St Cyprian's Understanding of Synodality As Inclusive of the Laity

St Cyprian’s Understanding of Synodality as Inclusive of the Laity

Kenneth Tapiwa Macharaga BTheol, GDTheol, MTh

A Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Theology (by Research)

University of Divinity 2020

Abstract Synodality, is an old concept in the Church, but has recently, with the papacy of Pope Francis (2013-), taken centre stage. The Pope is known for his insistence on a synodal Church for the third millennium: a Church in which the pope, bishops, priests, and laity, journey together, listening to what the Holy Spirit is saying to the Church. This thesis approaches the dialogue on synodality from historical and literary lenses by exploring the letters of St Cyprian and examining how the bishop of Carthage (248/9-258) understood the importance of the engagement of all members of the Church in dealing with issues of conflict. The ten years of his exercise of the office of bishop were tumultuous for the Christian Church, and more so for the bishops who had to deal with the disturbances arising from the first universal persecution instigated upon the Church by the Emperor Decius (249- 251). The confusion resulting from the return of those who had lapsed and wishing to be readmitted into the Church, as well as Cyprian’s own personal vendettas with members of his clergy, demanded tact and discernment. This thesis will argue that despite the mounting pressure exerted on Cyprian while in exile and after, as well as his handling of conflicts in neighbouring churches, especially when faced with issues to do with recalcitrant bishops and election of bishops, common consensus took pride of place. Although he does not present a developed theology of the laity, the role he granted them in the synodal process, and the election of bishops marks a distinctive feature in his governance and offers much to contemporary ecclesiology. While our times are different and while Cyprian is regarded as the father of episcopacy par excellence, he was first and foremost a bishop who understood that the Church consisted of the whole people, and as such, resolution of conflicts demanded the participation of all people.

iii

Declaration of originality I hereby certify that a) the thesis submitted for examination is the result of my own work. b) all sources on which the thesis is based, and any assistance received in completing the thesis have been acknowledged in the scholarly apparatus. c) no material in the thesis has been copied or purchased or written by someone other than me.

Kenneth Tapiwa Macharaga.

To Dr Claire Nyandoro who introduced me to Church History. RIP Gogo. And to my Father, MD Macharaga, who made me love history.

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank all those, who, during my program in Australia, have helped me immensely in coming up with a proposal and completing it. My heartfelt thanks go to my supervisors Matthew Beckmann and Adam Cooper, whose tireless efforts ensured a worthwhile completion. I am also grateful for the collaboration between the Redemptorist units of Zimbabwe and Australia-Oceania in allowing me to pursue this path. Thanks also to the ever-vigilant UD librarians, and all members of the Redemptorist Kew community, past and present. Your wisdom, patience and community spirit are greatly appreciated.

Contents INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Key Terms ...... 3 Synod/Synodality ...... 3 Heresy/schism ...... 6 Plebs, laici, populus ...... 8 CHAPTER ONE: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ...... 10 Christianity in Roman Carthage ...... 10 Cyprian ...... 17 Cyprian’s Corpus ...... 20 The Decian Edict ...... 21 The Impact ...... 23 And Many Fell ...... 26 CHAPTER TWO: THE LONG EXILE ...... 28 The Decian Correspondence ...... 29 April to July Letters ...... 32 The Early Summer to Late-summer Letters ...... 36 Roman Diplomacy/Enter Rome ...... 36 Along came Lucianus ...... 41 Consequences of Lucianus’ Actions ...... 42 Mob Psychology ...... 44 What next? ...... 48 The Winter Letters: About excommunications, supplements, and visions ...... 50 A Homecoming? ...... 51 An Assessment of the period ...... 53 CHAPTER THREE: THE SYNOD OF 251 ...... 56 General Summary of Events ...... 57 Unpacking the Event ...... 58 Epistle 55 and the Synod ...... 62 Resolutions: A Healthy Compromise ...... 63 Process ...... 69 The Roman Report ...... 73 Numbers Matter ...... 75 An Assessment ...... 79 CHAPTER FOUR: THE LAITY IN THE ELECTION OF BISHOPS ...... 83 The role of the laity in relation to Cyprian’s ecclesiology ...... 84 vii

Epistle 43: An appeal to ‘the whole people’ – plebi uniuersae ...... 88 Epistle 44 and 45: The Roman Schism ...... 89 Epistle 55: In Defence of Cornelius ...... 90 Epistle 66: To Florentius, also called Puppianus ...... 92 Epistle 68 and 67: Replacing Bishops ...... 94 Suffragium ...... 99 An Assessment ...... 101 GENERAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ...... 103 Bibliography ...... 107 Table detailing Cyprian’s letters...... 114

INTRODUCTION

The ten years that Cyprian was bishop in Carthage (248/9-258), were marked by crisis after crisis. The period was overshadowed by the Decian persecution and the problems that arose from it: what to do with the lapsed laity, what to do with the lapsed bishops, and what to do with those who had been baptised in the schismatic or heretical sects and were wishing to return? While the Church would have had clear distinctions “of its identity and boundaries,” its “beliefs, sacramental practices, and lifestyles were still quite fluid.”1 There was therefore, a need for the Church to meet these challenges and forge a way forward, and sometimes this meant either an abandoning of certain customary traditions and disciplines, or a tightening of them. One way of dealing with governance issues, or internal or regional strife within the Church, was through synods. It is the thrust of this thesis to investigate Cyprian’s understanding of this method of governance and ascertain how much value he attached to the synodal process. Literature on Cyprian is extensive. His ecclesiology has been interpreted in different directions and has been the object of much discussion; as have his dealings with synods and the election of bishops, sometimes with conclusions that give more voice to the laity, and at other times dismissing their participation. This thesis seeks to appreciate the historical narrative in which we are to view Cyprian. He certainly was not a systematic theologian, but a man who had to deal with issues as they presented themselves, and in this, he tended to vacillate or regress in his ideas. The often-congested timeline in some of correspondence makes it difficult to keep up with his train of thought. Yet even in these tight exchanges we can discover a particular constant that ran throughout his letters, and that constant was: let us wait until there is peace and then we shall discuss in council together. In order to investigate and assess the importance Cyprian attached to the synodal process I shall limit myself to working within the parameter of the events leading up to the first known synod under Cyprian in 251, and the surviving report(s) he gives on that synod. The aim is to discover whether there were alterations to his resolution for common discernment, and if so, how can they be explained? For a better understanding of the functioning of synodality in general I will thereafter survey a key feature in the life of the

1 Angelo Di Berardino, Preface to “Cyprian of Carthage: Studies in His Life, Language, and Thought," ed. Henk Bakker, Paul van Geest, and Hans van Loon, Late Antique History and Religion (LAHR) 3 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), viii. 2

Church, the election of bishops. A survey on the reports he gives on the electoral process reveal the active role of the local congregation in electing and deposing the bishop, upon whom the Church is founded and through whom “every act of the Church is governed.”2 Before we enter into the discussion, I shall begin by defining key terms that recur in the thesis; synod or synodality, the people, and the distinction between schism and heresy, as presented in Cyprian’s thought. I shall then proceed in Chapter one to give the historical background against which we can appreciate Cyprian and the events that define his episcopacy. Chapter two will then examine the events around the exile period and explore how they shaped Cyprian’s resolution for a gathering in which everyone played a part. The main argument in this section is dependent upon personality clashes and the battle for popular support. I shall argue that in his exile period Cyprian had to contend with forceful characters who managed to win popular approval by appealing to the impatience of the lapsed, who happened to be the majority. To counter this threat Cyprian had to turn to the people, who, in his election, had unanimously acclaimed him as their bishop. In the third chapter I shall explore the report given on the synod of 251. From this we shall conclude that Cyprian’s focus shifts from the people to fellow colleagues, not necessarily because the former no longer mattered or had served their purpose, but because the advent of the schism in Rome demanded episcopal consensus for the sake of maintaining the unity of the Church. While Cyprian says next to nothing about the attendance or participation of the lower clergy and the laity, their presence can be detected in reports of how the two opposing parties in the Roman schism demanded the support and judgment of the congregation, and how the Novatian party went from door- to-door seeking sympathisers to their cause. To get a better picture of the participation of the laity I shall turn to the report of the synod held in Rome under Cornelius, and there the laity emerge as active participants. I shall also focus on the question of numbers to determine the possibilities of the laity having a voice loud enough to effect changes. Having noted Cyprian’s apparent silence on the role of the people in the synod(s) chapter four will turn its focus to an essential feature in Cyprian’s ecclesiology: the election of bishops. Cyprian’s ideas on the office of the bishop have occasioned much literature, and hence, shall not be the focus of this chapter. The Chapter will, however,

2 Ep 33.1.1. All quotations from Cyprian are taken from Graeme Clarke’s four volume translation, while the Latin text is taken from the Corpus Christianorum, series Latina (CCSL). This would explain for the usage of the Latin “u” instead of the “v.” 3 turn to his views on the election and deposition of bishops and argue that Cyprian’s statements on electoral procedure tend to arise out of conflict or contested situations, and as had happened in the 251 exile, Cyprian draws on the weight of the community or the local congregation urging them to play their part. The final section will then give a general summary and conclude the argument. The active participation of the laity in the life of the Church was, for Cyprian, a right belonging to them as ‘standing’ (stantes) members of the Church, and not an exception. This principle is something the Church of today can learn from. The Church of today is still reeling from the temptation of, and suffering the effects brought about by clericalism, which is a disordered attitude towards clergy, that is fostered either by the clergy themselves or by lay persons, and which places “an excessive deference and an assumption of [clergy’s] moral superiority.”3 The church ought to move from this mindset and move towards the path of synodality in which bishops, priests, and all the faithful listen to the Holy Spirit, who is the principle player in the life of the Church.4 I shall now move to defining terms that are central to this thesis.

