Why is Cyprian important for our understanding of the rule of faith?
The history of Cyprian shows us that the Christians of his day did not regard the bishop of Rome as having a primacy of jurisdiction over the entire church.
Do the Roman Catholics make this claim?
Yes, Vatican I made this claim; see here.
What was Cyprian’s time?
He was born in the early 200s and was martyred in 258ad under the Valerian persecution.
What was the disagreement between Cyprian and Stephen?
This was a disagreement over the validity of a baptism administered by a heretic; see Waterman p403, Schaff §74, Hefele p98.
- Cyprian held that anyone who had been baptized by a heretic had not really been baptized. Such a person must be baptized properly when they are received back into the church. cf canon 46.
- Stephen, who was the bishop of Rome at the time, disagreed and argued that such person did not need to be rebaptized. He argued that this had been a long tradition in the Christian church, and there was no need to change it. Cyprian admitted that this was a long tradition but called (p264) it “a human and unlawful tradition.”
Mosheim (p121):
Cyprian’s contest with the Roman bishop Stephen, respecting the baptisms of heretics, which we have stated above, has vast weight, in proof that nobody, in that age, ascribed to the Romish prelate the honor of being supreme judge in all religious controversies. Indeed, those on the opposite side cannot deny this; and therefore they resort to every expedient to cast this great contest into the shade. Cyprian, having assembled several bishops, decided with them, that all heretics coming over to the church, ought to be again baptized; and this decision of his council he transcribed and sent to the Roman Stephen, not on account of any official relation to him, or any law requiring it, but solely as a matter of courtesy. He says (Epist. lxxii. p. 129, c. 4,): Haec ad conscientiam tuam, frater carissime, et pro honore communi et pro simplici dilectione pertulimus. [“These things we have borne for the sake of your conscience, dearest brother, and for our common honor, and for simple affection.”]
Stephen disapproved this decision, and answered Cyprian haughtily: the latter, despising his menaces, held firmly to the decision, and, assembling a still larger council, fortified it with new and stronger supports. Stephen, thus situated, did not, as is commonly stated, cast Cyprian out of the church, but only declared him unworthy of his communion. Cyprian contemned this ebullition of wrath; and the other bishops felt very indignant at it.
These were most certainly the facts; and who that reads or hears them, can bring himself to believe that the Roman pontiff or bishop then possessed any supreme power or sovereignty? Some perhaps will say, that Cyprian did wrong, and being heated by passion, overstepped the boundaries of respect due to the Roman bishop. But this is a hasty and futile objection. For if Cyprian had done any thing inconsistent with his duty, he would have been reproved and deserted by the other bishops. They, however, did not think that Cyprian had done wrong, but that Stephen was in fault. And this seems to put it beyond all controversy, that if perhaps, some priority in honor, yet none in power or jurisdiction was then conceded to the Romish prelate.
How is this relevant?
It is clear from the way the argument played out that, while Cyprian had great respect for Stephen, he felt free to disagree with him and did not regard Stephen as in possession of any kind of authority over him.
What other interaction did Cyprian have with the bishop of Rome?
Waterman writes (p401):
From Gaul comes in another complaint. Marcian, bishop of Arles, is a Novatianist. He not only refuses the “peace” to penitents, in cruel disregard of the general agreement of the Churches, but he acknowledges Novatian as rightful bishop of Rome. The neighboring bishops in Gaul consider this a scandal, and ask Cyprian for advice and help. Hence we have a letter from Cyprian to Stephen, telling the new bishop of Rome what he ought to do in the matter. The “pope of Carthage” fairly orders his Roman brother to rouse himself from negligence and play his proper part. “It is our duty,” says the letter, putting Carthage quite on a level with Rome in the matter, “It is our duty to consider this affair, and to remedy it,” and again, “It is for this end, dearest brother, that the body of the bishops is great and generously multiplied, knit fast with glue of mutual concord and bond of unity, that so, should any of our college attempt the forming of a heresy, the rending and wasting of Christ’s flock, the rest may come to the rescue.” Cyprian holds that the backing up of a right discipline in Gaul is a duty laid upon all neighboring bishops, and he urges the Roman bishop to be their spokesman, not because he is any more than any other bishop, but because he is bishop of the nearest great Church.
