26

Theological Studies

less by way of remembrance, since the past sin was deleted by
penance. If it means that the use of matrimony during or sub­
sequent to the period of sterility constitutes a sin, then there
appears no convincing reason why they cannot be constrained
to abandon what is actually sinful. If the use of matrimony
any time after the attempt at sterility is a sin, then the doc­
trine of the author is far removed from the commonly held
opinion of the present day. However, another meaning maybe
attributed to the words of the author since ffpeccare” is used
likewise in an amoral sense. In which case, the meaning would
be that the sterile but penitent partners offend against the in­
stitution of matrimony by fruitless coition and are, therefore,
to be induced to give over its use but not to be constrained.
Counter to this interpretation, however, runs the general prin­
ciple of Albert, that coition without benefit of issue is not
admissible.
We conclude this paper with a brief glance at Albert’s con­
cept of the constituents of domestic society, in order to add a
final note of completeness to his doctrine. In commenting on
the text of Genesis, "Let us make him a help like unto himself’
(Genesis 2:8), the author states that woman’s chief function, as
a helpmeet, lies in her office of motherhood.78 But with Aristotle
he acknowledges man’s need of woman in many other offices of
conjugal society.77 Though the wife is subject to the husband
in the regimen of domestic society, still a perfect parity obtain:
in whatever touches the debitum-.™ A union of body and sou1
is the effect of marital communion but of the two comming­
lings, the latter is, by far, the more important.79 "No conjugal
union other than that of mutual consent forms the essential note
of matrimony. And of that consent, carnal commingling is but
the consequent. Marriage does not look upon it as something
essential, but as something dependent upon the will of the twc
parties.”80 Whether marriage be consummated or not, this unios
of wills, by grace of the sacrament, signifies the union of Christ
with His Church in charity.81

ST. CYPRIAN AND THE RECONCILIATION OF
APOSTATES
JOHN H. TAYLOR, S.J.
Gonzaga University

Spokane, Wash.

T seems that at the end of the third century the attitude of
the Church towards those who fell into sins of fornication,
adultery, and apostasy after Baptism was somewhat more
lenient than it had been in the early part of the century. But
just how much had the penitential discipline changed? Various
answers have been given to this question by historians who have
studied the history of penance in the early Church, the con­
troversy centering chiefly around the "edict of Callistus” which
allowed absolution to penitents guilty of adultery. It is not my
purpose, however, to recount here the widely divergent views
on this very difficult problem: they have been summarized by
d’Alès1 and Rauschen* and most recently by Mortimer.3
In this study I am concerned with Cyprian’s treatment of
the lapsed in the Decian persecution. Several questions natu­
rally present themselves to anyone who has even a slight ac­
quaintance with the documents of the period: (1) Was Cyprian
the first African bishop to reconcile apostates? (2) If not, did
he notably temper the penitential discipline in their regard?
(3) Did he suffer any doubts or misgivings about granting them
reconciliation?
Modern scholarship has given us a vast array of opinions in
answer to these questions. Some of the more noteworthy con­
clusions, more or less typical of different schools of thought, are
here presented.

I

Ά. d’Alès. L’Edit de Callisto. (Paris. 1914) pp. J-ll.
*G. Rauschen. Eucharist and Penance. (St. Louis. Herder. 191 J) pp. 152-1J J.
3R. C. Mortimer. The Origins of Private Penance. (Oxford. 19J9) pp. 6-14. Mor­
timer’s work is directed chiefly against the arguments of Paul Galtier who, in L'Eglise et la
remission des péchés aux premiers siècles (Paris. 19J2), ably defended the existence of
private penance in the earliest times. Some of Mortimer’s interpretation, of passage, from
Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian have been subjected to careful criticism by G. H. Joyce.
"Private Penance in the Early Church." [Journal of Theological Studies. XLII (1941)
18-42].

«Vol. JO, D. 28, a. 7, ad 4.
«Vol. JO, D. 28, a. 7, ad 4.
«Vol. JO, D. JO, a. 9, ad S.

g

«Vol. JO, D. 27, a. 7, ad 2.
«Vol. JO, D. 27, a. 7, ad Sol.
"Vol. JO, D. 26, a. II, ad 4.

28

Theological Studies

Harnack in his History of Dogma maintained that the primi­
tive Church regarded itself as a society of saints in which there
could be no penance for those who fell into any one of the capi­
tal sins after Baptism. The practice of absolving these sinners
was, according to him, a gradual growth which marked a
fundamental change in the very concept of the Church.4 The
reconciliation of apostates in the Decian persecution was an in
novation which caused Cyprian painful doubts: “What scruples
were caused by this innovation is shown by the first 40 letters
in Cyprian’s collection. He himself had to struggle with pain­
ful doubts.”5
Batiffol, who did not subscribe to a rationalistic conception
of the Church nor deny in any way the power of the keys, was,
nevertheless, of the opinion that the Church did not actually
use its power to forgive apostates before the year 250. He says:
Il [le pouvoir des clés] est souverain: la réserve qui avait interdit aux
adultères d’en bénéficier a été levée au temps de Calliste; la réserve qui <
excluait encore les lapsi est, de même, en principe et en fait, levée au
temps de Cornelius.®

A similar position was taken by O. D. Watkins.7
' Stufler8 and Galtier9 held that the clemency shown the lapsed
in 251 was not an entirely new thing. In support of their con­
clusion they adduced such facts as: (1) the spontaneous re­
course of the lapsed to the intercession of the confessors; (2)
the fact that neither Cyprian nor Rome declared that the peti­
tion of the lapsed was against the traditional discipline; and

.ή 1
'< ]