Key Terms Synod/Synodality Between 2014 and 2017 the Catholic Church’s International Theological Commission “undertook a study of synodality in the life and mission of the Church,” the conclusions of which were presented in a document issued on 2 March 2018. 5 Of interest to us is the fact that the Commission acknowledges that synodality, as we understand it now, since the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), is not the same as it would have been understood in the first millennium, and certainly not as it would have been understood by Cyprian and his church. The contemporary and canonical understanding of synod is in terms of ‘Diocesan synods’ or the ‘synod of bishops’. Diocesan synods, which date back to the fourth century, are by law convoked by the diocesan bishop in consultation with his presbyteral

3 Nicholas Senz, “What is ‘Clericalism?” Aleteia, accessed 22 March 2021. https://aleteia.org/2018/08/23/what-is-clericalism/; Pope Francis, Letter of His Holiness Pope Francis to The People of God (2018), n. 2. http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2018/documents/papa- francesco_20180820_lettera-popolo-didio.html. 4 Catechism of the Catholic Church, English translation, 1st ed. (1994), n. 798. 5 International Theological Commission, Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church (2 March 2018): preliminary note. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20180302_sinodalita_en.ht ml. 4 council.6 Membership includes “selected priests and other members of the Christian faithful” within the particular church or diocese and their duty is to assist the bishop for the good of the community.7 The members possess only a consultative vote while legislative power belongs to the bishop (c.466) (cc. 460-468). A synod of bishops, on the other hand, pertains to a group of selected bishops whose primary role is to inform and advice the pope in matters or questions that “pertain to the activity of the church in the world” (c.342). It is directly subject to the authority of the pope who, among other things, convokes it, ratifies its elections, defines agenda, and presides over it (c.344). So, whereas the diocesan synod is at the service of the bishop, the synod of bishops is at the service of the pope. A synod is not the same as a council. Pope Benedict XIV (d. 1758) decreed that while a synod is the convocation of the diocese, a council, is the convocation of “all the bishops of the catholic world.”8 A council can be ecumenical, or particular (plenary or provincial). An ecumenical council represents the universal Church, whereas the particular council (general, plenary, national, provincial etc) represents more or less extensive regions.9 An ecumenical council is convoked and presided over by the pope or his representatives (c.338), and members include all the bishops with rights to participate, and may also include some others who are not bishops invited by the supreme authority (c.339).10 Particular councils, whether Plenary, that is “for all the churches of the same conference of bishops” (c.439), or Provincial, that is, “a gathering of the different particular churches of the same ecclesiastical province” (c.440), are convoked by the conference of bishops with the approval of the apostolic see (c.439, 441). Membership is extended to the faithful, both clergy and lay, religious and secular, and, although bishops may actually cast ballots, all the participants may speak (c.443). A Particular council has

6 Barbara, Anne Cusack, “The Internal Ordering of Particular Churches [cc.460-572],” in New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, ed John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, and Thomas J. Green (New York/Mahwah, NJ: The Canon Law Society of America, 2000), 610: introductory note. 7 Code of Canon Law c.460 8 Royal, L Peck, “Synod,” in The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Revised edition, ed J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978), 947. 9 Charles, Munier, “Council,” in Encyclopedia of the Early Church. Vol I., ed. Angelo di Bernardino. Trans. Adrian Walford (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 1992). 205. 10 John G. Johnson G, “Groupings of Particular Churches [cc.431-459],” in New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, ed John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, and Thomas J. Green (New York/Mahwah, NJ: The Canon Law Society of America, 2000), 454. 5 the right to come up with decisions to be implemented within the territory – “always without prejudice to the universal law of the Church” (c.445). These distinctions would not have existed in Cyprian’s time. Nevertheless, the need to consult each other on common problems of faith and discipline would have been a discipline that went back to the earliest days of the Church, as exemplified in the meeting of the Apostles in Jerusalem over Gentile converts (Acts 15). Etymologically, the Greek term σύνοδος (συν - with, and όδός - path) “indicates the path along which the people of God walk together.”11 Although the Latin concilium has a different root with non-religious connotations of “an assembly convoked by a legitimate authority,” it converges and supplements its Latin counterpart synodus, by giving a richer meaning of an assembly of the people convoked by God in Christ Jesus.12 The distinction between synod and council, as noted above, is a recent one traceable to the 1983 Code of Canon Law. When the word ‘synod’ was used in the first centuries, it was with specific reference “to ecclesial assemblies convoked on various levels (diocesan, provincial, regional, patriarchal or universal)” with the intention of deliberating and discerning together, so as to forge the path in unison (n.4).13 While the term ‘Synod’ can be traced to the early tradition of the Church, the terms ‘synodality’ and ‘synodal’ are neologisms that have appeared in recent decades, following the Second Vatican Council.14 As a quality of the church, the primary or narrow definition of synodality is “the gathering of bishops, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, for common deliberation and action in caring for the Church.”15 The broader meaning, however, embraces all members of the church: “it refers to the active participation of all the faithful in the life and mission of the Church.”16 It is this broader meaning that I shall make recourse to so as to prevent us from reading our modern

11 International Theological Commission, Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church, n.3. 12 International Theological Commission, Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church, n.3,4. See also Charles Joseph Hefele, History of the Christian Councils: From the Original Documents, trans. Clark William R, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1872), 1. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=h7h&AN=34634592&site=eds-live. 13 International Theological Commission, Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church, n.4. Hefele points out that in the West, the term 'synod' as refering to an assembly gathered for ecclesiastical business, first appears in Tertullian's writing, whereas in the East it appears in the Apostolic Constitutions. Hefele, History of Councils, 1:1. 14 International Theological Commission, Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church, n.3-5. 15 General Secretariat for the Synod of Bishops, Synodality and Primacy During the First Millennium: Towards a common Understanding in Service to the Unity of the Church (21 September 2016), n. 3, http://www.synod.va/content/synod/en/news/synodality-and-primacy-during-the-first-millennium--towards- a-co.html. 16 General Secretariat for the Synod of Bishops, Synodality and Primacy During the First Millennium: Towards a common Understanding in Service to the Unity of the Church, n. 3. 6 interpretation into the life and times of Cyprian. I shall look at ‘synod’ not only as the gathering of the Church in council, but also as a way of being Church as implied when, for example, St Ignatius of Antioch (died early second century) described the members of the local community in Ephesus as “σύνοδοι, ‘companions on the journey’, by virtue of the dignity of baptism and their friendship with Christ” (n.25). The concept of journeying together will thereby bring out the neologisms ‘synodal’ and ‘synodality’.

Heresy/schism The Church over which Cyprian presided was not one single unit. It was divided. In his correspondence we get glimpses of the existence of rival Christian communities. The two major sectaries which occupied his correspondence were those belonging to two persons, who like him had “dynamic, magnetic and forceful” personalities, Felicissimus in Carthage, and Novatian in Rome.17 Felicissimus was probably a wealthy layman, later appointed deacon, who emerged in open dissension, at least in Cyprian’s correspondence, in Epistle 41, after Cyprian had set up a commission of five persons, including three bishops, to oversee the welfare of his Church. Felicissimus managed to secure the following of five of Cyprian’s opponents, and together they advanced the cause of reconciliation without imposing the strictness of tradition. They became known as the Laxist party. Novatian was a Roman presbyter, and he would have assisted in drafting the Roman clergy’s epistles 30, 31 and 36 to Cyprian.18 He, like Cyprian was eloquent and could win over his opponents by persuasion and was also regarded as a champion of tradition. He therefore insisted on maintaining the strictness of the discipline, especially when faced with the issue of returning penitents. Consequently, he became the leader of the Rigorist party. These two individuals would eventually set up rival Christian communities in Carthage in 252. Apart from these two, there were also other sectaries. In Spain two laicised bishops, Basilides and Martialis, refused to step down (Ep 67). In Gaul, Bishop Marcianus persisted in Novatian’s rigorism (Ep 68). And in Lambaesis, the political capital of Numidia there was the relentless bishop, Privatus, whom Cyprian called “a

17 Geoffrey D. Dunn, "The Carthaginian Synod of 251: Cyprian's Model of Pastoral Ministry," I Concili Della Cristianita Occidentale Secoli: XXX Incontro di Studiosi dell'antichità Cristianità Roma III-V. Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 78 (Roma: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, May 2002): 254. 18 Graeme W. Clarke, The Letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage, 4 vols., Ancient Christian Writers 44 (New York: Newman Press, 1984), 2: Letters 28-54 p. 119, introductory note to Ep 30. 7 veteran heretic” condemned at least in three synods between 236 and 238, then in 251 and again in 252.19 In Lambaesis he had set up Maximus as his bishop, and in Carthage he would play a key role in the appointment of Fortunatus as a rival bishop.20 The 1983 Code of Canon Law number 751 states Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” 21

Cyprian would not have had this precision in describing the disputes with the above- mentioned persons. For him, heresy and schism overlapped, and hence, he used the terms interchangeably.22 Schism (Greek, Schisma – division) is “any breach of ecclesiastical unity that involves setting up a separate and rival church.”23 This division is not necessarily a matter of theology or dogma, but could arise from many factors, such as, social, economic, and political divisions. In the case of the above instances, Novatian’s and Felicissimus’ divisions emerged in the wake of persecution and its aftermath with the two parties setting up churches that took a rigorist (Novatian) and a laxist (Felicissimus) view of church discipline. While schism involves a separation that carries “only a minimal divergence in doctrine” and includes broader factors (political, social, and economic) “as well as the more obvious issues of discipline and belief, heresy, involves a separation that is due to doctrinal divergence.24 For the early church, belief and practice were one component; “deviant belief would lead to a break in the unity and a break in unity would prevent any unity of

19 Ep. 59.9.2; 10.1-3; 20.1,3. 20 Ep 59.1.1, 11.2; Graeme W. Clarke, The Letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage, 4 vols., Ancient Christian Writers 46, (New York: Newman Press, 1986), 3: Letters 55-66, p.252 n.47. 21 John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, and Thomas J. Green, eds., New Commentary on The Code of Canon Law (New York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2000), 915 n.751. 22 Geoffrey D. Dunn, "Validity of Baptism and Ordination in the African Response to the 'Rebaptism' Crisis: Cyprian of Carthage's Synod of Spring 256," Theological Studies 67 no. 2 (2006): 271 n.74, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdah&AN=ATLA0001512962&site=eds-live; Graeme W. Clarke, The Letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage, 4 vols., Ancient Christian Writers 43 (New York: Newman Press, 1984), 1: Letters 1-27: 169, n.18. 23 Everett, Ferguson, “Schism” in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity 2, ed. Ferguson, Everett, Michael P, McHugh., and Frederick, Norris W (New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 1997), 1040, https://ebookcentral- proquest-com.divinity.idm.oclc.org/lib/undiv/detail.action?docID=1460792 24 Jean Guitton. Great Heresies and Church Councils (London: Harvill Press, 1965), 27. 8 belief.”25 Therefore, “the term schismatic initially did not refer to a Christian separated from the community, but rather a dissident.”26 It meant dissent that would lead to disunion. This would explain why Cyprian viewed Novatian as both a schismatic and a heretic: You ask whether it is obligatory that those who come over to us from Novatian ought to be included in the company of other heretics … On this matter we can speak only as far as the capacity of our faith allows … and our view is that without exception all heretics and schismatics are without any powers or rights whatsoever. And, therefore, no exception ought to be, indeed can be, made in the case of Novatian. He continues to be like the others, outside the church, he acts against the peace and charity of Christ; he must be reckoned as one of the adversaries and antichrists (Ep 69.1.1). Hence, when I use these terms in this thesis, it is with the mind of Cyprian, and not the clear-cut distinction of modern Canon Law. It is equally futile to attempt to delineate between break-away and mainstream churches since such distinctions were still somewhat fluid.27