What else can be said on this issue?
Mosheim says (p120) that Cyprian did not use the usual titles of respect an inferior would use when speaking to a superior:
The still extant Epistles of Cyprian to Cornelius, Lucius, and Stephen, bishops of Rome, and also some Epistles of Cornelius to Cyprian, are written in a manner that makes it evident that no one of them even thought of any difference as to jurisdiction, rank, and station among them. In that age, as well as in this, when inferiors wrote to their superiors, or superiors to their inferiors, they distinguished themselves from the persons they addressed, by certain titles and modes of expression; although the propensity for adulation and for arrogance had not then reached the height to which it subsequently arose. But nothing of this kind can you discover in the Epistles I have mentioned. Cyprian addresses the Romish bishops in the same style as he addresses other bishops, and calls them simply (fratres et collegas) Brothers and Colleagues; and Cornelius addresses Cyprian in the same style, and drops not a syllable which can be considered as indicative of any jurisdiction or authority. Indeed, Cyprian is himself the most assuming, and not only reproves Stephen severely for claiming some dignity and power, but also most freely censures Cornelius, when he thought him in error, and recalls him to his duty.
Did Cyprian himself write anything which might give us a clue to how he understood the bishop of Rome?
Mosheim gives us this quote about Peter:
In his 71st Epistle, (ad Quintum, p. 127, c. 3,) he denies that Peter had any primacy of authority: Nam nee Petrus, quem primum Dominus elegit, et super quem aédificavit ecclesiam suam,—vindicavit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assumsit, ut diceret, se primatum tenere, et obtemperari a novellis et posteris sibi oportere. [“For neither did Peter, whom the Lord first chose and upon whom He built His church, claim anything for himself insolently or arrogantly assume, so as to say that he held primacy and that the newcomers and those who came after him ought to obey him.”]
Further, Cyprian taught that all bishops were equal:
In his 73d Epistle, (p. 137, c. 26, and elsewhere,) he teaches, that all bishops are independent, and subject to the power of no one: Unusquisque episcoporum, quod putat, faciat, habens arbitrii sui liberam potestatem. [“Let each bishop do what he thinks, having the free power of his own judgment.”]
Still more clearly and fully does he express himself in his Address at the opening of the Concilium Cathaginense de hæreticis baptizandis, (p. 329): Neque enim quisquam nostrum episcopum se esse episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit, quando habeat omnis episcopus pro licentia libertatis et potestatis suæ arbitrium proprium, tamque judicari ab alio non possit, quam nec ipse potest alterum judicare. Sed expectemus universi judicium Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui unus et solus habet potestatem et præponendi nos in ecclesiæ suæ qubernatione et de actu nostri judicandi. [“For none of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical fear compels his colleagues to a necessity of obedience, since every bishop, by the license of his own freedom and power, has his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power both to appoint us in the governance of His church and to judge our actions.”]
And another:
I pass over other passages of similar import, and will add only one more, which is the more pertinent and forcible, because it occurs in an Epistle to the Roman bishop himself, Cornelius, (Epist. lv. p. 86; al. Ep. lix. c. 20): Nam cum statutum sit ab omnibus nobis, et æquum sit pariter ac justum, ut uniuscujusque caussa illic audiatur, ubi est crimen admissum, et singulis pastoribus portio gregis sit adscripta, quam regat unusquisque et gubernat, rationem sui actus Domino redditurus, oportet utique eos, quibus præsumus, non circumcursare, nec episcoporum concordiam cohærentem—collidere, sed agere illic caussam suam, ubi et accusatores habere et testes sui criminis possint; nisi si paucis desperatis et perditis minor videtur esse auctoritas episcoporum in Africa constitutorum, qui jam de illis judicaverunt. [“For since it has been established by all of us, and it is equally fair and just, that the case of each person should be heard where the crime was committed, and a portion of the flock has been assigned to each individual pastor, which each one is to rule and govern, being accountable for his actions to the Lord, it is certainly necessary that those over whom we preside should not wander about, nor break the harmonious unity of the bishops, but should plead their case where they can have both accusers and witnesses to their crime; unless, perhaps, the authority of the bishops established in Africa, who have already judged them, seems insufficient to a few desperate and wicked persons.”]
