| << | Contents | >> |
Cyprian
Here the Paris editors of a.d. 1574 take pains to remind us that Cyprian means “Fabian, your predecessor, and Donatus, mine.” Very well. But the implication is that “our predecessors” were persons of the same office and dignity. Let us suppose the present Bishop of Alger writing to Leo XIII. in the same manner, as follows: “Bishop Strossmayer was severely remarked upon by Pius and Martial, our predecessors, in their letters.” Would this be tolerated? The editor of this series answered the invitation of Pius IX. to his council in 1869, after the manner of a contemporary of Cyprian,[3072] in order to make the contrast between the third century and the nineteenth palpable to the venerable pontiff and his adviser Antonelli. It was resented with animosity by the Ultramontane journals, on the ground that nobody on earth should address the pontiff as bishop to bishop, or as man to man.
When we put a man in mind of his self-respect, we imply that he is in peril of forgetting the quality we impute to him. “You are a gentleman, and, of course, cannot deceive me:” such language is not complimentary, but involves a gentle reproof. So here our author has to remind the Roman clergy of what is due to themselves if they would keep up the credit assigned to them by St. Paul, but from which, as the apostle himself warned them, they were in danger of falling. Cyprian goes on to remind them of what they owe to Carthage and its synods, and warns them against “abandoned men” seeking to discredit the African bishops.[3073] The Roman clergy had already confessed their sense of what was due to Carthage,[3074] and in another epistle,[3075] doubtless remembering Zephyrinus and Callistus, they confess their degeneracy, and the ignominy of their actual position as compared with that which the apostle had praised. The passage is often quoted as if it read, “to whom corrupt faith can have no access:” but the word is perfidia, and has reference, not to faith, but morals; and, to avoid ambiguity, I have put the word “perfidy” into the translation, where the Edinburgh translator has “faithlessness.”
Here note (p. 346, note 2) the reference to St. Paul’s term (κατατομὴ), the concision, where the Oxford note (p. 170, Oxford trans.) is to the point. Only let it be more clearly stated, that St. Paul calls the Judaizing schismatics the κατατομὴ; meaning that, instead of the circumcised body, they are but the particula præputii cut off and cast away. Our author uses it here with great effect, therefore. In another place[3076] St. Paul carries his scornful anathema farther, with a witty reference to a heathen example; on which see Canon Farrar in his St. Paul, cap. xxii. (Agdistis) p. 235, ed. New York. The “sport with children,” in the Canon’s note (p. 227), seems to me illustrated by Exod. iv. 24-26. Trifling with children, i.e., their salvation.
The original is, “admoneo et peto;” the language of an equal, but yet of an older brother in the episcopate. Here some other points are worthy to be noted in this important letter, and they shall be briefly taken in serie.
1. We here encounter the tangled knot of the triple schisms, in which the unhappy Felicissimus, with Novatus and Novatian, has long presented a scandal to criticism. Thus, our author speaks of Felicissimus as “schismatis et disidii auctor;” and difficulties have been raised about the meaning of the text, because Novatus would rather seem entitled to that “bad eminence.” I think all difficulty disappears if we drop the idea that a particular schism is here referred to, and understand merely that this bad man was “the beginner of schism and dissension,” out of which the three specific schisms had cropped. Go back to Epistles xxxvii. (p. 315) and xxxviii. (p. 316) and xxxix. (p. 319) for his antecedents. The “faction of Felicissimus” (sec. 2), and of “five presbyters” with him (sec. 3), is here sufficiently evident to illustrate the point now under consideration. In Epistle xlviii. (p. 325) we find Novatus, it is true, accused as “the first sower of discord and sedition,” but in another sense, because Felicissimus was a mere layman. Novatus took him up, and had him unlawfully ordained a deacon; and now Felicissimus becomes a mere appendage, and Novatus becomes formidable. Sailing to Italy, and coming to Rome just in time to inspire the discontent of Novatian with a wicked ambition, he next proceeds to engineer his schismatical ordination to the bishopric of Rome by the hands of three bishops, acting uncanonically and sinfully. So now Novatian becomes the chief character as rival to Cornelius, and pretender to his See; while Novatus returns to Africa to foment new disturbances, but is justly excommunicated, and disappears from history.