Plebs, laici, populus Paul Fitzgerald observes that Cyprian used the term laicus about seven times in his letters and never in his treatises; rather, he preferred to call the people plebs (eighty- nine times), and populus.28 These terms refer to people: “the people of God, of Christ, or simply people without any religious connotations.”29 Yet, plebs had a socio-political dimension to it since in Roman usage it was used in the relations between the governor and the governed, “the higher magistrates of Rome and the rest of the Empire.”30 Hence, when Cyprian used plebs it was generally with reference to “the people within a specific community in relation to their bishop and other clergy,” and often, this had undertones of

25 Geoffrey D. Dunn, "Heresy and Schism According to Cyprian of Carthage," The Journal of Theological Studies 55, no. 2 (Oct 2004): 560, https://www.jstor.org/stable/23969596; Geoffrey D. Dunn, "Sententiam Nostram Non Nouam Promimus: Cyprian and the Episcopal Synod of 255," Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 35 (2003): 213. 26 Vittorino, Grossi, “Schism - Schismatic” in Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity. ed. Angelo di Bernardino. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014), 3:503, http://search.ebscohost.com.divinity.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=url,ip,cookie,uid&db =nlebk&AN=706670&site=ehost-live. 27 Dunn, "Synod of 255," 213. 28 Paul J. Fitzgerald, "A Model for Dialogue: Cyprian of Carthage on Ecclesial Discernment," Theological Studies 59, no. 2 (June 1998): 238 n.5. 29 Alexander W. H. Evers, Church, Cities and People: A Study of the Plebs in the Church and Cities of Roman Africa in Late Antiquity, Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture 11 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 97. 30 For further treatment on the terms see, Evers, Church, Cities, People, 81-111. 9 patron-client elements.31 In the few instances that he used populus, it was to express the people in general, “or a larger group as a whole,” and especially “in a local context when the people are involved in episcopal elections.”32 Unlike his Roman counterparts who used populus (Cornelius used it three times in Epistle 49) and laici (Roman clergy), Cyprian used terms “that secular and everyday society, especially the municipal government, provided for him.”33 The terms defined above bring us into perspective permitting us to work within the confines of the ecclesiology still evolving in the Church during the mid-third century. Other terms or concepts directly associated with the persecution will be defined in the next section when we look at the historical backdrop against which we are to situate Cyprian.

31 Evers, Church, Cities, People, 81; Graeme W. Clarke, "Cyprian: A Brief Biography," in Sancti Cypriani Episcopi Opera, ed. Gerardus Frederik Diercks, Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina IIID (Turnhout: Brepols, 1999), 679. 32 Evers, Church, Cities, People, 136. 33 Evers, Church, Cities, People, 96; Michael M. Sage, Cyprian, Patristic monograph Series (Cambridge, Mass: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1975), 17-19; Clarke, Letters of Cyprian 2: 276, n.22. 10

CHAPTER ONE: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

African Christianity enters the pages of history with the blood of the Scillitan martyrs in July 180.34 Prior to that, not much is known about its origins or its operations. Theories as to its beginnings vary, with proposals pointing to an eastern origin, that is, from a Greek speaking community of the Roman empire, or, a Jewish origin, that is, the Jewish diaspora that came to Carthage as slaves after the Jewish war in 66-70. The better proposal suggests that African Christianity originated from various sources and at different times.35 In this section I shall give a summary of the context in which we are to situate Cyprian and the Carthaginian church. I shall therefore consider such things as the location and status of Carthage, the structure of the Christian community, and the Decian edict and the impact it had on the Church. Within this context I shall briefly explore the life of Cyprian.

Christianity in Roman Carthage When Julius Caesar re-founded the city of Carthage (present day Tunis in Tunisia) in 46 BCE, after it had been destroyed by the Romans in the third Punic war in 146 BCE, the new city grew quickly and, at “the height of Rome’s influence … was one of the wealthiest regions … with only Egypt, Syria and Italy being more prosperous.”36 Carthage fell under Africa Proconsularis, which, together with Numidia with its capital at Lambaesis, Mauretania Caesarea with its capital at Caesarea, and Mauretania Tingitane with its capital at Tingi, made up the four Roman provinces of North Africa. These four large provinces would later be increased to eight in Diocletian’s reforms in 288.37 The initial political capital of Africa Proconsularis was Utica, but this was soon overtaken by the rapid growth and expansion of Carthage.38 Carthage was strategically

34 Herbert Musurillo, "The Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs," in The Acts of the Christian Martyrs, ed. Henry Chadwick, Oxford Early Christian Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), xxii, 86-89. 35 For a summary of the origins see, Barbara K. Gold, Perpetua: Athlete of God, Women in Antiquity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 88. 36 Charles River Editors, The Roman Provinces of North Africa: The History of the Region and Its Rulers After the Punic Wars (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2018), The Province of Africa. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=1_JKvgEACAAJ. 37 François Decret, Early Christianity in North Africa, trans. Edward L. Smither (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2009), 2. 38 It is interesting to note that in the Valerian persecution, 256-260, the Governor Galerius Maximus was in Utica when he issued a warrant of arrest for Cyprian. Not wanting to die a martyr in Utica, Cyprian went into hiding; “It befits a bishop to confess his faith in that city where he has been placed in charge over the Lord’s flock…” (Ep 81.1). Decret sees Cyprian’s actions as “rather aristocratic” and patronal, yet we can

11 located on the shores of North Africa and had fertile agricultural lands conducive for farming grain. These geographical and agricultural advantages meant that it was the first port of call for vessels coming from elsewhere in the Mediterranean. It quickly became a key city for business and trade, a beneficiary of Rome’s ideological and colonial expansion, and fertile grounds for the spread of Christianity.39 The gradual influx of Roman settlements, seen in the movement of army veterans who settled on farming plots awarded them by the government, contributed to the Romanisation of the indigenous peoples such that by the first century the new Carthage modelled the city of Rome, and the local peoples were preferring Latin to their own Berber/Libyan or Punic languages.40 Being the first point of entry for seafarers, merchants and immigrants also meant that Christianity could have come from any of these sources.41 Apart from the diocese of Numidia that “spilled over into that of Proconsularis” Christian expansion would have followed the “established political, social and cultural networks,” such that its structures and geographic spread would have been mirror images of the Roman system.42 The fact that in 203, in a vision, Saturus in the Passion of Perpetua, mentions “Optatus, the bishop … and Aspasius, the presbyter, a teacher” as well as worship assemblies, implies that the African church had been in existence for quite some time.43 However, we cannot assume that its spread or distribution was uniform.44 Graeme Clarke’s presentation of Third Century Christianity paints a picture of very uneven Christian settlements in the countryside, with some regions in Asia having a Christian presence in the rural settlements and towns, whereas other regions had a very scarce rural presence.45 The establishment of churches tended to follow “the legal boundaries of the also discern an underlying prestige that his death would add to the city of Carthage. Decret, Early Christianity, 80. 39 Travel between Rome and Carthage was about three days in good weather. The harsh winter seasons meant delays. See, Clarke, Cyprian, 1:315, introductory note to Ep 21. 40 Allen Brent, Cyprian and Roman Carthage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 28. 41 Decret, Early Christianity, 12. 42 Decret, Early Christianity, 6; Allen Brent speaks of a reversed mirror image of Imperial order, whereas Evers argues that the Church was simply a mirror image’. Brent, Roman Carthage, 2; Evers, Church, Cities, People, 121; Benjamin Safranski, St. Cyprian of Carthage and the College of Bishops (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2018), 40. 43 See, "The Passion of the Holy Martyrs Perpetua and Felicitas," trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D.325, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Writings of Cyprian (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1869), Chap 3,3; Thomas J. Heffernan, "The Date of the Passio," in The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity (Oxford University Press, 2012), 65. 44 Graeme W. Clarke, "Third-Century Christianity," in The Cambridge Ancient History: The Crisis of Empire, A.D. 193-337, ed. Alan K. Bowan, Peter Garnsey, and Averil Cameron (Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press, 2005), 612. 45 Clarke, "Third-Century," 610. 12 cities in the region – not so much because of the church’s needs there.”46 Christianity, therefore, mostly an urban phenomenon with little impact on the interior and mountainous regions, and especially among the rural, unsettled and nomadic populations.47 This meant that most urban centres, or fertile territories had a large concentration of churches or dioceses. There were thirty dioceses “in the interior of Proconsularis and stretching to the Saharan boundaries,” and each had its own bishop.48 Therefore, where the Church was present there seemed to be an uneven spread as some areas appear to have had a bishop appointed for every community of whatever size. 49 Other regions, like the Egyptian terrain, appear to have had fewer bishops with village communities left in charge of presbyters, whereas the East would have had chorepiscopi bishops, that is, country or subordinate bishops, who were “under the control of their urban colleagues.”50 It is therefore not easy to assess the degree of rural penetration. Equally impossible is the task of determining an exact number of cities. Rough estimations calculate at least five hundred cities for the whole of Roman Africa with at least two hundred for Carthage.51 Even then, most of them were not what one would think of as cities today, for their populations would have been small. The African synod of 256 records the names of eighty-seven bishops in attendance, whose geographical representation was uneven.52 The Mauretanias and Tripolitania had few bishops, whereas more bishops seem to have come “from the fertile tracks of Africa Proconsularis and the populous centres of Numidia where at least twenty- five locations are identifiable.”53 The number of bishops in 256 would have been between 100 and 135, “allowing for mistakes due to homonymy,” mostly located in centralised areas.54

46 Decret, Early Christianity, 83. 47 Sage, Cyprian, 6. 48 Decret, Early Christianity, 83-91. 49 Clarke, "Third-Century Christianity," 614. 50 Leslie Dossey, Peasant and Empire in Christian North Africa, Transformation of the Classical Heritage 47 (Berkely and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 2010), 125. www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pn5x0; Clarke, "Third-Century," 614. 51 Evers, Church, Cities, People, 20; Decret, Early Christianity, 5. 52 Cyprian. "The Judgment of Eighty-Seven Bishops on the Baptism of Heretics.” In Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to AD 325, vol. XIII: The Writings of Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, vol II, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, translated by Robert Ernest Wallis (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1869), 199-220. 53 Clarke, "Third-Century Christianity," 598. 54 Henry Chadwick, The Church in Ancient Society: From Galilee to Gregory the Great, Oxford History of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 146; Decret, Early Christianity, 82; Sage, Cyprian, 5. 13

