this time, to be, without one word upon the subject matter of the controversy, a calming voice in the rising storm. The de Zelo et Livore is generally (and probably) thought to be a very little later in date, and similar in purpose. It is equally reticent on passing events, unless (in vi. 5) there may be an allusion to Novatian. There are a few close verbal resemblances between the two treatises, especially in de Pat. xix. (11) and de Zelo, iv. and v. (5) Next year, A.D. 256, the 6th Council under Cyprian and 2nd on Baptism, composed of 71 bishops, Numidian and African,[1] unanimously reaffirm the opinion in an unconciliatory synodical epistle to Stephen, conscious of the offence they will give, and enclosing Epp. 70 and 71. This epistle is mentioned by Jerome, adv. Lucif. But Augustine (Resp. ad Epp. 15) seems not to have seen it, which is strange. (6) Jubaian, a bp. of Mauritania, forwards to Cyprian a copy of a paper there circulating, with some authority, which recognizes even Marcion's baptism (Ep. 73, iv.). It may have been issued by one of those native bishops who dissented (Sentt. Epp. 59, 38, and cf. Aug. Resp. ad Epp. 52, con. Donat. vii. 16, 6). Rettberg agrees with "Constant. Ep. Pontif. p. 226," that it was Stephen's letter to the East. Cyprian sent Jubaian a reply so elaborate that, at the final council, he read it aloud as his own best exposition of his views, with Jubaian's convinced answer. Cyprian's letter was accompanied with all the documents sent to Stephen, and a copy of his Patience. (7) A deputation of bishops waited on Stephen but were not received (Ep. 75, xxv.); the letter which they bore was answered (74, i.) in terms appreciative of the greatness of the question (75, xvii.) but not arguing it, charitable to the separatists, affirming the tradition (75, v.; 73, xiii.), resting on the authority of the see (75, xvii.), and styling Cyprian "a pseudo-Christ, a pseudo-apostle and treacherous worker." It would be unfair not to recognize anxiety under the word "treacherous," while Fabian of Antioch, by dallying with Novatianism, was complicating Stephen's position; and Cyprian's own language as to "favourers of Antichrist" (69, x.) had exposed him to retaliation. Stephen had circulated in the East a paper which awakened "lites et dissensiones per ecclesias totius mundi" (75, xxiv.), declaring he would hold no communion with bishops who used second baptism (Ep. 75, xxiv.; 74, viii.; Dionys. Al. ap. Eus. vii. 5).[2] The natural reply of the metropolitan of Cappadocia was "Thou hast excommunicated thyself." The general history of rebaptism must be read elsewhere, but it was held in Cappadocia, Pamphylia, and other regions of Asia Minor as a practice received from "Christ and from the apostle" (75, xix.), and it had been confirmed by the councils of Synnada and Iconium.[3] Dionysius the Great recommended forbearance to Stephen, and to the eminent Roman presbyters Dionysius and Philemon.[4] (8) Pompey, bp. of Sabrata on the Syrtis, was the next inquirer, asking for Stephen's reply (Ep. 74). Cyprian sends it with the antidote, a fine letter, though not moderate, closing with an amendment on the canon of Stephen. Pompey was convinced if he had wavered, and his proxy at the council was presented by his neighbour the bp. of Oea. (9) The 7th council of Carthage, or 3rd on baptism, held Sept. 1, A.D. 256. Eighty-seven bishops of all the three provinces, with presbyters and deacons, met in the presence of a vast laity.[5] The council opened with the reading of the Jubaian correspondence, and the letter to Stephen (Sent. 8), and with a brief speech from Cyprian, large and pacific (Aug. R. Epp.). Each bishop then by seniority delivered his opinion, of which we have a verbal report: from some a good argument, from some a text, an antithesis, an analogy, or a fancy: here a rhetorical sentence, there a solecism or an unfinished clause; a simple restatement, a personality, a fanaticism; two of the juniors vote with the majority on the ground of inexperience. But on the whole we must admire the temper and the ability of so large a number of speakers. The council had a great moral effect. It kept Roman influence at bay for a long time. Jerome is mistaken in asserting, in his youthful contra Luciferianos, that these Fathers recanted. The custom was not specifically repealed till the synod of Arles, nor for Asia Minor till the first of Constantinople. But, from peculiar circumstances, it was specially accepted in the East, and is the basis now of the rebaptism by the Jacobites, not only of heretics and Nestorians, but of orthodox Christians.[6] Before
- ↑ A.D. 312. The relations of Numidia with Carthage seem unsettled (Hefele, Conciles, vol. i. p. 170).
- ↑ H. Valois is right, I believe, in thinking this a threat. Routh thinks it was actual excommunication, and Lipsius that he excommunicated Cyprian. Several bishops of the seventh council were very early in the Roman calendar for iv. Id. Sep.
- ↑ Lipsius's reasons (pp. 219, 220) for dating Iconium so late as A.D. 255 are surely quite insufficient. Eusebius (vii. 3) says Cyprian was πρῶτος τῶν τότε to hold rebaptism, which is a most accurate expression. He has already said that it had been held in very populous churches, and has told us of the old council of Agrippinus which declared it. Asia had quietly continued, Africa had mostly dropped the practice, and Cyprian was the first τῶν τότε to revive it. Lipsius is actually driven by his own special pleading to say there were two synods of Iconium "which must not be confounded," one named by Firmilian, and one by Dionysius—about the baptism of heretics—at the same place—at a very considerable interval—both making exactly the same declaration.
- ↑ Jerome (Script. Ecc.) says Dionysius took the strict view. He himself seems (Eus. vii. 9) to say the opposite, and cf. vii. 7.
- ↑ I believe this to be a simple and sufficient account of the circumstances of the correspondence, and Mosheim's and Rettberg's little amusement of inventing lost documents is unnecessary. The letter of Stephanus shewn to Pompeius is the same which Firmilian saw. The legation of course presented the synodal letter, which was meant to be final: accordingly Cyprian (in Sentt. Ep.) speaks of the question as resting henceforth with individual bishops.
- ↑ Of the seventh council Mr. Shepherd says, "Wonderful to say, it has a date." So has the second (Ep. 59, xlii.). Of another event he remarks, "It would have been far more natural to have said A.D. 180, or some such date." It would have been an excessively interesting use of the Christian era, and Mr. Shepherd has doubtless noted the careful dates of other documents, Tertullian's historical allusions, Augustine's letters. The paucity of dates is, however, singular. It may have some connexion with the African hostility, even to civil usages dependent on heathenism, The Donatists at Carthage, A.D. 411, treat the fact that the Acts of the council of Cirta, A.D. 305, commence with the consular date as an evidence against their genuineness. The Catholics reply, that though the Donatists avoid dates, the Catholics use them. But it may be that the Donatists preserve the old puritanic tradition. Cf. Aug. Brev. Coll. c. Don. p. 569, 3ii. diei, cap. xv. § 26, 27. (Athanasius's objection to the date in the creed of Sirmio is of another colour.) For an account of the Romanist assaults on it, see Rettberg, pp. 189, 190. Augustine accepted it, when some wished to make it of Donatist origin, on the ground of its containing so much against Donatism.