Felicissimus and Fortunatus, two enemies of Cyprian, had gone to Rome, and implored the aid of Cornelius. Cyprian felt greatly troubled at this. He first wrote to Cornelius, reminding him that it had been established by the common consent of all the bishops, that every criminal should be tried where the crime had been committed. Now, from this it clearly appears, that all Christian bishops were on a level with each other, or were equals as to power; and that no individual among them held the office of supreme judge. What follows will make this still more evident. For he says: (ii.) That to the bishops severally, portions of the flock of Christ were committed, to be governed by each bishop according to his own discretion and judgment only. (iii.) That no bishop had any judge, lord, or master, who could call him to account for his acts, except Jesus Christ. Therefore, (iv.) that a sentence passed by one bishop, cannot in any way be corrected or changed by the others. And he adds (v.) lastly, that the authority of the African bishops was not inferior to that of the Roman prelate; and that those who would account them inferior to him (homines esse desperatos et perditos) were men of a desperate and abandoned character.
But Roman Catholic apologists often cite other quotes from Cyprian which appear to contradict these quotes.
True, Mosheim deals with some of these as well.
I will cite only one passage of this kind, which occurs in Epistle lxxiii. (p. 131, c. 7): Nam Petro primum Dominus, super quem aedificavit ecclesiam, et unde unitatis originem instituit et ostendit, potestatem istam dedit, ut id solveretur in eœlis, quod ille solvisset in terris. Et post resurrectionem quoque ad Apostolos loquitur, &c. [“For to Peter first, upon whom He built the church, and from whom He established and showed the origin of unity, the Lord gave this power, that what he loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven. And after the resurrection, He also spoke to the apostles.”]
Again, they urge, that on account of this dignity conferred on Peter by Christ, Cyprian (Epist. lv. p. 86; al. Ep. lix. c. 19,) calls the Romish church: Petri cathedram atque ecclesiam principalem, unde unitas sacerdotalis orta est. [“The chair of Peter and the principal church, from which priestly unity has arisen.”]
But they especially urge a passage from his treatise de Unitate Ecclesiæ, (p. 195, &c, c. 4.) I will cite the passage as it stands in the edition of Baluze; but it is well known that the ancient copies disagree, and it is justly suspected, or rather proved, that zeal for the honor of the Romish church has induced some learned men in time past to corrupt and enlarge the passage to suit their own views and desires. Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum: Ego tibi dico, inquit, quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam.—Et iterum eidem post resurrectionem suam dicit: Pasce oves meas. Super illum unum aedificat ecclesiam suam, et illi pascendas mandat oves suas. Et quamvis Apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat, et dicat: Sieut misit me Pater, et ego mitto vos, accipite Spiritum sanctum—tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis ejusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit. Hoc erant utique et ceteri Apostoli, quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio præditi et honoris et potestatis, sed exordium ex unitate proficiseitur, et primatus Petro datur, ut una Christi ecclesia et cathedra una monstretur.—Hanc ecclesiæ unitatem qui non tenet, tenere se fidem credit? Qui ecclesiæ renititur et resistit, qui cathedram Petri, super quem fundata [p. 583.] est ecclesia, deserit, in ecclesia se esse confidit? [“The Lord speaks to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ And again, to the same Peter after His resurrection, He says: ‘Feed my sheep.’ Upon him alone He builds His church, and to him He entrusts the feeding of His sheep. And although He grants equal power to all the apostles after His resurrection, saying: ‘As the Father has sent me, so I send you; receive the Holy Spirit,’ nevertheless, to manifest unity, He established by His authority the origin of that same unity beginning from one man. Certainly, the other apostles were what Peter was, endowed with an equal share of honor and power, but the beginning proceeds from unity, and primacy is given to Peter, that one church of Christ and one chair may be shown. He who does not hold this unity of the church, does he believe that he holds the faith? He who strives against and resists the church, he who abandons the chair of Peter, upon which the church is founded, does he trust that he is in the church?”]
