has been preserved by Eusebius. In that letter S. Denys, speaking of Stephen, says, "Indeed, he had previously (póτepov) written concerning Helenus [of Tarsus] and concerning Firmilian, and concerning all [the bishops] of Cilicia and Cappadocia and Galatia, and of all the neighbouring nations, saying that he would not communicate with them either (ŵs ovdè èkelvois kowvwvhσwv), for this same cause, namely, that they rebaptize heretics."1 S. Denys, in his letter, so far as it has been preserved to us, deals entirely with Stephen's relations with the Eastern bishops, and says nothing of his relations with the Church of North Africa ; but Mansi points out that if the pope excommunicated the Easterns he must have excommunicated also the Africans, since the latter entirely agreed with the former in their teaching and practice. Thus the witness of S. Denys corroborates the witness of S. Firmilian and of S. Cyprian. Here we have a threefold cord, which will not easily be broken by any amount of a priori Ultramontane reasoning. When it is once admitted that three contemporary writers of such high character, and of such esteem in the Church, as the three saints mentioned above, agree in their witness that an excommunication was not merely threatened but also pronounced and promulgated, and when it is also admitted that there is no shred of contemporary evidence on the other side, the discussion might fairly be brought to an end; but Natalis Alexander and others lay stress on the fact that S. Augustine, writing a century and a half later, seems to have thought that the estrangement between Rome and Carthage never amounted to a breach of communion. It is true that Tillemont does not so understand S. 1 Euseb. H. E., vii. 5. I have appended the original Greek of S. Denys' summary of the operative part of Stephen's letter, the English translation of which is italicized in the text. Mansi rightly translates these words as follows: "quod neque cum illis communicare vellet ;" and Baronius renders the passage in the same way. I mention this, because De Valois has seriously altered the sense by translating S. Denys' words thus: "sese ab illorum communione discessurum." There is a difference between announcing that in the future you will not communicate with certain people, and announcing that in the future you will separate from their communion. The first formula implies that separation has already been effected, or is being effected by the document in which the formula occurs. The second formula threatens a separation in the future. S. Denys represents Stephen as having effected the separation, and not as having merely threatened it. See Additional Note 35, p. 462. See Additional Note 36, p. 462. On this point Natalis Alexander would have agreed with Mansi. His words are express: "Una erat causa Firmiliani et Cypriani; . . non est igitur verisimile quod Firmilianum communione privaverit Stephanus cum Orientalibus suis, et Cyprianum cum Africanis pace et communione frui permiserit" (Hist. Eccl., ed. 1786, tom. vi. p. 218). The objection might be raised that, if Eusebius had supposed that Stephen had actually excommunicated the Easterns, he would have given an exact account of how the breach was healed. If Eusebius had lived some centuries later, when a papal excommunication was the direst thing that could happen to any Christian community, he would no doubt have done so; but Eusebius would not think of the matter quite in that light. In H. E., v. 24, he gives an account of the excommunication of the Asians by Pope Victor, and he describes S. Irenaeus' mediation, as here he describes S. Denys' peace-making efforts, but neither there does he make mention of the close of the dispute. Cf. S. Aug., De Baptismo contra Donat., v. 25, Opp., ed. Ben., 1688, ix. 158, et De unic. Bapt. contra Petil., cap. xiv., Opp., ix. 538. Augustine. He thinks that S. Augustine admits that the pope withdrew his communion from S. Cyprian, but he supposes that S. Augustine holds that, as S. Cyprian did not retort on the pope by a counter-excommunication, but remained united to him by the bond of charity, the breach was not complete.1 Out of respect for the great name of S. Augustine, I will consider whether his view of the matter can really avail to counterbalance the evidence of the three contemporary saints, whose witness has been discussed above; and for the sake of conciseness I will take no account of Tillemont's explanation of S. Augustine's meaning, and I will assume that the latter really supposed that Stephen never withdrew his communion from S. Cyprian and from the other African bishops. On that view of the case, I have no hesitation in saying that S. Augustine's representation of the matter cannot possibly avail to counterbalance the direct testimony of S. Firmilian and S. Cyprian, confirmed as it is by the corroborative evidence of S. Denys; for there is every reason to believe that S. Augustine had not got the full evidence before him. The contemporary evidence of the excommunication of S. Cyprian, which has come down to us, is primarily contained in S. Firmilian's letter, which evidently re-echoed S. Cyprian's own dispatches, and for the translation and publication of which S. Cyprian was responsible. But that letter was not in the collection of the Cyprianic correspondence on the subject of the rebaptizing of heretics, which was in the hands of S. Augustine. The collecting of S. Cyprian's letters was a work of time. We now possess seven letters, either written by or to S. Cyprian on the question of rebaptism; but S. Augustine had only five of these in his collection. In his controversy with the Donatists he was obliged to go most minutely into the arguments about baptism contained in the Cyprianic documents. He discusses them clause by clause. He actually takes the trouble to reply separately to each of the eighty-six speeches made by the eighty-five bishops who sat in the great Council of Carthage,3 over which Cyprian presided, and which was the last of the Cyprianic councils on rebaptism. So it comes to pass that we know exactly what documents S. Augustine possessed, and what were missing; and we find that he never refers either to the synodical letter 5 written to Stephen by S. Cyprian in the name of the second of the three councils on rebaptism, or to the letter addressed to S. Cyprian by S. Firmilian.7 1 Tillemont, iv. 150, 151. 