The Christian population and its rate of expansion cannot be measured by the number of bishoprics, for two reasons. The first, highlighted above, considers the uneven distribution of bishoprics within towns and villages; some towns near to each other had bishops. The second is that the number of bishops in attendance at a synod is not an accurate representation of how they were distributed. For example, the above observation of the general absence of the Mauretanian bishops has been seen as an indication of their disagreement with Cyprian’s policies.55 Similarly, the proposed population figures for mid-third century Carthage do not present a clear picture. The figures range from between 70,000 and 90,000, with older estimates at 300,000. From these figures the Christian population also varies; some scholars place the Christian population during Tertullian’s time at 100 adult males, or 300 or 400 persons, others place it at 2,500, while others place a figure as high as 30,000.56 To have certainty is therefore not an easy task, and this is an issue I shall return to in a later section when we will try to figure out how much damage the Decian persecution inflicted on the Carthaginian clergy. What can, however, be said with certainty is that by the time Cyprian became bishop in 248/9 the Carthaginian church was moving towards professionalisation with the structures of power and authority “beginning to be defined precisely.”57 Tertullian (c.155- after 220) was familiar with ecclesiastical hierarchy, yet he was at times willing to allot duties even to the laity. For example, in one of his early treatises, On Baptism (between 200 and 206), he admitted that the right to baptise lay specifically with the bishops who could delegate to priests and deacons, yet it could equally be extended to the laity: for that which is received alike by all, can be by all alike conferred; unless you argue that the name ‘disciples’ belongs only to bishops or presbyters or deacons … But how much more is the practice of modesty and obedience binding upon laymen, since those privileges are suited to their superiors, lest they should assume the duty assigned to bishops! Hostility to the bishop’s position begets schisms.58

55 Sage, Cyprian, 4. 56 Éric Rebillard. Christians and Their Many Identities in Late Antiquity, North Africa, 200-450 CE (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012), 11. https://doi:10.7591/9780801465994; Decret, Early Christianity, 5, 91; Drinkwater places the Christian population at 5 to percent of the populus, John Drinkwater, "Maximinus to Diocletian and the 'Crisis'," in The Cambridge Ancient History: The Crisis of Empire, A.D. 193-337, ed. Alan K. Bowman, Peter Garnsey, and Averil Cameron (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 28; Without giving a source, Bradely Blue places the number of Roman Christians at 30 000 in 250, Bradely B. Blue, "In Public and In Private: The Role of the House Church in Early Christianity" (PhD diss.,University of Aberdeen, 1989), 16, https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.280739. 57 Di Berardino, "Preface," viii. 58 Tertulian, "Concerning Baptism," trans. Alexander Souter, Translations of Christian Literature: Tertullian's Treatises Concerning Prayer, Concerning Baptism (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, New York: The MacMillan, 1919), 66, n.17. 14

Owing to his flexibility it has been conjectured that either in Tertullian’s time there was a lack of central authority with several independent Christian organisations which shared a common sense of belonging to the Church, or at best, “there was no one bishop overseeing all Christians in Carthage.”59 The sense of an emerging hierarchy within the African Church comes out prominently in Cyprian. Since the Church tended to follow Roman expansion, we get an image of a Church divided into ecclesiastical provinces with the bishop in the leading city playing a leading role.60 While the metropolitan bishop played a leading role, we cannot at this stage speak of Metropolitans, Primates, or Patriarchs as this was a system still evolving.61 Di Berardino proposes that we speak of Christians going the road of koinonia between the churches in its broadest sense, and Cyprian, as “a man with a strong character, made optimal use of this instrument,” making it effective through such things as letter writing, personal contacts, travels to other churches, and synods.62 As stated above, the church Cyprian inherited was well-structured. Priests were receiving regular stipends which came from the pockets of the faithful.63 This may not have been the practice at the time of Tertullian, since he does not mention clergy remuneration among the uses of the donations: Each man deposits a small amount on a certain day of the month or whenever he wishes, and only on condition that he is willing and able to do so …. These are, so to speak, the deposits of piety. The money therefrom is spent not on banquets or drinking parties or good-for-nothing eating houses, but for the support of the poor, for children who are without their parents and means of subsistence, for aged men who are confined to the house; likewise, for shipwrecked sailors, and for any in the mines, on islands or in prisons.64

The charity welfare of the Christian community was also functioning, and could have served as a means of attracting converts.65 Although the duty for the charity system lay with the bishop “from whom the emoluments of the church came,” we also have evidence of the laity participating in a ritualised form of penance by engaging in almsgiving as a

59 Rebillard, Identities, 10. 60 Di Berardino, "Preface," viii; Dunn, "Synod of 251," 257. 61 Dunn, "Synod of 251," 251 n.96. 62 Di Berardino, "Preface," viii. 63 Ep 1.1.2. 64 Tertullian, "Apology," trans. Emily Joseph Daly, Apologetical Works; Octavius, ed. Rudolph Arbesmann, Emily Joseph Daly, and Edwin A. Quain (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1950), n.39.5. http://www.jstor.org.divinity.idm.oclc.org/stable/j.ctt31nkmh. 65 See, Geoffrey D. Dunn, "The White Crown of Works: Cyprian's Early Pastoral Ministry of Almsgiving in Carthage," Church History 73, no. 4 (December 2004), https://www.jstor.org/stable/4146745. 15 way of gaining the white crown of good works.66 Rome also had a similar practice as exemplified in the women, Numeria and Candida who, for their penance, after having lapsed during the Decian persecution, performed works of charity by attending to the needs of some sixty-five exiled Carthaginian confessors.67 Urgent needs were met and the “ages, circumstances and merits” of those “wanting to practice their particular trade” were to be ascertained before they could be eligible for receiving additional aid.68 In terms of worship the Christian liturgy was moving towards a daily morning celebration of the eucharist, as opposed to the evening meal (conuiuium sobrium) which would have been Tertullian’s preferred practice as he saw the morning assembly as an innovation of the Church rather than the fulfilment of the Lord’s command.69 One major difference between these meals is that the evening meal could be a private household celebration without any specified leader and accommodating a few persons, whereas the morning meal would have arisen in the midst of schism and therefore served as a symbol of unity in which the leader (praepositi) would lead the full community.70 The Christian Church also had its own burial place separate from that of the “heathen graves,” and even during the persecution, there was a record-keeping system for the annual commemoration of martyrs: “Accordingly, you should keep note of the days on which they depart this life; we will then be able to include the celebration of their memories in our commemoration of the martyrs.”71 The most likely meeting place would be the open-air spaces, especially the cemeteries located on public roads outside the city walls which, since the time of the emperor Severus, had been protected by Law, “and were authorized in all of the provinces through a decree from him. Indeed, during this

66 Ep 41.2.1; Ep 10.5.2. 67 Ep 21.2.2, 4.1; See also, Dunn, "White Crown of Works," 736. 68 Ep 41.1.2. 69 Ep 63.16.1-2; See, Patout J. Burns and Robin M. Jensen, Christianity in Roman Africa: The Development of Its Practices and Beliefs (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014), 240-251; Tertullian, "The Chaplet," trans. Edward A. Quain, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 48, ed. Hermigild Dressler et al. (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1959), 3.1-3. http://www.jstor.org.divinity.idm.oclc.org/stable/j.ctt32b2dj.9. 70 Burns and Jensen, Christianity in Roman Africa, 251. 71 Ep 67.6.2; 12.2.1; 39.3.1; Daniel David Sullivan, The Life of the North Africans as Revealed in the Works of Saint Cyprian, Patristic Studies 37 (Washington DC Catholic University of America, 1933); Robin Margaret Jensen, "Recovering Ancient Ecclesiology: The Place of the Altar and the Orientation of Prayer in the Early Latin Church," Worship 89, no. 2 (Mar 2015): 99-124. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdah&AN=ATLAn3859025&site=eds-live; For studies on archaeological evidence on Christian properties, see, Blue, "In Public and In Private: The Role of the House Church in Early Christianity."; Paul Corby Finney, "Early Christian architecture: the beginnings (a review article)," Harvard Theological Review 81, no 3 (July 1988): 319-339. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdah&AN=ATLA0000806729&site=eds-live. 16 period the funerary society was the only legal way that the church at Carthage could meet for worship and collect offerings for the poor.”72 We also know that Cyprian inherited a well-functioning synodal system, which was also employed in other regions as well. Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, especially Book five through to seven, mentions several synods held in Asia minor (Corinth, Antioch, Arabia, Iconium), and Rome, from as early as the mid-second century, over such issues as, the Montanist heresy, the dating of Easter, and other matters like the trial and condemnation of individuals, such as Origen.73 Within Cyprian’s correspondence we also get reports of synods held by his predecessors in Carthage; Agrippinus’ synod, and in other churches as well: Numidia, Spain, Gaul, Rome, and Cappadocia.74 The issues discussed varied from adultery, to baptisms, from the heretical church of Privatus, to the nominations of clerics as legal guardians or trustees.75 A council was probably planned for 250 to deal with Novatus but was hindered by the persecution: “In the case of Novatus … at the insistence of our brethren, the day for holding an inquiry, at which his case was to be deliberated before us, was drawing near when the outbreak of persecution intervened. This persecution he welcomed as offering hopes of evading and avoiding condemnation.”76 The rate at which the synods were held varied from church to church. For example, Firmilian of Caesarea reports of a well-established synodal Church; “And for this reason, too, we find it needful that each year we should hold an assembly of Church leaders and elders [seniores et praepositi] to set in order the affairs entrusted to our care; any matters of importance may thus be regulated by us in Council together….”77 ( In Spain, churches that were some 800 kilometres apart managed to meet in council.78 In Rome, during the sede vacante the clergy speak of consultations with “certain bishops who live in our neighbourhood and others who have come here, being driven out by the flames of persecution from other, far distant, provinces,” and after the election of

72 Decret, Early Christianity, 18; Ramsay MacMullen, Roman Social Relations, 50 B.C. to A.D. 284 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), 71. 73 See, Eusebius of Caesarea, The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine, edited by Betty Radice (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1965), 192-396. 74 For Agrippinus’ synod see Epp 55.21.1; 70; 71.4.1; Numidia, Ep 70; Spain, Ep 67; Gaul, Ep 68; Rome, Ep 49; and Cappadocia, Ep 75. 75 For adultery, Ep 55; for baptisms, Epp 70; 71; 73; for Privatus see, Ep 59; for nominations of clerics as legal guardians or trustees see, Ep 1. 76 Ep 52.2.2, 3; See Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:291-293 n.17-23. 77 Ep 75.4.3. 78 Ep 67. 17