, )
-i1
I j

4A. Harnack. History of Dogma, (translated from 3rd German edition by N. Buchanan,
7 vois. London. Williams & Norgate. 1S96) Π, 108-112.
iIbid. p. Ill, n. S. Harnack gives no specific references to indicate the passages when'
these scruples and painful doubts can be found.
*Batiffol. Etudes d’histoire et de théologie positive. (7th edition. Paris. 1926) I, 144.:
TO. D. Watkins. History of Penance. (2 vols. London. Longmans. 1920) I, 179:·
"The new situation called for a new treatment. . . . She [the Church] maintains her com­
mission to retain and remit; she alters from this time forward the conditions of its exercise
for the apostate." Elsewhere (Ibid. p. 182) he says: "The adulterer, might at this period
[A. D. 230] be reconciled after due penance performed. But the apostate might be no'
more reconciled than ever before.”
8Stufler. "Die Behandlung der Gefallenen zur Zeit der decischen Verfolgung.” [Zeitschrift ’
fir katholiscbe Théologie. XXXI (1907) 389 ff.] Cited by Rauschen, op. cit., p. 169.
9Galtier. De poenitentia. (2nd edition. Paris. 1931) pp. 172-174.

St. Cyprian and Apostates

29

(3) the common practice of promising the pax to the repentant
apostates.
D’Alès, realizing the difficulties presented by many of St.
Cyprian’s statements, was a little cautious in his contention that
Cyprian introduced no radical change. If the attitude Cyprian
took was somewhat new, “cette nouveauté n’eut pas le carac­
tère d’une révolution dans la discipline pénitentielle. Cyprien
ne montre d’autre intention que celle d’appliquer à des cas
nouveaux les principes toujours affirmés par l’Eglise.”10
The problem, then, is not an easy one to solve. Perhaps we
shall never be able to know for certain, unless new documents
come to light, just exactly what policy the Church followed
prior to 250 regarding the reconciliation of apostates. But an
examination of the treatises and letters of St. Cyprian, and of
the letters by others contained in Cyprian’s collection, can
throw much light on the problem. In this study an attempt is
made to review these documents and draw a few conclusions
that the evidence seems to demand.
When the Decian persecution broke out in A. D. 250, the
Church in Africa faced a severe crisis. Although many Chris­
tians bravely endured torture and death rather than sacrifice
to idols, a large number apostatized from the faith. St. Cyprian
was grieved especially by those who rushed spontaneously to the
forum to sacrifice, even before they were apprehended.
Ultro ad forum currere, ad mortem sponte properare, quasi hoc olim
cuperent, quasi amplecterentur occasionem datam quam libenter
optassent.11

And the bishop who guided the Church of Carthage through
this crisis did not mince words in pointing out the cause of such
weak faith. He told his people plainly that God allowed the
persecution because of their lax morals and worldly ways.
Those who actually performed the pagan rites were called
sacrificati. But there were many Christians who, though they
«A. d’Alès. La théologie de saint Cyprien. (Paris. 1922) p. 301. Regarding the absolute
exclusion of all apostates, “si quelques évêques isolés préconisèrent cette pratique rigoureuse,
du moins ITglise ne la reçut jamais." (Ibid. p. 300.)
"De lapsis. 8, p. 242, 14-li. This passage and all other passages of Cyprian are cited
according to Hartel’s edition in the Vienna Corpus.

30

Theological Studies

would not go this far in abandoning their faith, were willing
to procure from government officials signed statements (libelli)
to the effect that they renounced Christianity or that they had
participated in the pagan sacrifice. These were called libellatici.
While the persecution raged, Cyprian lived in hiding outside
the city and governed his flock by means of the priests and
deacons who remained faithful. Though in retirement he was
busy and kept in close touch with clergy and people. Thirtysix letters of the Cyprian collection belong to this period and
bear witness to his zeal and labor in guiding his flock.
In those chaotic days, however, there were forces at work
that he could scarcely control. Many of the lapsed, whether
sacrificati or libellatici, wanted to be admitted immediately back
into the Church. They would have no delay, but without
canonical penance wished to be received straightway to com·,
munion. Some, in making their demands, even wrote to him
in the name of the Church, as though they were its rulers.18
;
To add to the confusion, certain confessors who were endur­
ing imprisonment and torture felt that their sufferings entitled
them to a privileged position in the Church, and that therefore
they could reconcile or at least demand the reconciliation of
their friends who had lapsed. Even in the early days of the
persecution we hear of this spirit of pride,13 and Cyprian re-,
minds them “humiles et modestos et quietos esse debere.”14 But
they would not remain quiet, and their pretensions threatened
to destroy the organization of the Church in Carthage. We_
read, for instance, of a certain martyr, Paul by name, who be­
fore his death called Lucianus, one of Cyprian’s clergy, and gave
him this command: “Luciane, coram Christo tibi dico ut si quis
post arcessitionem meam abs te pacem petierit, da in nomine
■ ■ '
,
meo. »15
; ■ ·:■·]
The lapsed who wished to use the intercession of the martyrs'
in order to be readmitted to the communion of the faithful,
12Ep, ΧΧΧΙΠ, 1, p. 5«6, 12-1«.
13£p. XI. I. P· 49«, 1-1«; Ep. ΧΠΙ, 4, p. 507, 4-19.
liEp. XIV, 2, P· U®. 21—p. Hl, 6.
&Ep. XXII, 2, p. 534, f-6.