2 S. Aug., De Baptismo contra Donatistas, libb. ii., iii., iv., v. 4 Op. cit., libb. vi., vii. 5 S. Cypr. Ep. lxxii., Opp., ii. 775. 6 Ep. inter Cyprianicas Ixxv., Opp., ii. 812. 'S. Augustine's words, in his refutation of the speech of Crescens of Cirta (De Bapt. contra Donat., vi. 15, Opp., ed. Ben., 1688, ix. 171), show clearly that S. Cyprian's synodical letter to Stephen, which had been known to Crescens, was not known to him. Compare Mr. C. H. Turner's Note appended to Dr. Sanday's Essay on the Cheltenham List (Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, iii. 324, 325). In his third book against Cresconius (Opp., ed. Ben., 1688, ix. 435), S. Augustine implies that Cresconius had referred to "the letter of certain Orientals," as witnessing to their approval of S. Cyprian's doctrine about rebaptism. He quotes in the second chapter some words from Cresconius, which seem to me to imply that this letter was a synodical epistle expressing the formal assent of some 1 S. Augustine was quite aware that documents existed bearing on the controversy about baptism in the time of S. Cyprian, which had not come into his hands. He says in one place, "Not all the things which were transacted among the bishops at that time were committed to memory and to writing, and not all the things which were so committed have come to my knowledge." It is clear from all this that the whole evidence, as we now possess it, was not before S. Augustine; and in point of fact the last of the Cyprianic documents of which he had knowledge was the summarized report of the proceedings at the final council on rebaptism. But that council preceded the excommunication; and it is therefore no matter for wonder that S. Augustine was unaware of the fact that a complete rupture finally took place. To put the whole matter briefly. The principal evidence for the excommunication is to be found in S. Firmilian's letter. That letter was not known to S. Augustine. It is perfectly clear from that letter that both S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian were excommunicated. We thus know of their excommunication from themselves. It seems unreasonable to set aside the best possible contemporary evidence in deference to certain dicta of S. Augustine, who lived a century and a half later, and had never seen the document which constitutes the principal proof. It is plain that the objections raised by Natalis Alexander have no real solidity. I submit that the excommunication of S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian and their colleagues by Pope Stephen must be accepted as historically true.3 APPENDIX B. Concerning passages from S. Cyprian's works, which are quoted by Ultramontanes in support of their contention that S. Cyprian held the papal theory (see p. 72). S. CYPRIAN'S witness in favour of the Catholic system of Church government and against the papal theory is consistently maintained throughout his acts and writings. But the Ultramontane divines Eastern synod to the conclusions of the third Carthaginian Council on rebaptism. I doubt if S. Augustine had seen the letter; and the fact that it was written, not by one man, but by several, seems to me to be a proof positive that it was not the letter of S. Firmilian, with which we are acquainted. Tillemont (iv. 158) gives further reasons for concluding that S. Augustine had never seen S. Firmilian's letter to S. Cyprian. 1 De Bapt. contr. Donat., ii. 4, Opp., ix. 98. 2 Tillemont, iv. 155; and compare the Acta SS., tom. iv. Septembr., pp. 305, 306, where Father Suyskens, S.J., the author of the Bollandist Life of S. Cyprian, replies to Dom Maran's arguments, and shows that the African legates, who were rejected by Stephen, were sent by the third council on rebaptism, and not by the second. Professor Jungmann (Dissertationes Selectae in Hist. Eccl., tom. i. p. 331) takes the same view as Suyskens; and Hefele, who in his first edition had followed Maran, changed his mind, and in his second edition supports the view which I have taken in the text (see Hefele, vol. v. P. 434, Eng. trans.). See also the Additional Note 37, p. 463. See Additional Note 38, p. 463. naturally do what they can to discover passages which may seem to qualify the crushing force of his testimony against the later claims of Rome. Without attempting to exhaust the subject, I will take the passages from the Cyprianic documents which are quoted by Father Bottalla as supporting his views (Supreme Authority of the Pope, pp. 10-13), and will point out how consistent they are with S. Cyprian's general teaching in regard to the organization of the Church. Father Bottalla says, "The Fathers and all Christian antiquity acknowledge the closest connexion between the unity of the Church as represented by Christ, and the headship of one universal pastor." In proof of this statement Father Bottalla quotes S. Cyprian's letter to Magnus (Ep. lxix. § 5, Opp., ii. 753). S. Cyprian there says, "Wherefore the Lord, intimating to us a unity that cometh from a divine original, declareth and saith, 'I and the Father are one.' To which unity reducing His Church, He further saith, 'And there shall be one flock and one shepherd."" 