Saint Cyprian of Carthage

(Thaschus Cæcilius Cyprianus).

Bishop and martyr. Of the date of the saint's birth and of his early life nothing is

known. At the time of his conversion to Christianity he had, perhaps, passed

middle life. He was famous as an orator and pleader, had considerable wealth,

and held, no doubt, a great position in the metropolis of Africa. We learn from his

deacon, St. Pontius, whose life of the saint is preserved, that his mien was

dignified without severity, and cheerful without effusiveness. His gift of eloquence

is evident in his writings. He was not a thinker, a philosopher, a theologian, but

eminently a man of the world and an administrator, of vast energies, and of

forcible and striking character. His conversion was due to an aged priest named

Caecilianus, with whom he seems to have gone to live. Caecilianus in dying

commended to Cyprian the care of his wife and family. While yet a catechumen

the saint decided to observe chastity, and he gave most of his revenues to the

poor. He sold his property, including his gardens at Carthage. These were

restored to him (Dei indulgentiâ restituti, says Pontius), being apparently bought

back for him by his friends; but he would have sold them again, had the

persecution made this imprudent. His baptism probably took place c. 246,

presumably on Easter eve, 18 April.

Cyprian's first Christian writing is "Ad Donatum", a monologue spoken to a friend,

sitting under a vine-clad pergola. He tells how,until the grace of God illuminated

and strengthened the convert, it had seemed impossible to conquer vice; the

decay of Roman society is pictured, the gladiatorial shows, the theatre, the

unjust law-courts, the hollowness of political success; the only refuge is the

temperate, studious, and prayerful life of the Christian. At the beginning should

probably be placed the few words of Donatus to Cyprian which are printed by

Hartel as a spurious letter. The style of this pamphlet is affected and reminds us

of the bombastic unintelligibilty of Pontius. It is not like Tertullian, brilliant,

barbarous, uncouth, but it reflects the preciosity which Apuleius made

fashionable in Africa. In his other works Cyprian addresses a Christian audience;

his own fervour is allowed full play, his style becomes simpler, though forcible,

and sometimes poetical, not to say flowery. Without being classical, it is correct

for its date, and the cadences of the sentences are in strict rhythm in all his

more careful writings. On the whole his beauty of style has rarely ben equalled

among the Latin Fathers, and never surpassed except by the matchless energy

and wit of St. Jerome.

Another work of his early days was the "Testimonia ad Quirinum", in two books.

It consists of passages of Scripture arranged under headings to illustrate the

passing away of the Old Law and its fulfillment in Christ. A third book, added

later, contains texts dealing with Christian ethics. This work is of the greatest

value for the history of the Old Latin version of the Bible. It gives us an African

text closely related to that of the Bobbio manuscript known as k (Turin). Hartel's

edition has taken the text from a manuscript which exhibits a revised version, but

what Cyprian wrote can be fairly well restored from the manuscript cited in

Hartel's notes as L. Another book of excerpts on martyrdom is entitled "Ad

Fortunatum"; its text cannot be judged in any printed edition. Cyprian was

certainly only a recent convert when he became Bishop of Carthage c. 218 or the

beginning of 249, but he passed through all the grades of the ministry. He had

declined the charge, but was constrained by the people. A minority opposed his

election, including five priests, who remained his enemies; but he tells us that he

was validly elected "after the Divine judgment, the vote of the people and the

consent of the bishops".

THE DECIAN PERSECUTION

The prosperity of the Church during a peace of thirty-eight years had produced

great disorders. Many even of the bishops were given up to worldliness and gain,

and we hear of worse scandals. In October, 249, Decius became emperor with

the ambition of restoring the ancient virtue of Rome. In January, 250, he

published an edict against Christians. Bishops were to be put to death, other

persons to be punished and tortured till they recanted. On 20 January Pope

Fabian was martyred, and about the same time St. Cyprian retired to a safe

place of hiding. His enemies continually reproached him with this. But to remain

at Carthage was to court death, to cause greater danger to others, and to leave

the Church without government; for to elect a new bishop would have been as

impossible as it was at Rome. He made over much property to a confessor

priest, Rogatian, for the needy. Some of the clergy lapsed, others fled; Cyprian

suspended their pay, for their ministrations were needed and they were in less

danger than the bishop. Form his retreat he encouraged the confessors and

wrote eloquent panegyrics on the martyrs. Fifteen soon died in prison and one in

the mines. On the arrival of the proconsul in April the severity of the persecution

increased. St. Mappalicus died gloriously on the 17th. Children were tortured,

women dishonoured. Numidicus, who had encouraged many, saw his wife burnt

to alive, and was himself half burnt, then stoned and left for dead; his daughter

found him yet living; he recovered and Cyprian made him a priest. Some, after

being twice tortured, were dismissed or banished, often beggared.