Cornelius we get a report, in Ep 49, of a synod convened in 251 to address the issue of the lapsed.79 Apart from this we hear of no reports of synods in Rome. This might be owing to the short tenure of the Roman bishops; Fabian died in 250, from 250 to 251 the Roman church was governed by the senate of priests, from 251 to June 253 there was Cornelius, from June 253 to March 254, Lucius, and 254 to 257, Stephen. This would have made Cyprian the most experienced bishop “of a major church in the Western Mediterranean.”80 From his assessment of the synods Clarke concludes that Cyprian “inherited a pattern of consultation and conciliar resolution that had been set in a preceding generation (though we remain in simple ignorance of the frequency, normal attendance, and usual timing of such gatherings).”81

Cyprian Eusebius of Caesarea is our primary source for the early centuries of the church; “no writer of the fifth century can be shown to have drawn on reliable evidence for the period before 250 which had been omitted by Eusebius.”82 Secular sources are fragmented and jejune. 83 Eusebius is, however, accused of uncritically using his sources, and his presentation of history is biased towards the East. 84 And although Eusebius retains some valuable documents, especially the letters and writings of Dionysius of Alexandria, and a letter or two from Cornelius in Rome, Cyprian is our principal source for “the story of the church, and of much else, in the middle decades of the third century, and especially of the events he lived through.”85 However this may be, of his past he says nothing. The deacon Pontius, his companion and biographer during his second exile (257-

79 Ep 30.8. 80 Geoffrey D. Dunn, "Cyprian of Carthage and the Episcopal Synod of Late 254," Revue des Études Augustiniennes 48 (2002): 235; The Vita Caecilii Cypriani and the Acta Proconsularis S. Cypriani, both try to present some factual details, but do not offer much into Cyprian's past life. Pontius, "Life of St. Cyprian," trans. Mary Magdeleine Müller and Roy J. Deferrari, The Fathers of the Church, ed. Roy J. Deferrari, Early Christian Biographies (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2001): 3-24. 81 For an overall assessment see Clarke's Chapter on 'The Churches in Council', Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 3:17-28; Also, Philip R. Amidon, "The Procedure of St. Cyprian's Synods," Vigiliae Christianae 37, no. 4 (December 1983): 328-339. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1583544; Hefele, History of Councils, 1:1-41, 86- 115. 82 T. D Barnes, "Legislation Against the Christians," The Journal of Roman Studies 58 (1968): 32, https://doi.org/10.2307/299693. 83 Chadwick, Church, 146; Brent, Roman Carthage, 1. 84 Chadwick, Church, 146. Eusebius testifies that it was from the Library in Aelia (Jerusalem) established by bishop Alexander that “I myself was able to gather the material for this book” (H.E.6.20). Some material he claims to have “collected … from random sources” (H.E 6.36). 85 Brent, Roman Carthage, 1. 18

258), in the Vita Caecilii Cypriani also says next to nothing about the pre-conversion days of Cyprian: At what point, then, shall I begin, - from what direction shall I approach the description of his goodness, except from the beginning of his faith and from his heavenly birth? Inasmuch as the doings of a man of God should not be reckoned from any point except from the time that he was born of God. He may have had pursuits previously, and liberal arts may have imbued his mind while engaged therein; but these things I pass over; for as yet they had nothing to do with anything but his secular advantage (Vita 2).

The Acta Proconsularia S. Cypriani which gives details of his arrest, trial, exile, and execution, also offers little background information. In response to the inquiries about his identity he simply responds, “I am a Christian and a bishop.”86 Both the Vita and the Acta are written with a touch of panegyric and seek to immortalise the virtues of Cyprian. Jerome in his Lives of illustrious Men only says, Cyprianus Afer [Cyprian a native of Africa] at first taught rhetoric with distinction, then, on the advice of Caecilius, a priest who gave him his surname, he became a Christian, gave over all his goods for the poor, and not long afterwards, having been attracted to the priesthood, was elected bishop of Carthage (De Viri Illustribus 67.1).87

We are left to speculate that prior to his conversion between 246 and 248, Cyprian had been a rhetor and probably came from a rich curial family.88 A letter he wrote to Donatus soon after his conversion, paints a picture of a man who no longer found satisfaction in paganism and therefore desired to separate himself from it and embrace the new life of light: Nothing can he now seek from the world, desire from the world, who is greater than the world. How stable, how unshaken is that protection, how heavenly is that safeguard with its perennial blessings to be released from the snares of the entangling world, to be purged of the dregs of earth for the light of immortality … we are compelled to cherish more what we are to be, when it is permitted us to know and to condemn what we were.89

86 Text reproduced in Xavier S. Thani Nayagam, The Carthaginian Clergy During the Episcopate of Saint Cyprian (South India: Tamil Literature Society, 1950), 39-40, 44-45. 87 Saint Jerome, "Cyprian the Bishop.” trans. Thomas P. Halton, On Illustrious Men: The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 100 (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1999): 95-97. http://doi:10.2307/j.ctt2853x3.74. http://www.jstor.org.divinity.idm.oclc.org/stable/j.ctt2853x3. 88 Dunn, "White Crown of Works," 739. 89 Cyprian, "To Donatus," trans. and ed. Roy J. Deferrari in Treatises: The Fathers of the Church (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1958), 19, n.14. https://doi- org.divinity.idm.oclc.org/10.2307/j.ctt284w3d.3. 19

The identification of Cyprian as “a Christian and a Roman gentleman” best encapsulates his identity.90 This identification helps us understand the seeming paradox in Cyprian. At one time he sees Christianity as countercultural, with its imperatives and ideals, especially as espoused in the Scriptures, demanding not only his, but the community’s obedience, yet on the other hand, he often speaks and acts within the Roman patron-client system, even acting as a Roman proconsul who personally exercised authority over his subjects.91 As a Roman, Cyprian would have received “a traditional Roman education” and his writings demonstrate the influence that the Roman world had on him and on the development of the Church.92 Yet as a Christian we find “a conscious rejection and restriction” of the Roman pagan society as he battles to establish a system built on the divine will.93 In other words, the scriptures replaced the classics.94 Geoffrey Dunn and Allen Brent bring out the argument that Cyprian’s conversion was genuine, and his desire to live the Christian vocation was equally genuine, however, the turn of events emanating from the Decian persecution would force him to somehow revert to acting within the Roman patronal system with which he must have been familiar.95 However, Dunn acknowledges that neither Cyprian nor his biographer acknowledged this motive, “because I think Cyprian always struggled with reconciling the operation of the patron- client system with the Christian imperative to give without expecting a return.”96 This assertion inclines me towards the views of Gassman Mattias that Cyprian simply acted on his religious convictions, rather than on socio-political motives.97 However that may be, it is safe to say that both attitudes must have been at play in his life.

90 Vincent Hunink, "St Cyprian, a Christian and a Roman Gentleman," in Cyprian of Carthage: Studies in His Life, Language and Thought, ed. Henk Bakker, Paul van Geest, and Hans van Loon, LAHR 3 (Leuven: Peteers, 2010), 41. 91 Charles Arnold Bobertz, "Cyprian of Carthage as Patron: A Social Historical Study of the Role of Bishop in Ancient Christian Community of North Africa" (PhD dissertation, Yale University, 1988); Clarke, "Biography,” 684, 685. 92 Alexander W. H. Evers, "Post Populi Suffragium: Cyprian of Carthage and the Vote of the People in Episcopal Elections," in Cyprian of Carthage: Studies in His Life, Language, and Thought, ed. Henk Bakker, Paul van Geest, and Hans van Loon, LAHR 3 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 165. 93 Clarke, "Biography,” 683. 94 Pontius, Vita 2. 95 Dunn, "White Crown of Works," 722-40; Clarke, "Biography," 679; Brent, Roman Carthage, 1-4. 96 Dunn, “White Crown of works,” 740. 97 Gassman Mattias, "Cyprian's Early Career in the Church of Carthage," Journal of Ecclesiastical History 70, no. 1 (January 2019): 14, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022046917002780; For a view similar to that of Dunn, that Cyprian never explicitly uses patron-client terminology to describe his relationship with either clergy or laity, see, David I. Rankin, "Class Distinction as a Way of Doing Church: The Early Fathers and the Christian Plebs," Vigiliae Christianae 58, no. 3 (2004): 309; Sometimes Cyprian speaks of patrons as liars and deceivers, or as being so used to crowds of clients that they think it criminal to be alone. See Sullivan's thesis, Sullivan, Life of the North Africans, 21, 22. 20

Cyprian was elected bishop within two years of his conversion. Pontius, his biographer, does not provide much detail as to how and why he was elected “in the first days of his faith and the rudimentary stage of his spiritual life,” but two things come out; he was popular with the people, who forced him, as it were, to accept the office; and second, his election was opposed by some presbyters who obviously saw him as a neophyte, and this opposition would haunt him for the large part of his episcopacy, even beyond the grave.98 Cyprian’s Corpus Cyprian’s extant works consist of eighty-two letters, of which sixty-five are by his own hand and six are synodal, plus a dozen treatises.99 It is probable that had the Decian persecution not taken place, Cyprian would either have been lost in history, or would have been known only as a theologian, as some of his early works, such as Ad Donatum and De Oratione Dominica (On the Lord’s Prayer), exhibit a leaning towards practical theology, if we may use such a description.100 However, the persecution and its resulting effects, as well as the plague, drove him to action rather than theological speculation.101 And even in this, it is possible to identify “the development of a systematic theology of the Church” with emphasis on the episcopacy, unity, and discipline.102 Clarke observes that Cyprian’s letters were not private messages, “but public letters, written and designed from the start to be encyclical in the full sense, to be circulated and to be copied freely.”103 The letters were born of the immediacy of real life, and address issues that affect the church. Together with his pastoral visits, treatises, and synods, the letters served as one of the ways of governing his church and keeping alive his contacts with the church.104 Cyprian, like most Romans of his class, would have kept “a record of old letters, his own as well as others’, ready at hand to have copies taken at need to be passed on to other correspondents.”105 For example, to the Roman priests and

98 Pontius, Vita 5. 99 For an argument as to the originality of Epistle 82 and the Ad Demetrianum, see, Clarke, "Biography," 690; Henk Bakker, Paul van Geest, and Hans van Loon, "Introduction: Cyprian's Stature and Influence," in Cyprian of Carthage: Studies in His Life, Language, and Thought, ed. Henk Bakker, Paul van Geest, and Hans van Loon, LAHR 3 (Leuven: Peteers, 2010), 8. 100 Bakker, Geest, and Loon, "Cyprian's Stature and Influence," 3; See also, Hans van Loon, "Cyprian's Christology and the Authenticity of Quod Idola," in Cyprian of Carthage: Studies in His Life, Language, and Thought, ed. Henk Bakker, Paul van Geest, and Hans van Loon, LAHR 3 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 141. 101 Evers, Church, Cities, People, 51. 102 Evers, Church, Cities, People, 52. 103 Clarke. Letters of Cyprian 1:9. 104 M. P. Ciccarese, “Letter, Epistle,” in Encyclopedia of the Early Church. Vol I., ed. Angelo di Bernardino. Trans. Adrian Walford (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 1992). 483. 105 Clarke. Letters of Cyprian 1:9. 21 deacons he writes, “As for what I have done, the letters which I sent as occasion required – thirteen in all – will tell you. Of these I am enclosing copies.”106 To bishop Caldonius he writes:

To inform you how we have dealt with them [the lapsed], I am sending you a dossier containing five letters which I wrote to our clergy and to laity and to the martyrs and confessors as well. These letters have been sent to very many of our colleagues and have met with their approval … Would you also pass on this document to as many colleagues of ours as you can, so that we may all adhere to the one course of action ….107 So, while letters were means of keeping lines of communication between or among churches open, or of governing the church, they could also be used as tools for propaganda.