939 1 S. Cyprian is quoting two passages from the tenth chapter of S. John's Gospel. The words of the second passage, as they were spoken by our Lord, referred to the one flock of the Catholic Church, consisting of Jews and Gentiles, under Himself the one Shepherd. S. Cyprian, however, in his application of the passage, somewhat varies from the original meaning. He is showing that each local church forms an organized unity under one head, the bishop. This is a very favourite subject with S. Cyprian. Magnus had asked him whether Novatians, on their conversion to the Church, ought to be rebaptized. S. Cyprian says, Yes, "for the Church is one, and, being one, cannot be both within and without. For if it was with Novatian, it was not with Cornelius. But if it was with Cornelius, who by a legitimate ordination succeeded the Bishop Fabian, . . . Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be accounted a bishop, who, despising the evangelic and apostolic tradition, succeeding to nobody, has sprung from himself." The Novatian schism arose out of a dispute in the local Church of Rome. Two bishops, Cornelius and Novatian, claimed each of them to be the legitimate Bishop of Rome. It was not a question of the rights of the pope as against the rights of some other bishop or bishops. The question was, Which of two claimants is the rightful Bishop of Rome? S. Cyprian held that S. Cornelius was undoubtedly the true bishop. He had been consecrated first, and his election and consecration had been carried out in a thoroughly canonical and orderly way. He was the true successor to the previous bishop, Fabian. Afterwards Novatian was consecrated in an entirely uncanonical manner, when the see was no longer vacant. Novatian succeeded to nobody. It will now be evident that when S. Cyprian quotes our Lord's words, "There shall be one flock and one shepherd," he is referring to the local church at Rome, as it was when the Novatian schism began, and he is showing that the Roman flock had already its one shepherd, Cornelius, and that con ... 1 I give my own translation in the text. The Latin runs as follows: "Idcirco Dominus insinuans nobis unitatem de divinâ auctoritate venientem ponit et dicit: Ego et Pater unum sumus. Ad quam unitatem redigens ecclesiam suam denuo dicit: Et erit unus grex et unus pastor." sequently Novatian was a schismatical intruder, and that those who communicated with him shared in his guilt, and that those whom they baptized, according to S. Cyprian's notion, ought on their conversion to the Church to be rebaptized. There is not a single word in the whole epistle which deals with "the headship of one universal pastor" over the whole Catholic Church of Christ. So far from that being the case, the letter was written by S. Cyprian in the course of the controversy about rebaptism, which culminated in his excommunication by Stephen; and the whole letter is intended to prove to Magnus that the theories about the validity of schismatic baptism, which were favoured at Rome, were altogether wrong. Father Bottalla is unfortunate in his first Cyprianic quotation. Let us pass on to his second proof. He says, "The same doctrine was inculcated by those confessors of Christ who returned from the Novatian schism to the unity of the Church." These confessors were members of the local Roman church, who had been imprisoned for the faith after the martyrdom of Pope S. Fabian in January, 250. For a whole year they witnessed a good confession for Jesus Christ. However, in the year 251 some of them were beguiled into giving their support to the party of Novatian, who was commencing his schism at Rome. S. Denys of Alexandria and S. Cyprian wrote letters of remonstrance to them, and finally they were led to see their mistake, and to sue for readmission into the Church. On their readmission, they confessed their error and made a profession of allegiance to S. Cornelius, as being their legitimate bishop. The whole dispute turned on the question, Who is the rightful Bishop of Rome? Both Cornelius and Novatian claimed to be the Bishop of the Catholic Church at Rome, and each one accused his rival of being the head of a schismatic body. The confessors' profession on their readmission was as follows: "We acknowledge that Cornelius is Bishop of the most holy Catholic Church [in this city], chosen by God Almighty and Christ our Lord. We confess our error; we have suffered from imposture. We were circumvented by crafty and perfidious speeches. For although we seemed, as it were, to have held a kind of communion with a schismatic and heretic, yet our mind was ever sincere in the Church. For we are not ignorant that there is one God, one Christ the Lord, Whom we confessed, one Holy Ghost, and that there ought to be one bishop in a Catholic church." "1 I have added in brackets the words "in this city," which express the true meaning. I see that Tillemont does the same. He says (iii. 460), "S. Cornelius reports word for word the act by which the confessors recognized him as the sole bishop of the Catholic Church [in Rome]." The confessors call the body adhering to Cornelius "the most holy Catholic Church," in contrast with the schismatic body adhering to Novatian. Father Bottalla tells us that "the name of Catholic Church is applied" in this passage "to the Church of Rome exclusively that is, to S. Peter's chair-on account of its being the centre, the root, the source, and the matrix of Catholic unity." But such an interpretation is obviously very far-fetched. The relation of the 1 1 Ep. Cornelii ad Cypr. inter Cyprianicas xlix. § 2, Opp., ii. 611. |