But there was another side to the picture. At Rome terrified Christians rushed to

the temples to sacrifice. At Carthage the majority apostatized. Some would not

sacrifice, but purchased libelli, or certificates, that they had done so Some

bought the exemption of their family at the price of their own sin. Of these

libellatici there were several thousands in Carthage. Of the fallen some did not

repent, others joined the heretics, but most of them clamoured for forgiveness

and restoration. Some, who had sacrificed under torture, returned to be tortured

afresh. Castus and AEmilius were burnt for recanting, others were exiled; but

such cases were necessarily rare. A few began to perform canonical penance.

The first to suffer at Rome had been a young Carthaginian, Celerinus. He

recovered, and Cyprian made him a lector. His grandmother and two uncles had

been martyrs, but his two sisters apostatized under fear of torture, and in their

repentance gave themselves to the service of those in prison. Their brother was

very urgent for their restoration. His letter from Rome to Lucian, a confessor at

Carthage, is extant, with the reply of the latter. Lucian obtained from a martyr

named Paul before his passion a commission to grant peace to any who asked

for it, and he distributed these "indulgences" with a vague formula: "Let such a

one with his family communicate". Tertullian speaks in 197 of the "custom" for

those who were not at peace with the Church to beg this peace from the martyrs.

Much later, in his Montanist days (c. 220) he urges that the adulterers whom

Pope Callistus was ready to forgive after due penance, would now get restored by

merely imploring the confessors and those in the mines. Correspondingly we find

Lucian issuing pardons in the name of confessors who were still alive, a manifest

abuse. The heroic Mappalicus had only interceded for his own sister and mother.

It seemed now as if no penance was to be enforced upon the lapsed, and

Cyprian wrote to remonstrate.

Meanwhile official news had arrived from Rome of the death of Pope Fabian,

together with an unsigned and ungrammatical letter to the clergy of Carthage

from some of the Roman clergy, implying blame to Cyprian for the desertion of

his flock, and giving advice as to the treatment of the lapsed. Cyprian explained

his conduct (Ep. xx), and sent to Rome copies of thirteen of the letter he had

written from his hiding-place to Carthage. The five priests who opposed him were

now admitting at once to communion all who had recommendations from the

confessors, and the confessors themselves issued a general indulgence, in

accordance with which the bishops were to restore to communion all whom they

had examined. This was an outrage on discipline, yet Cyprian was ready to give

some value to the indulgences thus improperly granted, but all must be done in

submission to the bishop. He proposed that libellatici should be restored, when

in danger of death, by a priest or even by a deacon, but that the rest should await

the cessation of persecution, when councils could be held at Rome and at

Carthage, and a common decision be agreed upon. Some regard must be had for

the prerogative of the confessors, yet the lapsed must surely not be placed in a

better position than those who had stood fast, and had been tortured, or

beggared, or exiled. The guilty were terrified by marvels that occurred. A man

was struck dumb on the very Capitol where he had denied Christ. Another went

mad in the public baths, and gnawed the tongue which had tasted the pagan

victim. In Cyprian's own presence an infant who had been taken by its nurse to

partake at the heathen altar, and then to the Holy Sacrifice offered by the bishop,

was though in torture, and vomited the Sacred Species it had received in the holy

chalice. A lapsed woman of advanced age had fallen in a fit, on venturing to

communicate unworthily. Another, on opening the receptacle in which, according

to custom, she had taken home the Blessed Sacrament for private Communion,

was deterred from sacrilegiously touching it by fire which came forth. Yet another

found nought within her pyx save cinders. About September, Cyprian received

promise of support from the Roman priests in two letters written by the famous

Novatian in the name of his colleagues. In the beginning of 251 the persecution

waned, owing to the successive appearance of two rival emperors. The

confessors were released, and a council was convened at Carthage. By the

perfidy of some priests Cyprian was unable to leave his retreat till after Easter (23

March). But he wrote a letter to his flock denouncing the most infamous of the

five priests, Novatus, and his deacon Felicissimus (Ep. xliii). To the bishop's

order to delay the reconciliation of the lapsed until the council, Felicissimus had

replied by a manifesto, declaring that none should communicate with himself who

accepted the large alms distributed by Cyprian's order. The subject of the letter

is more fully developed in the treatise "De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate" which

Cyprian wrote about this time (Benson wrongly thought it was written against

Novatian some weeks later).

This celebrated pamphlet was read by its author to the council which met in

April, that he might get the support of the bishops against the schism started by

Felicissimus and Novatus, who had a large following. The unity with which St.