St. Cyprian

and

Apostates

31

visited those suffering in prison and received from them written
petitions (libelli pacis). At first the martyrs designated by
name those for whom they were pleading, but before long they
were demanding the pax for a certain one and his family. As
time went on abuses multiplied. “They [the libelli) were issued
in the name of a dead confessor, of a confessor too illiterate to
write; issued so copiously, that some thousands were believed to
be circulating in Africa, and the very sale of them was not be­
yond suspicion.”16
All might have been well had Cyprian’s clergy remained
loyal. But many of them joined with the rebellious confessors
and the lapsed, demanding or even granting the pax which
Cyprian had insisted should be deferred till the persecution sub­
sided. There is extant in the collection of letters an amazing
document written by Lucianus in the name of the confessors,
notifying Cyprian that the pax has been granted to the
apostates:
Scias nos universos [universis] quibus ad te ratio constiterit quid post
commissum egerint, dedisse pacem, et hanc formam per te et aliis episco­
pis innotescere volumus. Optamus te cum sanctis martyribus pacem
habere. Praesente de clero et exorcista et lectore, Lucianus scripsit.lr

Cyprian handled his disobedient clergy with charity and
firmness. In writing instructions to the martyrs in prison, he
grieves over the fact that his priests have ignored his orders18
and he directs a letter to his priests and deacons reprimanding
them for their disobedience.19 In another epistle he complains
that they fail even to answer his letters,20 but a later letter in­
dicates that they have finally answered and are following
■
21
instructions.
Some remained rebellious, however, insisting on the immedi­
ate reconciliation of the lapsed, and a faction was formed,
I«E. V. Benson. Cyprian, His Life, His Times, His Work.

p. 93·
ltEp. XXIII, p. 53«, 3-7.

MEp19££.
»EpnEp-

XV, 1. P· HI, IJ-P- 114, 7.
XVI, 1, p. 517, 9-14.
XVIH, 1, p. 523, 13-14.
XIX. 1. P· ’21. I-7·

(London. Macmillan. 1897)

32

Theological Studies

St. Cyprian

headed by five priests who had opposed Cyprian’s election. It
was easy for these men to gain power with the people, because'
their action flattered the vanity of the confessors and reinstated
the apostates. More than once Cyprian appealed directly to
his people, and in a letter written to the lapsed he admonishes
them that the Church is built upon the bishops and is governed
by them. "But,” he says ironically, "if some of the lapsed con-*
sider themselves the Church, and if the Church is to be found;
with them and in them, what can I do but ask them to receive
me into the Church?”2’
j
Alongside of the lax party which stood for immediate recon­
ciliation of apostates without penance, there was an intransigent
group that seriously doubted whether the Church could or
should forgive the apostate at all. They considered the sin of;
idolatry so enormous that those who fell into it should never be,
admitted again to communion. But while the persecution·
raged, these men did not cause Cyprian any serious trouble.;
Their number apparently was not great, and there was no rea-.
son why they should be at odds with a bishop who had decided.
to postpone the reconciliation of apostates anyway. Later, a$J
we shall see, they did cause considerable difficulty.
The persecution did not last long. In November of the same ‘
year (2 V0) it was relaxing in intensity, and shortly after Easter ί
of the following year we find Cyprian back at Carthage pre-|
paring for a provincial council. It was at this time that he |
wrote his De lapsis, in which he formulated his policy on the
treatment of apostates, and his De unitate ecclesiae, in which
he defended the unity of the Church against the schismatics.
|
Before the restoration of peace, Cyprian, as we have said, had I
decided to postpone the reconciliation of apostates, but he had i
made an exception in favor of those who held martyrs’ libelli J
and were in danger of death.
·
Occurrendum puto fratribus nostris, ut qui libellos a martyribus
acceperunt et praerogativa eorum apud Deum adiuvari possunt, si incommodo aliquo et infirmitatis periculo occupati fuerint, non expectata
22£p. ΧΧΧΙΠ, i, p. 167, i-s.

!
j
!
i

and

Apostates

33

praesentia nostra apud presbyterum quemcumque praesentem, vel si
presbyter repertus non fuerit et urgere exitus coeperit, apud diaconum
quoque exomologesim facere delicti sui possint, ut manu eis in paenitentiam imposita veniant ad Dominum cum pace quam dari martyres
litteris ad nos factis desideraverunt.23

This decision, made by Cyprian in the early days of the
persecution and promulgated without any evidence of doubt or
hesitation, furnishes convincing proof of his belief in the power
of the Church to forgive apostasy. It may be objected, of
course, that Cyprian’s decision, to exclude the dying from
reconciliation if they did not hold martyrs’ libelli, was an ex­
tremely rigorous policy. However, Cyprian apparently applied
this principle during the persecution because the possession of a
martyr’s petition was a sign jof repentance, and one who
neglected to obtain such a petition might be presumed to lack
the proper dispositions.24 We know that in other circumstances25
Cyprian was inclined to deny absolution to those who led im­
penitent lives and then clamored for the pax on their deathbed,
because he did not think that such sorrow would ordinarily be
sincere.
But whatever the case of the dying, all those who were not in
danger of death had to wait for a council.
Plane ceterorum causas quamvis libello a martyribus accepto differri
mandavi et in nostram praesentiam reservari, ut cum pace a Domino
nobis data plures praepositi convenire in unum coeperimus, communicato
etiam vobiscum consilio disponere singula vel reformare possimus.28

Now, however, the time of waiting was over, and there was
need of formulating a definite policy. In April, 2H, the bishops
and priests of Cyprian’s province met in Carthage to deal with
the schismatic party and consider the treatment to be given
apostates. Cyprian, a born ruler, dominated the assembly; and
M£/>. XVIII, 1, p. 123, 19-p. 124, S. This passage is important as evidence of the early
practice of communicating absolving power to simple priests. The extraordinary grant of
power to deacons has brought forth some ingenious explanations, but it is not our purpose
to discuss them here.
»*G«Zrirr, op. cit. p. 177.
«Εί· LV, 23, p. 641, 21-22.
5«£/>. XX, 3, p. 12?, 2-6.