From these extracts, distinguished men think it can be proved, that Cyprian regarded the Roman bishop as presiding over the whole church, and represented him to be its common judge and legislator; and that this opinion was not held by Cyprian alone, but by that age, and by the whole church.
Those who, in reply, would cut the matter short, may say:
First, that Cyprian here states his own private opinion; but that there is no evidence to show, that the whole church thought as he did. Others indeed, in times subsequent to Cyprian, said nearly the same things; but they copied from him. For the influence of this bishop and martyr among Christians was immense, and his opinions were regarded by many as divine oracles. Yet Cyprian, as will not be denied, even by those who consider him a very great and holy man, had imbibed many futile, vain and superstitious notions, and also cherished some remarkable errors; and hence we ought to enquire, whether his opinion accords with the truth, or whether it should be placed among the errors which he indulged. If this dogma of his is to be estimated by the arguments and proofs which he adduces to support it, I fear it cannot be ranked with those which no man of sound mind can reject.
Secondly: Let it be considered, that Cyprian nowhere ascribes that primacy of which he speaks, to the Romish bishop, but to the Romish church. But the (ecclesia) church, as we have before shown, in Cyprian’s estimation, was above or superior to the bishop, and consisted of the bishop and the clergy, and the whole multitude of the (stantium) the faithful, united. If then it were perfectly certain, as some learned men think it is, that Cyprian attributed to the Romish church a primacy over all churches, his opinion cannot by any means be transferred to the Romish bishop or pontiff; for his opinion will be precisely this: The entire Christian population of Rome, together with their clergy and bishop, have power over the universal church. But how wide is this from the opinion of those who think the Romish prelate sustains the office of Christ’s vicegerent!
But, laying aside these answers, although they are not to be despised, let us come to close combat. The passages from Cyprian, cited on the side opposed to the Pontifical claims, beyond all controversy, contain these principles:
- All the bishops in the Christian church, have equal powers and prerogatives;
- none of them is under any other lord or judge, than Jesus Christ. and,
- the African bishops are in no respect inferior to the bishop of Rome.
But the passages cited on the side of the defenders of the Pontiff, contain, according to their interpretation, the following doctrine: There is one bishop in the church, who rules over all the rest, namely, the bishop of Rome; and, therefore, the African bishops are inferior to the bishop of Rome, and ought to yield obedience to his commands and decrees.
These two opinions, as is manifest, contradict each other. And, therefore, one of two things must be true; either Cyprian contradicts himself, and brings forward directly opposite opinions on different occasions; or the passages on one of the sides must be so explained and understood, as not to conflict, but to harmonize, with those on the other.
Now let the learned men, who are so solicitous about the dignity of the Romish church and the supreme Pontiff, choose which side they please of this alternative. If they choose the first, and admit that Cyprian has advanced contradictory opinions, his authority is gone, and nothing can be proved or inferred from his declarations. For what credit or authority is due to the man, who talks absurdly and advocates opinions contradictory to each other?
The latter part of the alternative therefore must be tried, and the passages of one sort must be so explained that they will accord or harmonize with the others. Now, by universal consent, it is an established rule, that light controls and illumines darkness; that is, the obscure and ambiguous passages of a book, are to be elucidated and explained by the passages which are clear and perspicuous: for it would be preposterous to guage and measure the import of passages in which there was no obscurity or ambiguity, by other passages which are enigmatical and admit of many explanations. Now if this rule is to be applied in the present case, as undoubtedly it should be, I think all will agree, that the passages of Cyprian which speak of the unity of the church, its being founded on Peter, and the primacy of the Romish see, must be understood and explained in such a way as not to conflict with the passages which affirm the parity and independence of all bishops; for the latter passages are clear and perspicuous, and will not admit of various interpretations; but the former, relative to the unity, &c. though of frequent occurrence, are not perspicuous, and will admit of diverse explanations.