2. In this epistle it would seem that Cornelius had vacillated weakly, and was in peril of acting uncanonically. Cyprian gently admonishes him (sec. 2): “I was considerably surprised,” etc.; also (sec. 6), “I speak to you as being provoked, as grieving, as constrained,” etc.
3. Here Fortunatus appears on the scene, to embroil the matter yet more seriously; of whom (sec. 9) enough appears in this letter.
4. Fortunatus, with his wicked allies, sails to Rome (sec. 11) as the nearest apostolic See, hence spoken of (sec. 14) as the chief church (i.e., of the West) and the matrix of unity (i.e., to the daughter churches of Africa). Let us read into the pages of Cyprian no Decretalist ideas when he modestly acknowledges the comparative inferiority of his place. Let us find his meaning in this very letter, and others, in which his words contradict all ideas of any official inferiority. Take also the ideas of the epoch for illustration. Recur to Cyprian’s master expounding the relations of the primitive churches, one to another, in his Prescription. Tertullian points out a root-principle in all apostolic Sees;[3077] and then, after elaborate discussion, he thus applies it practically:—
“Run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles,” etc. “Achaia, e.g., is proximate to you; then there is Corinth. If you are near Macedonia, there is Philippi.…Crossing to Asia, you get Ephesus.…Close to Italy you have Rome, from which comes to us (in Africa) our authority,” etc. I abridge, but do not alter the sense.[3078] Here, then, we find what Cyprian was writing about. The schismatics, on this principle, had rushed to the nearest apostolic See, viz., that of the Imperial City. Cyprian recognises his claims on its bishop; Rome being the source of his own ordination, and the matrix of the Carthaginian church. This animates him with a loving humility. But what next? Having expressed all this, he proceeds, as an equal but an elder brother, to assert his rights, and to admonish Cornelius that he, too, must obey the ecclesiastical discipline. Nobody, even among the Greeks, would object to such a Roman primacy, even at this day; but “to give place by subjection, even for an hour,” is what St. Cyprian would not endure any more than St. Paul.[3079] “Supremacy” is another thing.
5. The grounds of his conduct in this and other acts are unfolded in his Treatise on Unity. But here is the place to show what Cyprian had in his mind as the ἄρχαῖα ἔθη. A canon[3080] of the African church, after providing for local appeals, reads as follows: “Let them not appeal to tribunals beyond the seas, but to the primates of their own provinces, or to a general council, as hath been often ordained with respect to bishops. But whoso shall persevere in appealing to tribunals beyond seas, let them be received to communion by no one in Africa.” And here note that the plural is used, illustrating the above quotation from Tertullian. All the apostolic Sees are treated alike, as “tribunals beyond seas.” Note, also, that if any one of these tribunals should receive and hear the appellant, its decisions were of no force in Africa.
6. And, still further, let it be noted that the greatness of Rome, as the capital, was its only ground, even to a canonical primacy afterwards conceded to it for the sake of order. The Council of Chalcedon (Fourth Œcumenical, a.d. 451) states the case, and sets the historical fact beyond dispute, as follows: “The Fathers rightly granted the seniority (ἀποδεδώκασι τὰ πρεσβεῖα), because that city was the capital, to the throne of the elder Rome,…and equal precedency (τὰ ἶσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome (Constantinople); justly judging that the city which is dignified with the sovereignty and the senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the elder imperial Rome, should likewise be magnified with the other in ecclesiastical affairs, and rank second after that See.” Second as to order, that is; but equal as to this presbeia.