34

Theological Studies

the decisions made, though perhaps a little more rigorous than
he would have liked, conform in general with what he had always taught.
But before examining the work of the council, it will be well
to investigate Cyprian’s doctrine regarding the power of the
Church to forgive sin, especially the sin of idolatry committed
after Baptism.
Four points stand out in Cyprian’s teaching in this matter,
and they run through the body of his correspondence and the
treatise De lapsis: ( 1 ) the Church has the power to forgive sins
committed after Baptism; (2) this power extends even to the
sin of apostasy; (3) it is exercised by the ministry of priests;
(4) the sinner must confess and satisfy divine justice. Cyprian’s
admonition to the lapsed in 251 clearly contains this doctrine:

:

?

t

j
Γ
♦

Confiteantur singuli quaeso vos, fràtres, delictum suum, dum adhuc
qui deliquit in saeculo est, dum admitti confessio eius potest, dum satisfactio et remissio [facta] per sacerdotes apud Dominum grata est. Convertamur ad Dominum mente tota et paenitentiam criminis veris dolori­
bus exprimentes Del misericordiam deprecemur. Illi se anima prosternat,
illi maestitia satisfaciat, illi spes omnis incumbat. Rogare qualiter debeamus dicit ipse. Revertimini, inquit, ad me ex toto corde vestro simulque
et ieiunio et fletu et planctu et discindite corda vestra et non vestimenta
vestra. Ad Dominum toto corde redeamus, iram et offensam eius ieiunio,
fletibus, planctibus sicut monet ipse placemus.27

f
|
>

This clemency towards the lapsed; was by no means a compromise.proposed by Cyprian in 251 to pacify the laxists. He
had consistently taught the same doctrine from the beginning.
Early in the persecution he wrote:

:
I
;
■

Et lapsis quidem potest in hoc venia concedi. Quis non mortuus
vivificari properet? Sed praepositorum est praeceptum tenere et vel
properantes vel ignorantes instruere, ne qui ovium pastores esse debent
lanii fiant.2’

j
j
ΐ

s
»

j

To deny Christ, as did the lapsed, is indeed the greatest sin; ;
wDe laptK. 29, p. 258, 17-p. 259, J.
ÎSEp. XV, 2, p. 514, 16-20. That the venia promised in this letter is divine forgiveness
granted through the ministry of the Church is clear from Cyprian’s mode of expression
where he allows the absolution of the dying, ',ut manu eis in paenitentiam imposita veniant
ad Dominum cum pace” (Ep. XVIII, 1, p. 524, 6-7).

■

/

"à

I

St. Cyprian

and

Apostates

35

but those who have fallen will find forgiveness if they will re­
pent and submit themselves to ecclesiastical penance.29
But here we run into an apparently insoluble difficulty.
Cyprian in one of his early works, Testimonia ad Quirinum,
written probably before 250, had gathered together, under short
doctrinal statements, pertinent scriptural texts. One of these
statements reads: '‘Non posse in ecclesia remitti ei qui in Deum
deliquerit.”30 Just what Cyprian had in mind when he wrote
non posse remitti is not entirely clear. As to the peccata in
Deum we know that besides the sin against the Holy Ghost and
the sin of idolatry he also included under this head impurity,31
criminal abuse of worldly goods,32 and revolt against legitimate
pastors.33 Now Cyprian never considered it impossible to
reconcile sinners guilty of these sins. Of adulterers, for instance,
he says: "Nam et moechis a nobis paenitentiae tempus concedi­
tur et pax datur.”34 There had been African bishops who re­
fused to give the pax to adulterers,35 but Cyprian was not among
their number.
We cannot, therefore, conclude from the brief statement in
the Testimonia—a statement which stands by itself without any
explanation—that Cyprian was a rigorist in his early days. Such
an argument would prove too much, for it would mean that he
taught that adultery was unpardonable, which he never did.
The statement must be taken with everything else that Cyprian
taught and practised. Perhaps some light is thrown upon it by
a sentence in a later work, "Non facile ignoscere Deum
idololatris.”33
A further explanation perhaps may be found in the word
remitti. The idea of remission in Cyprian’s language implies a
total liquidation of sin such as is had in Baptism, and the word
XVI, 2, p. Sit, 1-p. S19, 7.
^Testimonia. ΙΠ, 28, p. 142, 6-7.
nEp. LV, 27, p. 645, 8-10.
SIDe habitu virginum. 11, p. 19 S, 11-16.
ȣ>. LIX, 13, p. 680, 13-16.
uEp. LV, 20, p. 638, 11-12.
”lbiJ. 21, p. 638, 23-23.
Fortunatum. 4, p. 324, 12.

·..

36

-

-

-

X

i

Theological Studies

is used almost exclusively to indicate the remission of sin by
Baptism.37 This means the entire removal of both guilt and
punishment; though such a distinction, which belongs to a later
age, was not consciously in Cyprian’s mind. The sins which
were said to be in Deum were, it seems, all those sins for which
public penance was required. Now in the process of public ;
penance the sinner had to expiate his sin. In this sense, then, we;
can understand how Cyprian would consider it almost impos­
sible for the apostate to have his sin "remitted,” since the debt
he had to pay by his public penance would be so great.38
This interpretation of remitti in the Testimonia is one way of ■
saving Cyprian from a contradiction. It may be objected that .
we have read too much into his statement, but the fact remains
that elsewhere he consistently teaches that every sin, even a,
peccatum in Deum, can be forgiven.^
|
If we go on to examine the reasons why Cyprian postponed I
his decision on the lapsi till a council might convene, we will ;
find no indication of any doubt about the possibility of recon­
ciling them.
Foremost in his mind is his determination not to make any *
important decisions without consulting clergy and people.
Early in 250, even before the trouble with the lax party became .
acute, he wrote to his clergy:
|
Ad id vero quod scripserunt mihi conpresbyteri nostri Donatus et
Fortunatus et Novatus et Gordius, solus rescribere nihil potui, quando
a primordio episcopatus mei statuerim nihil sine consilio vestro et sine
consensu plebis mea privarim sententia gerere.39

We are not told what these four priests asked, but it is most
probable that they wanted to reconcile the lapsed. At any rate,
we have here a policy formulated from the very beginning and
followed faithfully to the end.
Shortly after, while allowing the recipients of martyrs’ libelli
to be absolved in danger of death, he insists that the others must
wait for the council:
^cf. d’Alèj. La théologie de taint Cyprien, p. 287.
38The explanation I have given here has been proposed by d’Alè,, op. cit. pp. 2*5-287.
&Ep. XIV, 4, p. 5Ï2, 14-20.

