| << | Contents | >> |
Cyprian
————————————
The epistles have already been elucidated as the best exposition of this treatise. Little need be added. But, to illustrate the bearings of this treatise upon the history of Christian unity, we need only refer to the manner in which the subject was treated as soon as the papacy was created by Nicholas I. Thus, he astounded the Greeks by his consummate audacity (a.d. 860) in the matter of the disputed succession in Constantinople.[4637] “It is our will,” he says, “that Ignatius should appear before our envoys,” etc. He declares it the rule of the Fathers, that, “without the consent of the Roman See and the Roman pontiff, nothing should be decided.” Also, he affirms, “The Creator of all things has established the Princedom of the Divine Power, which He granted to His chosen apostles. He has firmly established it on the firm faith of the Prince of the Apostles,—that is to say, Peter,—to whom he pre-eminently granted the first See,” etc. He was now speaking on the strength of the forged Decretals, to which he appeals, and which he succeeded in making law for the West. He thus created the lasting schism with the Easterns, who had never heard the like before his time.
Obviously, therefore, had Cyprian entertained such ideas, his treatise could never have been written; for it is a masterly exposition of a curious point, viz., the fact that (1) the Apostle Peter received the first grant alone, and yet (2) all the apostles received precisely the same; while (1) Peter had thus a primacy of honour, but (2) in no respect any power or authority over his brethren. On these admitted facts he constructs his theory of unity, expounding by it the actual state of the Church’s constitution. Peter’s memory he honours, but without any less reverence for all the apostolic Sees, which over and over again he maintains to be of equal authority and sanctity. That the Church was founded on Stephen any more than on the Bishop of Carthage, he never imagines; for it is one thing to allow that a bishop has succeeded an apostle at the place of his last labours, and quite another to assume that therefore such a bishop is virtually the apostle himself. Yet this assumption is the ground of all Roman doctrine on this point.[4638]
Had such been Cyprian’s idea, his Treatise on Unity must have proceeded thus: (1) “Our Lord said to Peter only, I will give unto thee the keys; (2) to the rest of the apostles He gave only an inferior and subject authority; (3) to the successor of Peter, therefore, at Rome, all otherbishops and churches must be subject; for (4) in this subjection the law of unity consists; and (5) if even all the other apostles were alive to this day, they would be subject to Stephen, as Prince of the Apostles, or would be rebels against Christ.”
Compare this treatise of Cyprian, then, with any authorized treatise on the subject proceeding from modern Rome, and it will be seen that the two systems are irreconcilable. Thus, in few words, says the Confession[4639] of Pius IV.: “I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church for the mother and mistress of all churches; and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ.” This is the voice of Italy in the ninth century; but Cyprian speaks for Œcumenical Christendom in the third, and the two systems are as contrary as darkness and light.
Cyprian is often innocently quoted by Romanist controvertists against the very principles of Cyprian himself, of his life and his writings. This is due to the fact that they have in their hands vitiated and interpolated copies. Thus, take a famous passage as follows:—
Cyprian.
Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum, Ego tibi dico Tu es Petrus, etc.(a)
Super unum(b) ædificat ecclesiam.
Hoc erant utique et cæteri apostoli quot fuit Petrus, qui consortio præditi et honoris et potestatis, sed exordium ab unitate proficisitur,(c) ut(d) Christi ecclesia(e) una monstretur.(f)
Qui Ecclesiæ resistitur et resistit,(g) in ecclesia se esse confidit?
Interpolated.
(a) Et iterum eidem, post ressurectionem suam dicit, Pasce oves meas.
(b) Super illum unum…et illi pascendas mandat oves suas.
(c) Et primatus Petro datur.
(d) Una.
(e) Et cathedra.
(f) Et pastores sunt omnes et grex unus ostenditur, qui ab apostolis omnibus, unanimi consensione pascatur, etc.
(g) Qui cathedram Petri, super quem fundata est ecclesia deserit, etc.
This is but a specimen of the way in which Cyprian has been “doctored,” in order to bring him into a shape capable of being misinterpreted. But you will say where is the proof of such interpolations? The greatly celebrated Benedictine edition reads as the interpolated column does, and who would not credit Baluzius? Now note, Baluzius rejected these interpolations and others; but, dying (a.d. 1718) with his work unfinished, the completion of the task was assigned to a nameless monk, who confesses that he corrupted the work of Baluzius, or rather glories in the exploit.[4640] “Nay, further,” he says, “it was necessary to alter not a few things in the notes of Baluzius; and more would have been altered if it could have been done conveniently.” Yet the edition came forth, and passes as the genuine work of the erudite Baluzius himself.
An edition of this treatise, with valuable annotations, appeared (a.d. 1852) from the press of Burlington, N.J., under the very creditable editorship of Professor Hyde, who was soon after called to depart this life. It exhibits the interpolations, and gives a useful catalogue of codices and of editions. Though its typographical execution is imperfect, I know not where so much condensed information on the subject is to be had at so little cost.[4641] I am grateful for the real advantage I derived from it on its first appearance.