What was Cyprian’s understanding then, of the primacy of the bishop of Rome?
Again, I lean on Mosheim here who actually despairs of ever knowing the truth of what Cyprian really thought. His statements are just too difficult to unravel.
According to the rules of correct reasoning, then, we cannot suppose that Cyprian ascribed to the Romish church a sort of primacy of power, and a sort of civil unity of the universal church, a unity as to authority and control, like that in states or republics, which are governed by the will of one man. For such a primacy and such a unity would subvert and destroy that independence and equality of all the bishops, which he most strenuously maintains. On the contrary, in our judgment, it must have been, that the holy man revolved in his mind such a unity of the church, as would accord with his belief of the equal rights of all bishops; and such a primacy of the Romish church, as would comport with his decision, That the African bishops are not inferior to the bishops of Rome, and that what they decree, cannot be reversed or altered, either by the Roman bishop, or by all the other bishops; which decision Cyprian states in almost these very terms.
If any one should here ask for a correct explanation of this primacy and this unity as maintained by Cyprian, I will readily answer, respecting the primacy. Among all the Christian churches, Cyprian assigned the first place to the Romish church; for reasons, indeed, that are very weak and futile, yet such as satisfied him. Whether this was his private opinion, or whether he expresses the general views of the church, is another question, which I shall leave untouched. And yet I will not deny, that from the time the Christians embraced the idea that the Christian church had in some sort the form of a body politic, the commencement or origin of the combination was always traced to the Romish church. But, as to the unity which Cyprian attributed to the church, and which he says originated from the Romish church, it is not so easy to answer. And I suspect, that Cyprian himself would have felt himself embarrassed, if he had been called upon to explain the nature of this unity in clear and definite terms. For, on this subject, which he represents as being of very great importance, he yet speaks so vaguely and with so little uniformity, that we can readily perceive, he had no very distinct conception of it in his own mind. Those are exceedingly mistaken, who suppose that Cyprian, Tertullian, and the other Christian writers of that age, clearly understood whatever they taught and inculcated with great earnestness: so far from it, they annex different ideas to the same terms, as the subject and convenience seem to call for them; which is evidence, that their minds needed light, and that they entertained vague and indeterminate notions. And yet this unity of the church, which Cyprian so highly extols, and the commencement of which he places in the Romish church, may be elucidated, in some sort, provided we may, from a part of the unity, judge of the whole. That unity, which ought to prevail in the universal church, actually existed, and ought to exist, in the African church, over which Cyprian presided; as he tells us repeatedly, and it cannot be questioned. Therefore, from the unity in the African church, we may learn what kind of unity Cyprian supposed to exist in the universal church. Now the African bishops were upon a footing of perfect equality, as to power and jurisdiction: each could sanction and establish what he deemed salutary and proper in his own church, without being accountable for his acts to any one save Jesus Christ. This we learn from the lips of Cyprian himself. And yet there was a primacy in this same church, composed as it was of members all equal; and that primacy was in the church of Carthage. Moreover this primacy was necessary, because unity was necessary in the African church. As, therefore, the sacerdotal unity in the universal church, emanated from the church of Rome, so in the African, it originated from the church of Carthage. That unity, with the primacy on which it was based, was no obstacle to the parity, and equality in powers, of the bishops; and, on the other hand, the equality of the bishops was no obstruction to the primacy and the unity. All that this unity required, was, that all the bishops in the province of Africa, should concede the first place in point of rank, to the bishop of Carthage: that on subjects of graver moment, they should communicate with him, and ask his opinion; but that they should follow that opinion was not necessary; that they should go to the conventions or councils held on great questions, at the summons of the primate; and, lastly, that they should observe and follow out what was decided upon by common consent in those councils.