X z

St. Cyprian and Apostates

37

Ceteri vero qui nullo libello a martyribus accepto invidiam faciunt,
quoniam non paucorum nec ecclesiae unius aut unius provinciae sed
totius orbis haec causa est, expectent ante de Domini protectione
ecclesiae ipsius publicam pacem. Hoc enim et verecundiae et disciplinae
et vitae ipsi omnium nostrum convenit, ut praepositi cum clero con­
venientes praesente etiam stantium plebe, quibus et ipsis pro fide et
timore suo honor habendus est, disponere omnia consilii communis
religione possimus.49

It is only natural that those who demanded immediate recon­
ciliation should want to know the reason for waiting, and to
this difficulty Cyprian gives various answers: because he was
admonished in visions granted him to postpone the matter;11
because he did not want to act rashly;12 because it was necessary
to examine into each case.13
Are these only excuses? Did Cyprian really consider idolatry
"an irrémissible sin”? A careful reading of all the letters of
this period reveals not the slightest doubt about the power of
the Church to reconcile the idolaters or the faintest hint that
Cyprian intends to exclude them all from the Church. Indeed,
if he had such rigoristic ideas, he would not have been so ready
to grant absolution to the dying. But why wait for a council
to decide what to do about the others who were not dying?
Here we are left to conjecture. Probably Cyprian knew that
any decision he would make would cause trouble either with
the laxists or with the rigorists and eventually lead to a schism.
From his hiding place outside the city, communicating with
his priests only by letter, he could not possibly check the
machinations of a rebellious party. In such circumstances, it
was better to postpone the matter till peace should be restored
and a council convene; for Cyprian might well have felt that
with the clergy and people all assembled, he could, by the force
of his authority and eloquence, appease both sides and bring
them to accept a reasonable solution midway between rigorism
and laxism.
«£>. XIX, 2, p. 525, 20-p. 12«, «.
XVI, 4, p. 520, 5-10.
«Ep. XVII, 1, p, 521, 14-18.
«£>. XXVI, p. 51», 16-17.

38

Theological Studies

St. Cyprian

Moreover, there was a problem here for the whole Church of
Africa. It was imperative that all the bishops agree upon a uni­
form policy, determining under what conditions the lapsed
should be admitted to penance. Amidst the wholesale apostasy,
which was entirely unprecedented, this was a serious problem;
and it must have caused Cyprian much thought. But of doubts
about the power of the keys to absolve apostasy or hesitation
to use that power we find none.
Such was Cyprian’s position when the council convened ini
251. He had been writing his treatise, De lapsis, and when the
clergy and people assembled he. read it to them.44
Everything in this treatise fits in with what we know of;
Cyprian’s policy from the correspondence of the preceding
year. He censures the apostates because, without remorse for
their fall, they live amid pleasures and luxury and perform no.acts of penance. He blames the confessors for their impatient;
desire to throw open the doors of the Church to all indiscrimi-’
nately. In an eloquent passage45 he grieves over the sacrileges
of those who were admitted to the Eucharist without exomolo- ;
gesis or imposition of hands or expiation of their sin.
i.
The course that he outlines is severe but not unreasonable.
The lapsed can be forgiven, but they must confess their sin with ;
sorrow to the bishop,48 and where there is a very serious sin, »|
long penance is required.47 There was, indeed, good reason to |
make a distinction in the amount of guilt among those who had I.
lapsed. As we have pointed out above, some had rushed to the 1
forum to sacrifice even before they were arrested, and they.
surely had committed a very grievous sin. Others had resolved ΐ
to'remain faithful, but under torture had lapsed; these could be \
more quickly reconciled.48
Ϊ
This is but a brief sketch of the policy recommended by ?
Cyprian in his celebrated treatise and by no means does justice i
^Ep. LIV, 4, p. 623, 16-17. Cf. P. Monceaux. Histoire littéraire de l'Afrique chrétien*! <
(7 vols. Paris. 1901-1923) Π, 292.
«De lapsis. 16, p. 248, 20-p. 249, 16.
teIbid. 29, p. 258, 17-22.
nïM. 3 5, p. 262, 18-19: "Alto vulneri diligens et longa medicina non desit.”
i
**Wd. 13, p. 246, 20-21.

