CYPRIANUS

CYPRIANUS

751

Before the winter of 256 u Cyprian’s messengersto Firmilian returned with [10] his reply, themost enthusiastic letter of the series, we haveit in Cyprian’s translation from the Greek.* *

It has points of great interest; compares thebishop of Rome to Judas; shews the antiquityof reLaptism in Asia; touches on their annualsynods; the fixed and extempore portions of theliturgy; the quasi-supremacy of Jerusalem;the unity under wide divisions. For argumentsto the point it relies on Cyprian’s letters.

We will now briefly classify Cyprian’s argu-ments and the answers to them, avoiding themaking him responsible for his partisans, whosejudgment in council (vii.) differs much from his.Firmilian on the other hand summarises sensibly.Cyprian then urges for Rebaptism (A), Objec-tive grounds, (a) The unity of the church , viz.that in the critical point of u church and non-church,” schism does not differ from heresy(H9, iii.): the representation of sacred acts out-side not equivalent to sacred acts within : “ oneLord, one faith,” there may be, but not “ onebaptism,” for this implies “ one church,” whichthe schismatic renounces, (b) Unity of Belief.In its African form the creed ran, “ Dost thoubelieve the remission of sins and life everlast-ing through holy church ? ” and was accordinglynull at the moment of baptism away from thechurch, (c) Baptism is a function of holy orderson account of its remissory virtue in respect ofsin (not Tertullian’s doctrine {De Bap. xvii.), andholy orders have no being outside the church (73,vii.), so that the whole question of episcopalauthority as the bond of unity and divine organi-sation is involved? ( Ep. 72, i.), and if external

of Cirta, a.d. 305, commence with the consular date as anevidence against their genuineness. The Catholics reply,that though the Donatists avoid dates, the Catholics u*ethem. But it may be that the Donatists preserve the oldpuritanic tradition. Cf. Aug. Brev. Coll. c. Don. p. 569,3ii diei, cap. xv. $ 26, 27. (Athanasius’s objection to thedate in the creed of Sirmio is of another colour.)For an account of the Romanist assaults on it, see Rett-ing, pp. 189, 90. Augustine accepted it, when somewished to make it of Donatist origin, on the ground of itscontaining so much against Donatism.

11 Stephen died, and Cyprian was exiled before thewinter of 257.

* It is impossible not to recognise Cyprian’s style in it;equally impossible not to see the Greek [A] in some ofits compound phrases and coupled epithets (e.g. i. mag-nara voluntatis caritatem in unum convenire; iii. velo-citercurrentes, iv, quoniam semio .... distribuatur, &c.)[B] In the literal (someiimes awkward) rendering ofwords; iv. soniores et praopositi (=presbyteri et epi-copi) for Trpeo-jSurepot teal irpoeo-rwre? J vii. praesidentmajores natu t where Cyprian could not have used pres*by ten, and yet age is not to the point; fratribus tam longepositis QiaKpav «etp.€vow); v. inexcusabttem: vi. eosqui Kotnae sunt; aequaliter quae; vii. possident potes-tatem; x.nec vexari in aliquo; quamvis ad iniaginemyeriuitis tamen; xxiii. volentibus vivere; xii. Nos etiamillos qw& hi qui. [C] Instances where the Greek is notthoroughly mastered; viii, nisi si his episcopis quibus nuncniinor t'uit Paulus (? rwv vvv ); xii. ut per eos qui cumipai, &c.; cum unmeaning—observe in ix. patrias of localpersecutions in Asia Minor. The remarkable translationof Kph. 4,3, in xxlv. is in the same words as in three-other places of Cyprian, and differs from every otherknown rendering; even the African Nemesianus in thiscouncil uses curantes instead of satisagentes.

v 1 his view becomes “ Christus baptizandi potestatem

baptism is true, the church has many centres;not one foundation rock, but several (75, xvii.).The separatist teacher surrenders (70, ii.) the ani-mating, unifying Spirit, and cannot through hispersonal earnestness convey that Spirit to fol-lowers by baptizing them * {Ep. 69). (d) Theimposition of hands on the readmitted separatistexpresses that he has not, but needs to receive, theHoly Ghost: Stephen’s party use this rite, andquote the apostles at Samaria in instance. Butwithout that Spirit how could the separatist con-secrate even the water ? or the unction of con-firmation ? {Ep. 70, i.; cf. Sentt. Epp. 18; on thesignificance of this “ royal ” oil, see Bunsen;and on the Novatianist disuse of it, Routh,vol. iii. pp. 69, 70.) Above all, how give theNew Birth which, as the essence of the sacra-ment, is essentially the Spirit’s act {Ep. 74, v.vi. &c.)? (e) Baptism in the absence of the

Spirit is a Judaic , a carnal rite ; a defilement.more than a deceiving semblance, a materialpollution {Ep. lb , xiii.; 72, i.; 73, xxi.; 69,xvi.; cf. Sedatus, Sentt. Epp. 18 ; Victor Gordub.Sent., whom Augustine criticises as going tolengths beyond Cyprian; still the frightful ex-pression of De Unit. xi. involves all this). Thepretender can “ neither justify nor sanctify ”(69 x.), who but the holy can hallow (69, ii.) ?who but the living give life (71, i ) ? (f) Christnot present to make up for the umoorthiness ofthe minister. For if so His Spirit could not beabsent (75, xii.), and that he is absent is admittedby the necessity for imposition of hands (id. xiii.).

(B.) Subjective grounds, (a) Faith of recipientinsufficient {Epp. 73,75, ix.): to be effective mustbe true ; but is deficient in cardinal point, viz. theremission of sins by the church, even if notfalse, and, as often, blasphemous (73, iv. v. 74);(b) not secured by the formula. In the Romanchurch there was still such absence of rigiditythat it was argued that without the Trinal formbaptism into Christ’s name sufficed {Ep. 74, v.).Cyprian however points to the clear words ofinstitution, and appeals to common reason todecide whether one is truly baptized into theSon who denies his Humanity {Ep. 73 v.), & ortreats the God of the Old Testament as evil (74,iii.): even if the genuine formula be used, stillthe rite is no question of words; the absentChrist and Spirit are not bound by them as aspell, (c) Incapable of definition. It is not thechurch’s part to graduate departures from thefaith. Even death in behalf of a heresy cannotrestore to the church. If what is universallyaccepted as ipso facto baptism (in blood) is un-availing, how can ordinary extraneous baptismbe more {Ep. 73, xxi.; De Unit. xiv. (12) xix.;or Dom. xxiv.) ?

(C.) The historical argument is handled byCyprian in the most masterly way. (a) Usageis not worth considering as more than an apologyfor ignorance; cannot be matched against reason(71, iii. 73); (b) is not universal on side ofStephen (Ay?. 71); (c) cannot be inferred fromthe non-baptism of restored perverts: their case

episcopis dedit ” in the mouth of one of the bishops.Sentt. Ep. 17.

* “ Qui non habet quomodo dat?” became a catchwordof the Donatists. The reply of the Catholics was “ Deumesse datorem" (Optat. p. 103).

« The basis of this is Tert. de Bap. xv.