Cyprian’s theory shows why they said nothing of its apostolic dignity; viz., because in that respect all apostolic Sees were equal, and all older than Rome, and because all other churches in communion with these centres were practically apostolic, and each was a See of Peter. For, as Cyprian expounds it, there is but one episcopate; and each bishop, locally, possesses the whole of it. It was given first to Peter to make this principle emphatic; i.e., it is a gift held whole and entire by each holder. Then he gave the same to all the apostles, that each one of them might comprehend that what St. Peter had, he had: it was an undivided and indivisible authority. “Each particular church,” says the Oxford translator, “being the miniature of the whole, each bishop the representative of Christ, the Chief Bishop; so that, all bishops being, in their several stations, one and the same (as representing the Same), there was, as it were, but one bishop.” Such was Cyprian’s exposition of the ἀρχαῖα ἔθη: I am not so forgetful as to introduce anything of my own. But here it is to be noted that the theory of the Decretals was subversive of all this: there was but one, personally, the representative of Christ, His[3081] Vicar; and his See, by divine warrant, was supreme. Hence others, called bishops, were not such, as being equals with the Bishop of Rome in the episcopal order, for their “order” was only that of presbyters; and they were called “bishops” only as vicars of the one Bishop at Rome, empowered to act for him in local stations, but having no real episcopate in themselves. Now, Calvin’s memorable sentence was based on this difference between the primitive bishops and those of his day. With his strong logic he argued: if, then, bishops are but shadows of a papacy which we have proved fabulous, bishops must be rejected as part of the papacy. But, he said, “Talem nobis hierarchiam si exhibeant, in qua sic emineant episcopi ut Christo subesse non recusent, et ab illo, tanquam unico capite, pendeant et ad ipsum referantur; in qua, sic inter se fraternam societatem colant ut non alio nodo, quam ejus veritate sint colligati; tum vero nullo non anathemate dignos fatear, si qui erunt, qui non eam reverenter, summaque obedientia, observent.”
It would seem, therefore, that Calvin drew a correct distinction between the Cyprianic theory and that of the Decretists. “A Christo, unico capite, pendeant,” touches the point of the Western schism, which altered this principle into “A pontifice Romano, unico capite,” prorsus pendeant omnes præsules Catholici.
Concerning the election of bishops, and the part of the laity therein, enough has been already said to elucidate this important historical point.[3082] But here is the place to elucidate Cyprian’s relations to Ignatius, by pointing out his theory as to “bishops, presbyters, and deacons.” The inquiry is, not whether his theory was right or wrong; but the ante-Nicene Constitutions and Canons cannot be understood without a clear comprehension of it, and it is practically important in the coming collisions with the alien religion now lifting its head aggressively amongst us. To refute its pretensions, Cyprian and Hippolytus are sufficient if cleared from all ambiguities thrown back into their expressions from the mediæval corruption of primitive words, idioms, and modes of thought.
As to presbyters and deacons, then, we must refer to pp. 306, 366, 370; sub-deacons are mentioned pp. 301 and 306, with lectors under “teaching-presbyters,” as preparing for the clerical office. On p. 306 an acolyte is mentioned. Now, these readers, sub-deacons, and acolytes (ἀκόλουθος ) are all of a class,—persons preparing for Holy Orders, and after a time known as in “ecclesiastical” or minor orders.[3083] The lectors need not be explained. The sub-deacons are a class not heard of till this third century, even in the West. Cyprian and Cornelius are the first to mention them. In the East, sub-deacons and acolytes first appear in the fourth century; they were sub-ministrants and attendants on the clergy, and doubtless had charge of the very troublesome work of preparing the candidates for immersion, and the waters for that sacrament, besides cleansing the fonts, and superintending the changes of raiment made necessary. Their offices in time of divine service, attending upon the altar, taking the offerings, seating the congregation, watching the children, etc., may be supposed. Apart from the names, just such offices, like those of sextons, are required in all public worship. The Moravians have acolyths, to this day.
Now observe his parting tribute in these words, “Cornelius, our colleague, a peaceable and righteous priest, and moreover honoured by the condescension of the Lord with martyrdom, has long ago decreed, with us and with all the bishops appointed throughout the whole world,” etc. A colleague, sharing in the decrees of his co-bishops throughout the whole world, is the recognised position of this successor of St. Peter. And Cyprian, who firmly believes that St. Peter, as “a source and principle of unity,” had the personal honour of being the first foundation-stone laid on the Corner-Stone Himself, sees nothing in that to make Cornelius the foundation; nor did Cornelius himself. No, nor St. Peter either, who says (1 Pet. ii. 5) all Christians may become Peters by being laid on the Living Stone, Christ Jesus.
Thus we are prepared to read the Treatise on Unity. We may also concede to the bishops of Rome, even now, that as soon as they claim no more than Cornelius and St. Peter himself did, their primacy will no longer be a stumbling-block and a schism to the Christian universe.
In parting with Cornelius, it is useful to note that he represents his diocese in his day[3084] as numbering “forty-six presbyters, seven deacons and the same number of sub-deacons, with forty-two acolytes and exorcists, readers and sacristans in all fifty-two.” More than “fifteen hundred widows and sufferers” dependent on this comparatively small and poor church show the terrible ravages made by persecution.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0003 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page