirely adverse to the papal theory set forth in the Vatican decrees, and that it bears out that view of the position of the Roman see which I attempted to sketch in my first lecture.

APPENDIX A.

The Excommunication of S. Cyprian (see p. 68).

SOME Roman Catholic writers have done their best to make out that Pope Stephen, in his dealings with S. Cyprian, never proceeded beyond threats of excommunication, and that no actual rupture took place. It is difficult to understand how such a view could ever have been seriously taken; but it is easy to see that Ultramontanes would naturally shrink from admitting that so illustrious a saint as Cyprian persisted in upholding the opinion concerning baptism which he had inherited from his predecessors, if the retaining of that opinion had resulted in his being separated from the communion of the Roman Church. If S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian were really excommunicated, and if they nevertheless refused to alter either the teaching or the practice condemned by Rome, then it is clear that neither of these saints nor their colleagues in Africa and Asia Minor could have considered that communion with the pope was an essential matter. It would follow from this conclusion that their witness would have to be reckoned as adverse to the truth of the Ultramontane theory concerning the papacy. Having thus pointed out the importance of the question, I proceed to discuss it.

I have quoted in my second lecture the clear statements of S. Firmilian on the subject of the excommunication, but it will be worth while to repeat them in this place. Writing to S. Cyprian, after mentioning the fact that there had been in various matters a diversity of practice in the different provinces of the Church, he says, “And yet there has not been on that account at any time 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

1 I have discussed certain passages in S. Cyprian's writings, which are quoted by Ultramontanes as if they favoured the papal claims, in Appendix B, with its Addendum, pp. 77-95, to which the reader is referred.

ever maintained with you in mutual affection and respect." And further on in the same letter S. Firmilian apostrophizes Stephen, and says, "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." Then he goes into particulars about the way in which Stephen had treated the bishops sent to Rome as envoys or legates by the synod of the North African Church; how Stephen "would not admit them even to the common intercourse of a conference," and how "he commanded the whole brotherhood that no one should receive them into his house; so that not only peace and communion, but shelter and hospitality, were denied them on their arrival."3 Yet in the face of all this, Dr. Rivington says, "There is no evidence that S. Cyprian was ever under excommunication." 4 It seems incredible that such a statement should be made. Evidence there clearly is, and more of the same kind might have been quoted. Later on Dr. Rivington reveals to us the theory by which he gets rid of the plain evidence of S. Firmilian. He says that, as the sentence, in which the statement concerning S. Cyprian's excommunication occurs, " contains a most exaggerated account of the situation, we may feel ourselves at liberty to regard this statement also as exaggerated." Apparently Dr. Rivington bases his accusation of exaggeration on the words in S. Firmilian's letter to S. Cyprian, in which the holy Bishop of Caesarea, rhetorically addressing Stephen, says, "While thou thinkest that all may be excommunicated by thee, thou hast excommunicated thyself alone from all." Concerning this sentence Dr. Rivington says, "Firmilian's assertion was, indeed, flagrantly false, for it is notorious that Stephen did not stand alone." 226 Assuredly Dr. Rivington's comment is a much more serious exaggeration than is the Saint's very innocent remark. Obviously S. Firmilian writes with the assurance that his correspondent, S. Cyprian, who knew all the facts, would interpret his words in a reasonable way. By the words "omnes" and "omnibus" S. Firmilian does not mean all the churches of Christendom, but all those many flocks (tot greges), probably a majority of all the Catholic churches then in existence, which had been excommunicated by Stephen. From all these flocks Stephen had cut himself off by an excommunication, which was apparently not the outcome of a synod, but his own personal act. We have no reason to suppose that any other bishops had approved his proceeding or had made themselves parties to it. We know that S. Denys of Alexandria, who agreed with him in regard to the main point in dispute, strongly disapproved of his harsh method of enforcing the view which they held in common. But even if, for the sake of argument, it were conceded that

5

1 Ep. S. Firmil., inter Cyprianicas lxxv., § 6, Opp., ii. 813.

2

Ep. cit., § 24, p. 825.

Authority, p. 103, 2nd ed.
Loc. cit.

8 See p. 70, n. 5.

3 lbid., § 25, p. 826.

5 Ibid., p. 105.
See Additional Note 34, p. 460.

the use of the words "omnes" and "solum" was a serious exaggeration, it would not follow that one could rightly treat as an exaggeration S. Firmilian's repeated statement that a breach of communion really took place, corroborated as that statement is by the details given in regard to the treatment of the legates, details which Firmilian must have learnt from S. Cyprian, and still further corroborated, as we shall see in the sequel, by the words of S. Denys, and by the share which S. Cyprian must have had in the translation and publication of S. Firmilian's letter. Anyhow, it is absurd to say that "there is no evidence that he [Stephen] ever proceeded to execute his threat." I am aware that other Roman Catholic writers have taken the same line as Dr. Rivington. The fact is that they are driven into a corner, and that the simplest way of escape is to deny the truth of the evidence, however well attested it may be. But, in justice to our brethren of the Roman communion, it must not be supposed that their best writers follow such a hopeless course. Such a course would be impossible to a historian like Tillemont; but I prefer to quote an authority from the south side of the Alps. I know of no greater name among Ultramontane historians of the last century than that of Archbishop Mansi of Lucca, best known by his great edition of the Councils.1 Mansi, in his animadversion on Natalis Alexander's dissertation concerning the subject which we are discussing, says, "So openly does Firmilian write to S. Cyprian that Pope Stephen broke the peace, and that he accordingly deprived them of his communion, that it seems that it cannot be doubted that he went beyond threats and at length pronounced sentence of excommunication against them." Mansi proceeds to quote S. Firmilian's words, and to show that they are decisive in favour of his position. Then he adds, "But the answer of Natalis appears to be altogether futile. He says that Firmilian has described a mere threat of excommunication in the same terms as if it had really been fulminated, because he took up his pen when he was somewhat angry with Stephen. I say again that such an answer appears to me to be altogether futile, because it would necessarily follow that Firmilian had forgotten all the rules of Christian behaviour and of honesty, if, in order that he might excite odium against Stephen, he had lied in so serious a matter. . . . And who, I ask, could conceive that, if Stephen had done no more than threaten, Firmilian would have compared him to the traitor Judas, and would have charged him with insolence, wickedness, and folly? Assuredly these are the words of one who is impatiently bearing a wound which he has received, and who is kindled with wrath against the man who has inflicted on him a deadly wound. . . . It is clear that Stephen broke the peace and refused communion, because he did not refrain from excommunicating Firmilian, Cyprian, and the others."3 Mansi goes on to quote the letter of S. Denys of Alexandria to Pope S. Xystus II., a fragment of which

The Jesuit professor of theology in the university of Innsbruck, Father Hurter, in his useful Nomenclator Literarius (iii. 101), speaking of Mansi, says, "De illo jam agemus, qui totâ hâc epochâ omnium fuit celeberrimus deque Ecclesiâ atque re literariâ optime meritus."

3 Animadvers. in Dissert. xii. Art. i., ap. Natal. Alexandr. Hist. Eccl., ed. 1786, Bing. ad Rhenum, tom. vi. pp. 222, 223.