1

and

Apostates

39

to the eloquence of the former rhetorician, to the wisdom and
tact of the bishop, or to the charity and zeal of the saint. Of
this work Monceaux has said:
C’est à la fois un sermon, un mandement, et un programme: le pro­
gramme très net d’un politique avisé, qui par ses adroites négociations, et
par son autorité morale, avait rallié a ses idées toute l’Eglise d’Afrique;
un mandement très ferme et très habile où les sévérités de l’évêque
s’enveloppaient de charité et de compassion; un sermon plein d’onction
et d’éloquence, qui toujours cherchait dans l’Ecriture la règle de vie.49

If the bishops showed a little more rigor than Cyprian would
have wanted, they did in general follow his advice. The de­
cisions of the council, in the absence of official acts, can be
pieced together from statements in various letters.50 Forty-two
African bishops, writing to Pope Cornelius a year later, re­
minded him that they had decided in the synod of 251 that
those who had sacrificed should perform a long penance (ap­
parently lifelong), and that if they were in danger of death
they should be absolved.51 In another letter a reference is made
to the same decision, and we are further informed that an ex­
amination of each case was demanded.52 In this letter, we also
learn that the libellatici were to be absolved without delay.53 In
no place do we find any reference to martyrs’ libelli being re­
quired. Cyprian during the persecution had allowed this honor
to the martyrs and the imputation of their merits, but it was
not considered necessary to make the possession of these peti­
tions a requisite in normal times.
There is one class of lapsed towards whom a certain amount
of severity seems to have been shown: namely those who, though
they refused to do penance during life, asked for the pax on
«Monceaux. op. cit. p. 298.
pp. 47*48.
LVII, 1, p. 650, 16-20.
SIEp. LV, 6, p. 627, 13-p. 628, 7.
17, p. 656, 6-9:
. libellaticos interim admitti." Benson (op. cit. p. 158),
without making any reference to this passage, states that the libellatics had to perform "a
considerable term of penance” Galtier [L'Eglise et la rémission des péchés (Paris, 1932)
p. 292] and many others understand interim as meaning "immediately.” Mortimer [op. cit.
p. 32) rejects this translation; but it seems to me the only one that fits the context.

40

Theological Studies

St. Cyprian

their deathbed. These should not hope for reconciliation: "pro·?
hibendos omnino censuimus a spe communicationis et pacis,”8;
Benson55 considered this rule to be a decree of the council, but;
there is no indication in the passage cited that such was the cast;;
and elsewhere in Cyprian’s letters, when there are references to ’
what the council decreed, this rule is not mentioned. It may have J
been simply a policy adopted by Cyprian. In those times when,
as he tells us in the De lapsis, there were so many apostates neg­
lecting penance and leading worldly lives, he must have though
it imperative to adopt such a severe norm in order to deter his
people from the terrible sin of presumption. But that he would :
actually reject penance where he knew it to be genuine is ques- j
tionable, since we know from other circumstances58 that he was ;
always guided by equity in enforcing his own rules and those i
of the council.
ί
The decrees of the synod were sent to Rome, and Cornelius, |
after holding a local council, agreed with the decisions of the I
African bishops.57 This approval by Rome seems to have beeu |
in keeping with the Roman tradition, for we know that during
the persecution Cyprian had kept in touch with the clergy there ·
and that they had agreed with him on the handling of the »
lapsed.
f
At this time, indeed, strange events were taking place at
Rome. Novatian, who had written to Cyprian58 during the
persecution in the name of the Roman clergy (while the Roman;
See was vacant) and had approved of Cyprian’s policy towards ·
the lapsed, was now set up as anti-pope, heading a puritanical
party that opposed the reconciliation of the apostates. More
bewildering still is the action Of Novatus, one of the laxists of
Carthage, who had wanted immediate reconciliation of the i
lapsed, and who now went to Rome to join the Novatian Î
rigorists. But whatever may have been the motives of these '
MEp. LV, 23, p. 441, 21-22.
S^Benson. op. cit. p. 138.
54£/». LVI, 2, p. 649, 9-22-, Ep. LV, 13, p. 432, 14-23.
SiEp. LV, 4, p. 428, 3-7.
HEP- XXX, PP. 149-116.

.

and

Apostates

41

men, their strange actions can hardly prove the existence of a
rigoristic tradition at Rome. The important point is that Rome,
whether during the vacancy after Fabian’s martyrdom or under
the pontificate of Cornelius, officially approved Cyprian’s
decisions.
There were a few rigorists, too, in Africa, who were ap­
parently admitting the lapsed to penance but denying them
reconciliation even at the hour of death. Against this prac­
tice Cyprian cries out with indignation:
O frustrandae fraternitatis inrisio, o miserorum lamentantium caduca
deceptio, o haereticae institutionis inefficax et vana traditio hortari ad
satisfactionis paenitentiam et subtrahere de satisfactione medicinam,
dicere fratribus nostris: "plange et lacrimas funde et diebus ac nocti­
bus ingemesce et pro abluendo et purgando delicto tuo largiter et fre­
quenter operare, sed extra ecclesiam post omnia ista morieris: quaecum­
que ad pacem pertinent facies, sed nullam pacem quam quaeris accipies.”
Quis non statim pereat, quis non ipsa desperatione deficiat, quis non
animum suum a proposito lamentationis avertat?59

For the most part, however, the decisions of 251 were ob­
served. Cyprian, indeed, must have felt that even that pro­
gram, however much it displeased the rigorists, was too severe;
for there were many sincere penitents faithfully performing
their acts of penance, not knowing when they would be
reinstated.
Especially sad was the plight of those, who though they had
bravely confessed the name of Christ, finally yielded in their
torments, and then, immediately repenting, undertook to do
penance in which they now remained steadfast. Should not
these be absolved? Such a case of conscience was presented to
Cyprian by some African bishops, and he was asked to consult
with his colleagues and return an answer. It happened that
at the time (May, 252) a council was about to convene at
Carthage, and Cyprian promised to bring the matter up. But
he did not hesitate to say that he himself thought they should
be absolved.**
»£#. LV, 21, p. 444, »-17.
*E£. LVI, 2, p. 44,, 9-21.

»

?