The Decian Edict Cyprian’s conversion coincided with the period known to history as “the crisis of the Roman empire.”108 This crisis began in 235 with the usurpation of C. Julius Verus Maximinius, when he “engineered the death of Severus Alexander and his mother Juiia Mamaea, thereby marking the end of the Severan dynasty and the beginning of the soldier emperors.”109 From 235 to the accession of Diocletian in 284, there were “at least fifty- one individuals who, legitimately or illegitimately, received the title of Roman emperor” – all that was needed was to be able to command the most troops.110 During Cyprian’s episcopacy there were four emperors; Decius (249-251), Gallus (251-253), Aemilian (253), and Valerian (253-260). Compared to the previous century which had only five emperors, this period was calamitous.111 Politically, Rome did not seem stable. Economically, the frontier wars against barbarian tribes drained the economy and led to a debasing of the currency; while the chronic civil wars within invited further foreign

106 Ep 20.2. 107 Ep 25.1.2. 108 Drinkwater, "Maximus to Diocletian," 28-66; Christopher Haas, J, "Imperial Religious Policy and Valerian's Persecution of the Church, A.D. 257-260," Church History 52, no. 2 (1983): 136, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3166947; For a differing view that sees this period as one "of general growth and stability, rather than economic crisis", see David Mattingly, J. and R. Bruce Hitchner, "Roman Africa: An Archaeological Review," The Journal of Roman Studies 85 (Nov 1995): 200, https://doi.org/10.2307/301062, 109 Drinkwater, "Maximus to Diocletian," 28. 110 Drinkwater, "Maximus to Diocletian," 28. 111 Drinkwater, "Maximus to Diocletian," 28. 22 attacks.112 Added to these were the natural disasters, earthquakes and plagues which were a constant threat.113 The basic Roman conception in this time was that the world was in a state of decline.114 According to this metaphysical worldview, the decline in nature and in society was attributed to fate. It was fate that had brought about ‘the old age of the world’ – the senectus mundi. In order to bring about a new age (saeculum nouum) it was necessary to seek the favour of the gods. This was done through such things as political legislation, acts of war, rites of divination and of augury, in which the emperors usually acted as the official priests.115 This act of supplicatio would serve to bring about the peace of the gods – the pax deorum – upon nature as well as on society. The peace of the gods would eventually lead to a rebirth into a new golden age. It is within this light that I seek to understand Decius and his actions. Within a few months of his accession in 249, Decius issued an edict calling upon all the citizens in the empire to offer sacrifice.116 The motivation that lay behind this universal call to sacrifice is uncertain. Some speculate that it served as a culmination of the games that had been hosted by his immediate predecessor, Phillip the Arab (reigned 244-249) in 248 to inaugurate Rome’s second millennium, and therefore, Decius saw himself as inaugurating “a new dynasty.”117 Others argue that it was the fear of the abandonment of the ancient gods, and of the protection which they extended to cities and to the Empire as a whole that led to a need to preserve the pagan cults.118 Whether Decius had some grand vision of a new imperial religion or was simply trying to revive the imperial cult of the emperor, is not known.119 What we do know is that soon after issuing the edict he busied himself with quelling internal strife and fending off the Goths who

112 Drinkwater, "Maximus to Diocletian," 60. 113 Drinkwater, "Maximus to Diocletian," 40. 114 Brent, Roman Carthage, 5-7. 115 Brent, Roman Carthage, 7. 116 Rives places it "in fall or early winter of 249," that is, September, soon after Decius became emperor. Clarke on the other hand places it late December 249 or early January 250. J. B. Rives, "The Decree of Decius and the Religion of Empire," The Journal of Roman Studies 89 (1999): 37, https://www.jstor.org/stable/300738; Graeme W. Clarke, "Prosopographical Notes on the Epistles of Cyprian II. The Proconsul in Africa in 250 A. D," Latomus 31, no. 4 (1972): 1054, www.jstor.org/stable/41528528. 117 Clarke, "Third-Century Christianity," 625. 118 Fergus Millar, Rome, the Greek World, and the East: Government, Society, and Culture in the Roman Empire. ed. Hannah M. Cotton and Guy M. Rogers (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 2: 312. www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9780807863695_millar. Rives, "The Decree," 312. 119 Rives, "The Decree," 153. 23 were crossing into the empire, and the Persians who, under King Shahpur I, had invaded Syria and captured Antioch.120 Decius’ edict is unique for several reasons. First, it was the first mandating individual participation in sacrificing. When emperor Caracalla (reigned 198-217) granted universal citizenship to the people in 212, he urged some sort of empire-wide thanksgiving, but not at an individual level as the Decian edict did, that is, to the extent that an individual had to prove that s/he had sacrificed.121 The effect of this was that the Decian edict brought about a “religious obligation between the individual and the Empire,” an obligation fulfilled in the performance of a cultic act – a new type of religion “one not linked to the city of Rome but to the Roman Empire.”122 The second factor is that the edict marked the first time an emperor had played an active role in persecutions. Decius’ edict, whatever its motivation, “was led more or less by accident into an innovatory empire-wide persecution of those Christians who refused to obey.”123 Prior to this persecutions against the Christians were sporadic and local affairs whose intensity depended on “the people in the province, who actually initiated the prosecution of Christians, and also the provincial governors, who heard the cases and were prepared to condemn Christians as such.”124 Although we have cases of emperors playing an active role, the persecutions were mostly acts of occasional harassment of many “other exotic groups” regarded as deviant, like astrologers, soothsayers, sorcerers, augurs, magicians and the like.125 The impact of the Decian edict was felt by Christians in Spain, France, Egypt, Africa, Syria, and Rome.

The Impact The implementation of the edict differed from province to province and depended on the zeal of the governors or magistrates. For example, bishop Fabian of Rome died as early as January 20, 250 and bishops’ Alexander of Jerusalem, and Babylas of Antioch

120 Chadwick, Church, 149. 121 Rebillard, Identities, 48. 122 Rives, "The Decree," 152. 123 Garth Fowden, Public Religion, in The Cambridge Ancient History: The Crisis of Empire, A.D. 193- 337, edited by Alan K. Bowman, Peter Garnsey and Averil Cameron (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 557. 124 Millar, Rome, the Greek World, and the East, 299. 125 Clarke, "Third-Century Christianity," 616; Margaret Mary Baney, Some Reflections of Life in North Africa in the Writings of Tertullian, Patristic Studies 80 (PhD diss., Washington DC: The Catholic University of America, 1948), 51. 24 died not long after.126 In Egypt, the surviving libelli indicate “a later beginning for the execution of the edict,” that is, from mid-June to mid-July 250, and even then, Eusebius reports fourteen deaths at the hands of the prefect.127 In Carthage, Cyprian had ample time to retreat. Also, the Carthaginian experience might have been different as “no deaths recorded can be attributed beyond a doubt to actual execution” or legal sentence; most deaths were consequences of torture or imprisonment.128 Upon receiving news of the edict, the provincial governors were responsible for setting up local magistrates to oversee the proceedings.129 These local magistrates were then responsible for establishing “the dates [and] times by which everyone would be required to have sacrificed.”130 For example, in Egypt it was the duty of the governor to oversee the compliance.131 In Carthage, Cyprian speaks of five commissioners.132 This leads Clarke to presume that in Carthage the edict could have been “a Proconsular edict, issued by the governor,” who was responsible for regulating its implementation through the panel of commissioners or other local officers.133 Upon complying and performing a full and traditional sacrifice to the gods, an individual presented his/her libellus, or formal petition written by him/herself, the petitioner, or by an intermediary, or by a professional scribe, to be “validated by official signature and date.”134 John Knipfing provides a sample of a complete, “though hypothetical, text of such a libellus,” compiled by combining the data of forty-one texts discovered in Egypt at the turn of the twentieth century. This private request, addressed to the local authorities requesting that they countersign the person’s declaration of religious loyalty read somewhat as follows: 1st Hand. To the commission of . . . chosen to superintend the (sacred offerings and) sacrifices. From . . . son (or daughter) of . . . (and of . . .) (together with his brother and their wives) (and his children), who comes from the village of … (in the division of . . .), and is domiciled in the village of .. . (or in the . . . quarter of the city) (or dwelling beyond the town gates), (aged . . . years with a scar on the right eyebrow) (and member of the household of . . ., who functioned as exegete

126 H.E 6.39; Implementation seems to have been prompt in Rome. The second Valerian rescript in 257 was executed within four days with bishop Xystus II and his companions being among the first to be martyred (Ep 80.1.4) 127 H.E. 6.41.14-23. 128 Sage, Cyprian, 189; Rebillard, Identities, 48. 129 Rives, "The Decree," 149. 130 Rives, "The Decree," 149. 131 Clarke, "Notes on Proconsul," 1054 n.6. 132 Ep 43.3.1. 133 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian 2:217, n. 12. 134 John R. Knipfing, "The Libelli of the Decian Persecution," The Havard Theological Review 16, no. 4 (Oct, 1923): 347. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1507673. 25

in the famous city of Alexandria, not to mention the offices he now holds) (or priestess of the god Petesoucbos the great, the mighty, the immortal, and priestess of the gods in the . . . quarter). I (or we) have always and (all [my] life) without interruption sacrificed and poured libations and manifested piety toward the gods (in accordance with the divine decree), and now (again) in your presence in accordance with the edict's decree, I (or we) have made sacrifice and poured a libation (or poured a libation and sacrificed) and partaken of the sacred victims (in company with my wife and children) (acting through me). (Wherefore I present this petition and) I (or we) request you to certify this (for me, or for us) below. Farewell. I (or we) have presented this petition (aged . . . and injured) (or aged . . . ) (and I . . . wrote in his behalf, for he is illiterate) (or 2nd hand, I . . . presented this petition, I . . . signed for him since he is illiterate). 2nd Hand. I . . . (prytanis) (and I . . .) saw you sacrificing (together with your son, or sons). 3rd Hand. I . . . have signed. 1st Hand. The year one of the emperor Caesar Gaius Messius Quintus Trajanus Decius Pius Felix Augustus, June 12 (or any date thereafter up to July 14).135