The Jewish liturgies contained the petitions of the Lord’s Prayer essentially; but our divine Lord framed this comprehensive and sublime compend, and gave it to His children for ever, with His own seal upon it in the exceptional petition which imparts to it the impress of His own cross and passion. In the Gospel of St. Matthew[4642] we find our Master commenting on the fifth petition in a very striking manner, as if it were the essence of the whole prayer; and, indeed, it is so, regarded as its evangelical feature, i.e., something added to the law in the spirit of the Atonement. As such, it surprised the apostles; and He who knew their thoughts instantly anticipated their inquiries: “For if ye forgive men,” etc.
From the criticism of a very able editorial hand,[4643] I feel it a privilege to insert the following valuable comments:—
“The petitions of the Lord’s Prayer, as is well known, are to be found for the most part in the Talmud and Jewish liturgies. In the latter we have frequently the phrases, ‘our Father, our King,’ ‘our Father, Father of mercies,’ and ‘our Father that art in heaven.’ The third petition in the Shemone esre is, ‘Let us hallow the Name in the world as it is hallowed in the high heaven. We will hallow Thee, and Thy praise, O God, shall not leave our mouth for ever and ever; since Thou, O God, art a great and holy King. Praised be Thou, O Lord, thou holy God. Thou art holy, and Thy name is holy, and holy men praise Thee everlastingly every day.’ The ineffable name of God represented all His attributes, and is consequently frequently substituted for Him. The end of the first petition in the Kaddish prayer runs thus: ‘May He extend His kingdom in your days, and in those of the whole house of Israel very soon.’ In Berakhoth (29 b) we have, ‘What is a short prayer? Rabbi Eliezer said, “Thy will be done in heaven, and peace of heart be unto those who fear Thee on earth.”’ The same tract gives another prayer: ‘The needs of Thy people Israel are many, but its discernment is small. Do Thou, O everlasting One, our God, give to each man what he needs for his support, and what his body wants; but do what seemeth Thee good.’ In the Mekhilta we read that Rabbi Eliezer of Modin, near Jerusalem, said: ‘Whosoever has enough for the day to eat, and says, What shall I eat to-morrow? is of little faith.’ This passage seems to illustrate the meaning of the Greek ἐπιούσιον. The third petition in the Shemone esre runs: ‘Forgive us, O our Father, for we have sinned; forgive us, O our King, for we have transgressed: since Thou art He that forgiveth and pardoneth.’ In reference to this the Midrash Shemoth (par. 31) states, ‘There is no creature who does not owe thanks to the Lord; but He is pitiful and long-suffering, and remitteth old debts.’ The daily morning prayer of the Jews contains this petition: ‘Lead us not into the power of sin, of transgression and crime, of temptation and shame. Let not passion have dominion over us, and keep us far from wicked men and evil company.’ In one of the prayers composed in Aramaic for the rabbis and leading men of the Jewish community, the passage occurs, ‘Defend and deliver them from all evil, and from all evil hap,’ which may be compared with the petition, ‘Deliver us from evil.’ The Doxology at the end of the Lord’s Prayer has equally Jewish parallels. Thus, one of the daily evening prayers concludes with the words, ‘For Thine is the kingdom;’ i.e., God alone is ruler of the world. The words ‘the power and the glory’ seem to come from 1 Chron. xxix. 11, which is quoted in the Talmud; and the Mishna Berakhoth (ix. 5) states, ‘In the temple all blessings did not end with “Amen,” but with the words “for ever and ever.”’ When the heretics multiplied, however, there was only one world; so the concluding formula became ‘from everlasting to everlasting.’”
It is demonstrated by Sir William Palmer that the Sursum Corda is of a date to which no history runneth contrary, and is to be found in all the primitive liturgies of whatever family. For a very early example of its use, I must refer to the Alexandrian liturgy cited by Bunsen;[4644] and, in short, I beg to refer the reader to all the resources of the fourth volume of his Hippolytus. Little as I can approve of the magisterial air with which Dr. Bunsen undertakes to decide all questions, and little as I sympathize with his abnormal religion, which seems to coincide with that of no existing church or sect in the world, I feel grateful for his industry in collecting materials, and am always interested in the ingenuity with which he works them into his theories. Although he possesses some touchstone unknown to the rest of mankind, by which he reaches and utters pontifical decisions as to what is genuine and what is corrupt, I must record my doubts as to many of his facts, and my dissent from most of his inferences. But, unwilling to refer to Anglican authorities on points so much disputed, I cordially turn to the learned Chevalier, and to the treasures he has collected. See the Greek forms on p. 335 of his fourth volume, followed by the preface on p. 336, and the Tersanctus on p. 337: ῝Αγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος, κύριε Σαβαώθ, κ.τ.λ
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0002 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page