The manner of proceeding in these councils, we learn distinctly from the Acta magni Concilii Carthaginensis de baptizandis haereticis, in the Works of Cyprian, p. 329. The primate, or head of the unity, stated the business for which they were assembled, and gave his colleagues the fullest liberty to express their opinions. His own opinion was given last of all. If they disagreed, and the subject did not pertain to an essential point of religion, each bishop was at liberty to follow his own judgment; as the oration of Cyprian, at the opening of that council, puts beyond all controversy. Such a unity, and such a primacy in the universal church, Cyprian conceived of; nor could he have conceived of any other, unless we would make the holy man to be totally ignorant of his own sentiments and meaning.
That is, he conceived that all bishops ought to be so connected with the Romish church, as to concede to it the same rank which Peter had among the Apostles, namely, the first rank; and so as to recur to it in doubtful cases of great moment, reserving to themselves, however, the right of dissenting from its judgment, but still remaining in its communion if practicable. If he had any thing more than this in his mind, and I will not affirm positively that he had not, yet this, at least, is evident, beyond all question, that he contemplated nothing of such a nature as would invest the Romish prelate with any sovereignty or power over the whole church.
Into this my opinion, I am confident all those will come, who shall attentively consider what Cyprian has said respecting the unity of the church, and the consequent primacy of the Romish church. The whole subject may be comprehended in the following propositions; the truth or falsehood of which I leave out of consideration.
(I) Jesus Christ founded his church on Peter. Yet
(II) He did not give to Peter any power over the other Apostles, or any sovereignty and primacy of jurisdiction over them. But
(III) after His resurrection, he conferred the same power on all the Apostles.
(IV) On Peter, however, he conferred this power first, and afterwards on the Apostles; in order to indicate that, unitatis originem ab uno incipere debere [“The origin of unity ought to begin from one.”].
I choose to use Cyprian’s words rather than my own: for I must confess, I am unable to comprehend perfectly the force of his reasoning, or the meaning of his language.
(V.) Omnes igitur Apostoli, says Cyprian himself, id erant, quod Petrus fuit, pari consortio præditi et honoris et potestatis [“Therefore, all the apostles,” says Cyprian himself, “were what Peter was, endowed with an equal share of honor and power.”]. We may here observe, that Cyprian does not leave to Peter even a primacy of honor or rank.
(VI) At quoniam exordium ab unitate proficiscitur, ideo primatus [“But since the beginning proceeds from unity, therefore the primacy…”] (but of what sort? Having very clearly divested Peter of any primacy of power or honor, what primacy could he leave to him? If a man is not superior to others either in honor or in power, in what respects can he be superior to them?)
Petro datus est, ut una Christi ecclesia et cathedra una monstretur. [“It was given to Peter, that one church of Christ and one chair may be shown.”] Let others explain this: I will not attempt it.
(VII) The Romish bishop represents Peter; the other bishops represent the Apostles.
(VIII) The respect, therefore, which the other Apostles paid to Peter, must the bishops show to the Romish prelate.
(IX) But Peter was not superior to the other Apostles, either in power or in honor: therefore, also, all the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are not inferior to Peter’s successor, neither in power nor in honor.
(X) Yet as Christ made Peter the beginning and source of the church’s unity, therefore the other apostles, although perfectly his equals, owed him some honor as being the source of the church’s unity. And of course, the same thing is incumbent on the bishops, towards the successor of Peter.
(XI) Consequently, the Romish church is the principal church, and from it flowed the sacerdotal unity, namely, through Peter.
(XII) Therefore whoever separates himself from the chair of Peter, tears himself from the church, which is one, and has the source of its unity in the church of Rome. Yet, according to Cyprian’s views, those do not forsake the chair of Peter, who reject the decisions and decrees of the Romish bishop, and think differently from him in religious matters. For he himself had rejected the decision of Stephen respecting the baptisms of heretics; and had rebuked, not only Stephen, but also Cornelius; and yet he had not forsaken the chair of Peter, but remained still in the church’s unity.
Those who are able, may digest and comprehend all this: it is sufficient for my purpose, that Cyprian has so stated, and nearly the whole in the very words now given. And how greatly these propositions differ from the opinion of those writers, who would make the Roman bishop the judge and legislator of the universal church, must be obvious to every one.