Cyprian deals is not so much the unity of the whole Church, the necessity of

which he rather postulates, as the unity to be kept in each diocese by union with

the bishop; the unity of the whole Church is maintained by the close union of the

bishops who are "glued to one another", hence whosoever is not with his bishop

is cut off from the unity of the Church and cannot be united to Christ; the type of

the bishop is St. Peter, the first bishop. Protestant controversialists have

attributed to St. Cyprian the absurd argument that Christ said to Peter what He

really meant for all, in order to give a type or picture of unity. What St. Cyprian

really says is simply this, that Christ, using the metaphor of an edifice, founds

His Church on a single foundation which shall manifest and ensure its unity. And

as Peter is the foundation, binding the whole Church together, so in each

diocese is the bishop. With this one argument Cyprian claims to cut at the root

of all heresies and schisms. It has been a mistake to find any reference to Rome

in this passage (De Unit., 4).

CHURCH UNITY

About the time of the opening of the council (251), two letters arrived from Rome.

One of these, announcing the election of a pope, St. Cornelius, was read by

Cyprian to the assembly; the other contained such violent and improbable

accusations against the new pope that he thought it better to pass it over. But

two bishops, Caldonius and Fortunatus, were dispatched to Rome for further

information, and the whole council was to await their return-such was the

importance of a papal election. Meantime another message arrived with the news

that Novatian, the most eminent among the Roman clergy, had been made pope.

Happily two African prelates, Pompeius and Stephanus, who had been present at

the election of Cornelius, arrived also, and were able to testify that he had been

validly set "in the place of Peter", when as yet there was no other claimant. It

was thus possible to reply to the recrimination of Novatian's envoys, and a short

letter was sent to Rome, explaining the discussion which had taken place in the

council. Soon afterwards came the report of Caldonius and Fortunatus together

with a letter from Cornelius, in which the latter complained somewhat of the delay

in recognizing him. Cyprian wrote to Cornelius explaining his prudent conduct.

He added a letter to the confessors who were the main support of the antipope,

leaving it to Cornelius whether it should be delivered or no. He sent also copies of

his two treatises, "De Unitate" and "De Lapsis" (this had been composed by him

immediately after the other), and he wishes the confessors to read these in order

that they may understand what a fearful thing is schism. It is in this copy of the

"De Unitate" that Cyprian appears most probably to have added in the margin an

alternative version of the fourth chapter. The original passage, as found in most

manuscripts and as printed in Hartel's edition, runs thus:

If any will consider this, there is no need of a long treatise and of

arguments. 'The Lord saith to Peter: 'I say unto thee that thou art

Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of

hell shall not prevail against it; to thee I will give the keys to the

kingdom of heaven, and what thou shalt have bound on earth shall

be bound in heaven, and what thou shalt have loosed shall be

loosed in heaven.' Upon one He builds His Church, and though to

all His Apostles after His resurrection He gives an equal power and

says: 'As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you: Receive the

Holy Ghost, whosesoever sins you shall have remitted they shall

be remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins you shall have

retained they shall be retained', yet that He might make unity

manifest, He disposed the origin of that unity beginning from one.

The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, endowed with a

like fellowship both of honour and of power, but the commencement

proceeds from one, that the Church may be shown to be one. This

one Church the Holy Ghost in the person of the Lord designates in

the Canticle of Canticles, and says, One is My Dove, My perfect

one, one is she to her mother, one to her that bare her. He that

holds not this unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds

the Faith? He who strives against and resists the Church, is he

confident that he is in the Church?

The substituted passage is as follows:

. . . bound in heaven. Upon one He builds His Church, and to the

same He says after His resurrection, 'feed My sheep'. And though

to all His Apostles He gave an equal power yet did He set up one

chair, and disposed the origin and manner of unity by his authority.

The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the primacy is

given to Peter, and the Church and the chair is shown to be one.

And all are pastors, but the flock is shown to be one, which is fed

by all the Apostles with one mind and heart. He that holds not this

unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith? He who

deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded, is he

confident that he is in the Church?