S'

J®

i

42

Theological Studies

St. Cyprian

The council met on May 15, 252. Another persecution was
threatening, and in these circumstances the bishops determined
to reconcile all the lapsed, including the sacrificati, who hid
been performing penance.81 They thought that in the difficulty
times to come the people should be armed "protectione sanguinis
et corporis Christi.”82 From that time on, it seems, there was
less difficulty with laxists and rigorists, although we are in­
formed83 that in the following year another council severely
reprimanded a certain bishop, Therapius, for absolving a lapsed
priest before he had done the penance prescribed. But by and :
large the bishops of Africa, and indeed throughout the whole ;
Church, recognized the wisdom of treating the lapsed with i
reasonable severity tempered with mercy, and most of the ex­
tremists that remained were definitely out of the Church.
There is a letter of Cyprian’s to a Numidian bishop, Antonianus, written early in 252, which is a long defense of his |
treatment of the lapsed and is an important document in this
discussion. In it Cyprian writes:
Et quidem primum, quoniam de meo quoque actu motus videris, mea
apud te persona et causa purganda est, ne me aliquis existimet a proposito
meo leviter recessisse, et cum evangelicum vigorem primo et inter initia
defenderim, postmodum videar animum meum a disciplina et censura
priore flexisse, ut his qui libellis conscientiam suam maculaverint vel
nefanda sacrificia commiserint laxandam pacem putaverim. Quod
utrumque non sine librata diu et ponderata ratione a me factum est.”

t
j
|
;
|
|

Here then is an admission by Cyprian himself that he was *
formerly a rigorist! But if we examine the following para- ί
graph to see what he means by his erstwhile rigorism, we will {
find that he is referring to his policy during the persecution of |
postponing his decision on the lapsed and meantime leaving I
them to the more difficult but surely more glorious way of |
martyrdom. Thus he exhorted them:
!
«!£/>. LVH. 1, p. Ml, 12-16.
WbH. 2, P- «52, 2-i.
t3Ep. LXIV, 1, p. 717. 8-21.
**Ep. LV, J, p. «25. 10-18.

ιί

and

Apostates

43

. . . ut paenitentiae viam non solum precibus et lamentationibus se­
querentur, sed quoniam repetendi certaminis et reparandae salutis dabatur
occasio, ad confessionis potius ardorem et martyrii gloriam nostris in­
crepiti vocibus provocarentur.65

His admission, therefore, of a departure from his former
policy (λ proposito meo recessisse) means simply the abandon­
ment of a course of action which was admittedly temporary.
Both in this letter and during the persecution itself he stressed
the fact that it was a temporary policy adopted until such a
time "cum quies et tranquillitas data esset et episcopis in unum
convenire indulgentia divina permitteret.”68
But the explanation to Antonianus goes on to say that the
council made its decision only after a careful examination of
Scripture;87 and the bishops showed clemency in order to keep
the lapsed from turning "ad gentiles vias et saecularia opera”
or "ad haereticos et schismaticos.”68 This indeed sounds very
much as if they were in doubt at first; which is probably true of
some of the bishops, since there were not a few rigorists present.
Then, too, the reason assigned gives the impression that if there
were not the danger of a large portion of the faithful falling
into paganism or heresy, the bishops would not have admitted
the lapsed; and the same appears to be implied in Cyprian’s
statement about himself, necessitate temporum succubuisse*9
The opportunism referred to here is apparently not the mere
fact of reconciling the lapsed but rather the immediate recon­
ciliation of the libellatics, which seems indeed to have been an
innovation;78 but we must remember that it was an innovation
only because the situation was entirely new.
In any case it should be pointed out that Cyprian here is
writing to a bishop who, fearing that Cornelius and his fol­
lowers are lax, is thinking of joining the Novatian puritans.71
»ibU. 4, P- «25. 22-p. «26. 1.
*«JW. 4, p. 626, U-1J.
alM. 6, p. «27, 16-17.
17, p. «56, 2-J.
&1W. 7, p. 628, 15.
5*G»Itiet. De pernitenti*. pp. 175*176.
«£>. LV, 2-J, p. 624, 14-p. 625, 1β|

ί.·

ί

44

Theological Studies

St. Cyprian and Apostates

It is only natural for Cyprian in these circumstances to empha­
size the careful deliberations of the bishops and the grave rea­
sons that exist for the apparently lenient attitude they are
taking.
;
But it does not enter Cyprian’s mind that his attitude is too
lenient, and there is no real evidence of "painful doubts”; inp
fact he tells Antonianus that he is surprised the rigorists will ■
not absolve the lapsed:
Miror autem quosdam sic obstinatos esse ut dandam non putent lapsis ;
paenitentiam aut paenitentibus existiment veniam denegandam, cum <
scriptum sit: "Memento unde cecideris et age paenitentiam et fac priora i
opera.”72

There were indeed a few well-meaning rigorist bishops in the
Church at the time of this letter, which was written shortly’
before the council of 252. The bishops in their official state-i
ment to Pope Cornelius after the council, announcing their |
decree to absolve the apostates who were doing penance, were
conscious of the rigorists when they wrote:
!
Quod si de collegis aliquis extiterit qui urguente certamine pacem
fratribus et sororibus non putat dandam, reddet ille rationem in die
iudicii Domino vel importunae censurae vel inhumanae duritiae suae.”