The information in this libelli appears to have been directed to the general population as there is evidence even of pagan priestesses complying with the edict, just as there no indication of a “renunciation of other religious practices or loyalties.”136 However that may be, the very act of reciting the religious formula which was mostly made in front of the Capitol temple erected in honour of the Triad of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva, and the procurement of the certificate, was for the Christian tantamount to a public denial of the faith.137 The penalty for not sacrificing, though not universally fixed, and, largely dependent on the “minds of men, rather than the demands of Law, was arrest and torture,” with the intention, not of making martyrs, but of honouring the gods by getting people to sacrifice.138 Christianity placed itself in the limelight because it had all the markings of a cabal, a “state within a state.”139 Accusations against recusants came from neighbours or informers, rather than as a result of systematic search from the authorities. Many poor and insignificant Christians complied, while others escaped. Significant persons (insignia persona) who, like Cyprian, could easily be detected, went into hiding.140 While in exile,

135 Knipfing, "The Libelli," 346, 347. 136 Patout J. Burns, Cyprian The Bishop, Routledge Early Church Monographs (London: Routledge, 2002), 1. 137 Burns, Cyprian, 1; According to Baney, "Many such capitols existed in Africa", Some Reflections, 4. 138 Barnes, "Legislation Against the Christians," 50; Graeme W. Clarke, "Double-Trials in the Persecution of Decius," Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 22 no.4 (1973): 655, https://www.jstor.org/stable/4435371; Clarke, "Notes on Proconsul," 1056. 139 Sage, Cyprian, 177; Thani Nayagam, Carthaginian Clergy, 22. 140 Ep 8.1.1, 2.3; 14.1.2, 2.1. 26 his clergy continued working as long as their behaviour did not excite the attention of the people.141

And Many Fell The Christian community was caught unawares. Most had relaxed, living what Barbara Gold describes as “a multiform life, with Christianity being only one part of it.”142 Being a Christian may not have been necessarily relevant for all members of the Christian organisation.143 Many Christians complied, but not all followed the requirements to the full. Those who complied with the edict and offered sacrifice were called the sacrificati. Many, however, bribed officials to obtain the certificate without performing the actual offering; these were called the libellatici. Some, especially in Rome, were unwilling to take part in the animal sacrifice but had simply been allowed to burn incense instead; these were called thurificati.144 Despite all these distinctions, which would come out in the synod of 251, all of them were simply referred to as lapsi, the fallen.145 Those who refused to comply were first presented before the local town magistrates for a preliminary hearing, after which they were detained in prison while their cases were referred to the proconsular tribunal; then would have come the proconsul’s orders to torment in order to induce apostasy.146 Eventually, these people, known as confessors, or martyrs, perhaps as an honorific title, as there was no clear distinction in Cyprian’s writings, were either exiled, or died due to the torments, and others, for reasons unknown to us, were released. The confessors’ reputation within the Christian community would challenge that of Cyprian. By April/May 250 Decius had departed to the frontier to join in “the expedition against the Goths on the Danube.”147 Michael Sage observes that this led to a reduction in the zeal with which the edict was implemented, thereby bringing to the fore the issue of the lapsed, who by this time were coming back to the Church in droves.148 On the other

141 Ep 5.2.1; 13.4.2. Graeme W. Clarke, "Some Observations on the persecution of Decius," Antichthon 3 (Jan 1969): 72. https://doi:10.1017/S0066477400003920. 142 Gold, Perpetua: Athlete of God, 86. 143 Rebillard, Identities, 30. 144 Ep 55.2.1. 145 Brent, Roman Carthage, 8. 146 For more on the argument for double trials instead of new edict, see, Clarke, "Notes on Proconsul," 1055. 147 Sage, Cyprian, 206. 148 Sage, Cyprian, 206. 27 hand, Graeme Clarke notes that a new proconsul would have arrived for Africa at this time, given a “mandata by the Emperor himself to step up the process of inducing apostasy and compliance with the edict.”149 Both observations are correct and, taken together, may explain why that period would be the most intense in Cyprian’s correspondence. Meanwhile, Cyprian had to remain in exile for another ten or eleven months, and it is in this period that Epistles 5-43 were written, with twenty-seven of the letters directed to his presbyters, deacons, and laity, with the underlying theme of, let us wait until we can meet as church, and resolve the issue together. The exploration of these events will be the focus of the next two sections. The aim is to judge Cyprian by his words and his actions, in order to assess whether the decision to take counsel meant for him, ‘deciding together’, or, it was just lip-service, a political manoeuvre meant to consolidate his power. I will argue that Cyprian’s words must be taken at face value.

149 Proconsuls held office for one year. "By regulation, dating back to the Emperor Claudius, governors who were chosen by lot (and that included the Proconsul of Africa) were to have started their journey to their provinces at the very latest by April 1, Clarke, "Notes on Proconsul," 1055. 28

CHAPTER TWO: THE LONG EXILE

Having surveyed the backdrop against which we are to assess Cyprian, this section shall examine his exilic correspondence, with the aim of understanding how events shaped his views on conflict resolution within the Church. This exploration is necessary to assess the possible shifts in Cyprian’s attitude towards the conduct of synods. In reconstructing these events I shall argue that attacks on Cyprian’s worthiness for office, the open hostility he got from dissenting confessors and clergy, the threat that all this posed to the unity of the Church, as well as his tireless efforts to bridge this rift while in exile, all contribute to an understanding of his growing episcopal consciousness, as well as an appreciation of the interplay between his staunch authoritarian stance and his pacifying pastoral dimension, between rigidity and flexibility.150 The context of the persecutions, as well as the intensifying opposition he faced in his church, as I will argue, will eventually drive Cyprian to decide for a common solution to a wide-spread problem. Since it is not within the ambit of this thesis to give an in-depth analysis of the entire corpus of his letters I shall limit myself to focusing on correspondence that deals exclusively with the need for a gathering of the Church, paying particular attention to those factors or crises that contributed to his making a firm resolve for a gathering. The intention is not only to investigate the importance that Cyprian attached to the synodal process, but also to discover, considering the external political factors and the internal factions within his church, whether his ideas on lay participation were always set in stone, or whether they were subject to change and interpretation. In doing this we will evaluate the importance that Cyprian attached to the synodal process, and I will conclude that Cyprian was forced by circumstances to adopt a universal approach.

150 I am indebted to Graeme Clarke’s commentary in the first two volumes of his four-volume work on the Letters of Cyprian. Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 1: Letters 1-27; Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2: Letters 28-54. I also acknowledge Geoffrey Dunn’s first article of his four series articles on the Synods under Cyprian. Dunn, "Synod of 251." Graeme Clarke offers a comprehensive analysis of the context and issues at play in the Cyprianic correspondence and tries to place the Letters within their respective chronological order. Geoffrey Dunn’s articles are mostly an attempt to understand Cyprian’s horizontal relationships, that is, with other bishops of the region. Hence, his reconstruction of the events of the synod in 251 is in order “to see the importance other bishops played in Cyprian’s exercise of his pastoral ministry.” “Synod of 251,” 242. This could explain why he is quick, at most times, to dismiss the active presence of the laity. Similarly, Clarke offers a ‘balanced’ analysis on the role of the laity, although at times, he seems to acknowledge their presence while denying certain evidence(s) that support their importance. 29

The Decian Correspondence Before entering the main concern of this section, it is necessary to point out several factors. It is not clear when exactly Cyprian was elected bishop. Scholars place his election in the period between May 248 and May 249, but what we know is that not long after his election, the Decian persecutions started, most likely at the end of 249.151 If that is the case, then Cyprian never really had the time to establish himself in his diocese, as will be seen by the recurring controversy over his election. However, that may be, we do know that he would have had time to write at least two treatises, Ad Donatum and Ad Quirinium.152 From the evidence of his existing correspondence, Epistle 7, which is the earliest, is dated to around April 250, approximately five months after the issuing of the Decian edict.153 The letters that I shall examine in this section were all written while Cyprian was in exile, an exile that lasted at least fifteen months.154 It is interesting to note that this group of letters, Epistles 5-43, constitute about half of his existing corpus of eighty-two. The remaining letters would have been written at different intervals, especially during periods of conflict. Epistles 44-61, and 64, which were written between 251 and 253, constitute his exchange with Cornelius and Lucius and deal mostly with the Novatian schism. Epistles 67-75 were written during the episcopacy of Stephen, between 254 and 257, and dealt with the baptismal controversy; the exact dating of most of the letters in this group is tentative. Epistles 76-81 make up his final correspondence while in his last

151 Sage, Cyprian, 138; Clarke comments that "Cyprian was perhaps bishop by the time of the Easter ceremonies of 249" Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 1:127, 128 n.78; Dunn claims that by the time the persecutions begun, Cyprian had been a bishop for a year at most. See Dunn, "Synod of 251," 237. 152 Clarke, " Biography," 684; According to Gassman Mattias, the language in Ad Donatum betrays the mind of a junior cleric, if not a layman. He therefore suggests that it was written before Cyprian became a bishop. Mattias, "Early Career," 3-4; Dunn places Ad Donatum soon after Cyprian's election. Dunn, "White Crown of Works," 72. However differing the opinions may be, the treatise most likely belongs to the pre- Decian era. 153 According to Clarke, Epistle 7 would have to be the earliest of the Decian Letters. The first four Letters cannot be dated. Owing to lack of evidence (especially internal evidence) some of the Letters can be placed within both a pre and post Decian era, for example, Epistle 1 can either be placed in 249 or before 256. For details, see Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 1:149, introductory note to Epistle 1, 98, introductory note to Epistle 7; Michael Sage places all four Letters before the persecution, thereby allowing for synods to have been held in Spring 249, Sage, Cyprian, 147; David E. Wilhite, "Cyprian's Scriptural Hermeneutic of Identity: The Laxist 'Heresy'," Horizons in Biblical Theology, 32 no 1 (2010): 66, https://doi.org/10.1163/187122010X494777, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdah&AN=ATLA0001787751&site=eds-live. 154 Sage, Cyprian, 138. Ep 43.4.1 (written mid-March 251 to all the people), offers us a glimpse when Cyprian says, “An exile, now in its second year…” as his plans to return to Carthage had been thwarted by his “old opponents.” 30 exile in Curubis (modern day Korba, Tunisia) before he was executed on September 14, 258. The remaining letters, 1-4, 62, 63, and 65 cannot be placed with certainty.155 From this brief survey we can detect that the first exile period, especially the intense months between April and November 250, played a determining role in securing Cyprian’s authority and stay in office. Some letters were written after consultation, and some crossed each other in transit. This “brisk flurry of letters” shows a big flow in traffic, and as we shall see, the congestion was at its peak in the summer correspondence. Similarly, we also have to note that most of the letters had to be copied by hand, and distributed to other churches, within a range of over 100 kilometres. Considering the Roman road system, this was feasible, but it also meant that letters were passing each other, without addressing matters adequately. This makes reconstructions of arguments and, at times, events, cumbersome. The first exile period was a deciding moment for his episcopate. This is true when comparing the correspondence in this period to that of his second exile (257-258), in which we only get six existing letters, of which three, Epistles 76, 80, and 81, are by his hand.156 The exilic letters, which for working purposes I shall group into three phases, were written between April 250 and March 251. The first phase would be in the period between April and July 250; the second set is mid-to-late summer 250, that would be between August and October; and the last batch would be from the end of 250 to March 251.157 In the first batch the persecution was in its fifth month, that is, if we place its inception towards the end of 249, and Cyprian, who was by now in hiding, responded to news of the lapsed by appealing to his clergy, priests and deacons, to take up the duty and responsibility over the Church.158 However, news of his exile had caused scandal and he was forced to defend his retreat. As this was happening, a group of confessors began issuing certificates of reconciliation to the lapsed. Cyprian was forced to find the middle ground in resolving this, but his attempts misfired, and he found himself in the centre of a nearly irreparable rift.