These alternative versions are given one after the other in the chief family of

manuscripts which contains them, while in some other families the two have

been partially or wholly combined into one. The combined version is the one

which has been printed in man editions, and has played a large part in

controversy with Protestants. It is of course spurious in this conflated form, but

the alternative form given above is not only found in eighth- and ninth-century

manuscripts, but it is quoted by Bede, by Gregory the Great (in a letter written

for his predecessor Pelagius II), and by St. Gelasius; indeed, it was almost

certainly known to St. Jerome and St. Optatus in the fourth century. The

evidence of the manuscripts would indicate an equally early date. Every

expression and thought in the passage can be paralleled from St. Cyprian's

habitual language, and it seems to be now generally admitted that this alternative

passage is an alteration made by the author himself when forwarding his work to

the Roman confessors. The "one chair" is always in Cyprian the episcopal chair,

and Cyprian has been careful to emphasize this point, and to add a reference to

the other great Petrine text, the Charge in John, xxi. The assertion of the equality

of the Apostles as Apostles remains, and the omissions are only for the sake of

brevity. The old contention that it is a Roman forgery is at all events quite out of

the question. Another passage is also altered in all the same manuscripts which

contain the "interpolation"; it is a paragraph in which the humble and pious

conduct of the lapsed "on this hand (hic) is contrasted in a long succession of

parallels with the pride and wickedness of the schismatics "on that hand" (illic),

but in the delicate manner of the treatise the latter are only referred to in a

general way. In the "interpolated" manuscripts we find that the lapsed, whose

caused had now been settled by the council, are "on that hand" (illic), whereas

the reference to the schismatics -- meaning the Roman confessors who were

supporting Novatian, and to whom the book was being sent -- are made as

pointed as possible, being brought into the foreground by the repeated hic, "on

this hand".

NOVATIANISM

The saint's remonstrance had its effect, and the confessors rallied to Cornelius.

But for two or three months the confusion throughout the Catholic Church had

been terrible. No other event in these early times shows us so clearly the

enormous importance of the papacy in East and West. St. Dionysius of

Alexandria joined his great influence to that of the Carthaginian primate, and he

was very soon able to write that Antioch, Caesarea, and Jerusalem, Tyre and

Laodicea, all Cilicia and Cappadocia, Syria and Arabia, Mesopotamia, Pontus,

and Bithynia, had returned to union and that their bishops were all in concord

(Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VII, v). From this we gauge the area of disturbance.

Cyprian says that Novatian "assumed the primacy" (Ep. lxix, 8) and sent out his

new apostles to very many cities; and where in all provinces and cities there

were long established, orthodox bishops, tried in persecution, he dared to create

new ones to supplant them, as though he could range through the whole world

(Ep. lv, 24). Such was the power assumed by a third-century antipope. Let it be

remembered that in the first days of the schism no question of heresy was raised

and that Novatian only enunciated his refusal of forgiveness to the lapsed after he

had made himself pope. Cyprian's reasons for holding Cornelius to be the true

bishop are fully detailed in Ep. lv to a bishop, who had at first yielded to Cyprian's

arguments and had commissioned him to inform Cornelius that "he now

communicated with him, that is with the Catholic Church", but had afterwards

wavered. It is evidently implied that if he did not communicate with Cornelius he

would be outside the Catholic Church. Writing to the pope, Cyprian apologizes

for his delay in acknowledging him; he had at least urged all those who sailed to

Rome to make sure that they acknowledged and held the womb and root of the

Catholic Church (Ep. xlviii, 3). By this is probably meant "the womb and root

which is the Catholic Church", but Harnack and many Protestants, as well as

many Catholics, find here a statement that the Roman Church is the womb and

root. Cyprian continues that he had waited for a formal report form the bishops

who had been sent to Rome, before committing all the bishops of Africa,

Numidia, and Mauretania to a decision, in order that, when no doubt could

remain all his colleagues "might firmly approve and hold your communion, that is

the unity and charity of the Catholic Church". It is certain that St. Cyprian held

that one who was in communion with an antipope held not the root of the

Catholic Church, was not nourished at her breast, drank not at her fountain.

So little was the rigorism of Novatian the origin of his schism, that his chief

partisan was no other than Novatus, who at Carthage had been reconciling the

lapsed indiscriminately without penance. He seems to have arrived at Rome just

after the election of Cornelius, and his adhesion to the party of rigorism had the

curious result of destroying the opposition to Cyprian at Carthage. It is true that

Felicissimus fought manfully for a time; he even procured five bishops, all

excommunicated and deposed, who consecrated for the party a certain

Fortunatus in opposition to St. Cyprian, in opposition to St. Cyprian, in order not

to be outdone by the Novatian party, who had already a rival bishop at Carthage.

The faction even appealed to St. Cornelius, and Cyprian had to write to the pope

a long account of the circumstances, ridiculing their presumption in "sailing to

Rome, the primatial Church (ecclesia principalis), the Chair of Peter, whence the

unity of the Episcopate had its origin, not recollecting that these are the Romans

whose faith was praised by St. Paul (Rom., i, 8), to whom unfaith could have no

access". But this embassy was naturally unsuccessful, and the party of

Fortunatus and Felicissimus seems to have melted away.