■

t
;

Everything, then, that we know of Cyprian indicates that
he was never really one of the rigorists and that the puritanical |
spirit was not the tradition of the Church in Africa. Indeed |
this catharism which had manifested itself towards adulterers t
in Tertullian’s time seems to have been anything but the tradi­
tional attitude. Cyprian’s statement that the rigorists of those |
days were "quidam de episcopis” who "locum contra adulteria |
eluserunt” implies that they were a minority group who de­
parted from the traditional policy.” One is hardly said to have I
closed a thing unless it was previously open.
{
72i£>id. 22, p. 639, 8-11.
f
«£ρ. LVH, ϊ, p. 6H, 13-16.
'
LV, 21, p. 638, 23-23. Cf. M.-C. Chartier. "La discipline pinitentielle d’après k> I

45

Those who opposed the reconciliation of the lapsed in
Cyprian’s time were the heirs of this puritanical spirit. That
Cyprian ever contemplated adopting their policy is not proved
from his letters and treatises, which we have studied. That their
policy can be called the tradition of the Church in Africa is
not proved either.
Perhaps we may say from all we know of those times that
the tradition was divided, the majority of bishops favoring a
lenient attitude towards the apostates, a minority adhering to
puritanical ideals. There must have been some precedent for
reconciling the lapsed; otherwise, as Gal tier has pointed out, the
immediate clamor for reconciliation cannot be explained. And
this seems to be confirmed by what Tertullian, as a Catholic,
tells us of a poenitentia secunda for those who fall into grievous
sins, such as impurity or apostasy.75 Certainly if Cyprian and
his followers went against a fixed tradition of rigorism when
they welcomed back the repentant apostates, we would hear of
that tradition. It would be one more argument of the rigorists
for Cyprian to answer in his letters to Antonianus and others.
In the absence of any reference to such an argument, we may
conclude that his opponents never appealed to tradition because
they could not.
Now, if we put together all the facts we have studied, we
may say with all probability that when Cyprian first faced the
entirely new problem of wholesale apostasy he did not contem­
plate abandoning the lapsed; but that, seeing innumerable
difficulties in admitting them immediately, he decided upon a
temporary solution until the bishops might convene and dis­
cuss the whole matter. Thus the plan that Cyprian suggested
to the council of 251 does not mean a reversal in his policy; and
the decision of the bishops at that time does not seem to have
been an innovation, except perhaps the decree to absolve the
libellatici without a long penance. The decision of 252, to grant
the pax immediately to all the sacrificati doing penance, was

écrits de saint Cyprien.” [Antonianum XIV (1939) 21-23],

,5TertuIliin. Dr poenitentia, (ed. Preuschen. Tübingen. 1910) 7, 9-10.

46

Theological Studies

indeed a new thing, for we know that such a sin normally re­
quired a long time of canonical penance. But the action of
the bishops was an innovation only because the Church it,
Africa had never before, as far as we know, had to face a ner
persecution with a large number of penitents doing canonical
penance for previous apostasy. At least in the mind of Cypria
(and probably the same could be said of the majority of tk
bishops), it was not a radical departure but rather the logical
application of principles that had always guided him. Thos
principles were at work during the persecution when he decided;
to grant the pax to the dying, and after the persecution whet
he wanted to shorten the duration of canonical penance in cases!
where there were extenuating circumstances.
?
To answer the questions we proposed at the beginning ofc
this enquiry, we may state briefly: (1) There is no evidence to*
prove that Cyprian was the first African bishop to reconcilt;
apostates, and there are indications that seem to show that sud
reconciliation was granted before his time. (2) The temper··
ing of the severity of the penitential discipline did not consist
in a reversal of policy but rather in a benign and equitable ap-1
plication of old principles to an entirely new situation. (5).
Cyprian suffered no doubts about the possibility of reconciling
apostates who were truly repentant, although he did deliberate t
carefully on the conditions under which they would be ad-1
mitted and absolved.
»
The change, then, which had come over the African Churd j
by the end of that decade cannot be considered the abandon-1
ment of an official puritanical tradition, but rather the adapta­
tion of the existing penitential discipline to new conditions aid
the triumph of the traditional spirit of Christian mercy ovtf
a very heretical spirit of puritanism that had been lurking with-1
in the Church. From that time on, the policy of the Church in
Africa and elsewhere, however diverse it may have been before ;
was one of clemency; and the rigoristic bishops and priests, I
who had been able to stay within the Church, now gradually ,
learned to conform or went over to the Novatian sect.
:

FORM-CRITICISM OF THE SYNOPTIC HEALING
NARRATIVES
LAURENCE J. McGINLEY, S.J.
Woodstock College

Woodstock, Md.

II. Paradigm

and

Apothegm

HE serious defects in the general theory of form-criticism1
will, naturally, vitiate its conclusions when it is applied to
definite form-categories of the Gospels. However, form-criti­
cism is essentially a method, and as such must be studied at
work. Both Bultmann and Dibelius have applied their criteria
to the whole field of the synoptic material, the former in great
detail. Following the trend of recent rationalist criticism, they
incline to ascribe more historical value to the sayings of Jesus
than to His deeds.2 This distinction is due in part to the hypoth­
esis of a spécial collection of Jesus’ sayings (the source Q),
and in part to a recognition of the uniquely personal character
of these discourses. The distinction is, of course, artificial, for
some of Jesus’ most striking sayings are intimately interwoven
with the story of His deeds. It conveniently narrows the field,
however, for the student of form-criticism who is interested in
the general historicity of the Gospels. In the present articles
we shall further circumscribe our investigation by considering
only that particular group of narratives in which form-criticism
is said to find its most satisfactory application: the stories of
miracles;* and because they form the bulk of the Gospel mir­
acles, as also because the form-critics have devoted special atten­
tion to analyzing them, we shall select for our study one group
of miracles: the healing narratives. In the classification adopted
1The general theory of form-criticism was examined in the first article of this scries: "The
Principles of Form Criticism” [Theol. Stud. 2 (1941) 451-480.]
JM. Dibelius, Die Formgescbicbte des Evangelmms?pp. Jiff.; R. Bultmann. Die Geschichfe
dtr syuopiiscben Tradition? pp. 9, $1, and wherever a saying of Jesus is considered as
(pouibly) genuine while its narrative framework is rejected as artificial. (These two works
are hereafter referred to simply as: Dibelius, Bultmann.)
acf. Bultmann. "The New Approach to the Synoptic Problem.” p. 347. Regarding the
Passion narrative, which defies all form-critical analysis, cf. E. Florit. Il metodo della "storia
dette forme” pp. 67-159.