155 A table detailing the correspondence and dating of the epistles is provided at the end of the thesis. 156 Summary of epistles adapted from Johannes Quasten, Patrology: The Ante-Nicene Literature after Irenaeus 2 (Westminster: Christian Classics, 1986), 365. 157 For the First phase see Epistles 5-22. For second phase see, Epistles 23-37, and for third phase see Epistles 38-43. (Please note that the numbering of the letters does not necessarily follow chronological time). 158 See Ep 7. 31

In the second batch, the summer letters, Cyprian had realised that the persecution was going to persist longer than imagined, and the rift within his church seemed to have widened. Still he insisted that the whole community would resolve the issues when the Church assembled in the time of peace. During this period Cyprian solicited the support of the Roman presbyters and confessors, as well as dispatching several letters across the region, to get the support of fellow bishops. Still the rift in his church worsened. In the last group of letters, towards the end 250 and early 251 Cyprian had managed to win the support of other bishops as well as the backing of the Roman clergy who were overseeing the church of Rome in time of vacancy. However, the number of his local supporters in Carthage had critically depleted. And so, in a bid to maintain his control and widen his support base, he took precautionary measures, such as making unilateral decisions in appointing certain individuals to the clerical ranks, and setting up a commission of loyal priests and bishops to administer social welfare in his diocese.159 By early 251 the persecutions had relaxed and Cyprian’s plans for an early Easter return, had been thwarted by his ‘old opponents’, who had succeeded in creating a formal schism in his church. At this point Cyprian turned more to the support of his episcopal colleagues, with whom he proceeded to excommunicate dissident clergy, and with whom he proposed to march into Carthage for the holding of an assembly to settle matters once and for all. While this is not an entirely comprehensive picture of the events as they unfolded, it does give us an insight into the complexity of the North African church. Having established this, I think we are now able to look at the letters. As has been mentioned the thrust of this exercise is to try to see how Cyprian set about resolving issues, especially how he wanted the whole community to participate. One major concern regarding the Cyprianic Corpus is that in most of the correspondence we get to hear his voice; rarely do we get to hear, in full, the voice of the opponents. Most of the opponents’ arguments are presented to us by Cyprian, or by colleagues loyal to him. This brings up the question of argument of silence. Is it that Cyprian deliberately chose which letters to keep, or copy and distribute, and which not to? Or was it the work of later redactors, especially those sympathetic with Cyprian?

159 Considering Cyprian’s views on the episcopacy; one church, one altar, one bishop (Ep 43) one is tempted to ask in what capacity Cyprian could get other bishops to oversee his church in his stead? Did he have a developed episcopal theology or was it still rudimentary in practice? Or could it be because of the affluence of his diocese that he can get other, perhaps, rural bishops to assist him? The same could be said for the Roman church where we are told bishops from rural sees fled to Rome for safety. The difference would be that the bishops in Rome are consulted by the senate of clergy; they are not given the privilege of assisting in affairs of governing the church as had happened in Carthage during Cyprian’s exile (Ep 41.1.2). 32

April to July Letters160 Epistle 14 was written before mid-April 250 and was addressed to the priests and deacons of Carthage, and would be Cyprian’s third letter to his clergy since the outbreak of the persecutions.161 This letter is especially important because it sheds light on the events that will define and occupy a large part of Cyprian’s episcopacy. It is probable that this letter was written in the period when Decius had embarked on his expedition against the Goths on the Danube, and soon after the arrival of the new proconsul (Fortunatianus?), who, as we have seen, came with the mandate to step up the persecution – “the tortures have come, and tortures without any cessation of the torturer.”162 By this time three issues were coming to the fore: subordinating administrative matters to his clergy, dealing with unruly confessors and, the rehabilitation of the lapsed.163 Epistles, 7 and 5, composed quite some time before mid-April 250, present an image of relative quiet for the Church. Cyprian had written to his clergy urging them to encourage and counsel the people, as well as to oversee the duties of mercy, especially “care for the widows, the sick, and all the poor [and] to meet the financial needs of any strangers who are in want out of my personal funds.”164 However, even in these letters we begin to get a sense of turmoil. In Ep 7 Cyprian had directed that care be given to all the poor, whereas in Ep 5 which followed shortly after it, the poor were qualified as “those who have confessed the Lord … as equally to those who are suffering from need and want but yet continue faithful in the Lord.”165 He even sent money to ensure that this was possible.166 The clergy were encouraged to discreetly take turns in visiting those in prison - men, women, and the young, and celebrating the Eucharist with them.167 Although he was hopeful of returning soon to meet his people, the prospect of martyrdom hung loosely in the air and the public’s agitation towards the Christians was growing: “What I fear is

160 In their chronological order: Epistles 7, 5, 6, 13, 14, 11, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17. 161 In the period of exile Cyprian will address twelve letters to his priests and deacons. When their relations turn sour, that is, by the time Ep 11 is written, he will write separately to his priests, deacons, and all the people, as we shall see. 162 Ep 11.1.3. 163 Sage, Cyprian, 206; Clarke, "Notes on Proconsul," 1055. 164 Ep 7.2; For commentary see Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 1:201 n.11. 165 Epp 7.2; 5.1.2 166 Epp 5; 6; 13. 167 Epp 6.3.1; 5.2.1; For an exposition on the presence and active role of women in the activities of the church, see, Geoffrey D. Dunn, "Cyprian and Women in a Time of Persecution," The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 57, no. 2 (April 2006): 205-225, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdah&AN=ATLA0001559965&site=eds-live. 33 that my presence may provoke an outburst of violence and resentments among the pagans and we become thereby responsible for the peace being broken.”168 At this stage, the problems that arose from the persecution appeared to be localised, and therefore requiring the judgment of the local community. Cyprian wrote, “There are, I am aware, urgent reasons why I should come to you in all haste myself … we would be able, taking counsel in large numbers, together to discuss, weigh and determine questions related to the government of the Church; the well-being of our community demands answers to them.”169 The three issues mentioned above come out from this correspondence. The first, probably had to do with administrative matters. While the office of bishop had, by the time of Cyprian, been established, some administrative issues, such as, care for the poor could also be done by wealthy Christians.170 Even though Cyprian described the bishop as “God’s own steward[s],” “from whom the emoluments of the church came,” he could, in his absence, delegate responsibilities to his clergy, and in particular, the responsibility of maintaining the Church’s charitable programme.171 Concerning this issue he entrusted responsibility to his clergy: “I exhort and charge you that as your presence in Carthage causes no offense and occasions hardly any danger, you should perform in my stead [“discharging my role”] those offices which are necessary for the administration of the church.”172 The second issue would have concerned released confessors who were reported to be causing scandal within the community by engaging in unruly behaviour, “conducting themselves viciously and arrogantly,” engaging in “unlawful cohabitation” and “refusing to be ruled by the deacons and presbyters, and causing the honour and glory of the many good confessors to be disfigured by the depraved and evil lives of a few.”173 To such people he warned that they “have need to fear the others, lest, condemned by their testimony and judgment, they may be excluded from their society.”174

168 Ep 7.1; Clarke assumes two things; 1) Decius' orders had already arrived, but were either still unknown to many, or 2) the last date by which certificates had to be obtained (the dies praestitutus), had as yet been established for Carthage. Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 1:190, introductory note to Ep 6, 99, introductory note to Ep 7; The fact that there was a new proconsul would suggest that the orders would have been known, but the implications of them were not as yet fully appreciated. Clarke, "Notes on Proconsul," 1053-1057. 169 Ep 14.1.2. 170 Dunn, “White Crown of works,” 730. 171 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian 1:181, introductory note to Ep 5. 172 Epp 14.2.1; 12.1.1. 173 Epp 13.5.1; 14.3.2. 174 Epp 59.5.2; 41.2.1; Quos uereri debent, ne ipsorum testimonio et iudicio condemnati ab eorum societate priuentur (Ep 14.3.2). 34

The third issue would probably have concerned the rehabilitation of the lapsed. This comes out in Cyprian’s response to questions raised by four of his clergy, Donatus, Fortunatus, Novatus, and Gordius, who probably “formed the core of the opposition” to his election and, would eventually be the ringleaders in opposition to his authority.175 In his response he did not mention the issue raised in their letter, which is lost to us, but simply stated: I can make no reply on my own, for it has been a resolve of mine, right from the beginning of my episcopate, to do nothing on my own private judgment without your counsel and the consent of the people. But so soon as by God’s favour I have come to you, we will then discuss in council together [sicut honor mutuus poscit in commune tractabimus], as the respect we have for each other demands, what has been done or what is to be done.176

Already at this stage we find someone who was willing to delegate responsibility in administrative issues, and also someone who had a deep a sense of communal discernment or common council in dealing with issues affecting the community; the clergy proffering counsel, and the people not only expressing consent, but also giving testimony and passing judgment as in the case of the unruly confessors. Despite all this, there was the awareness that his flight or retreat had caused disquiet within his church, and Cyprian felt that he had to explain matters to them: “it has seemed better advised to continue, for the time being, quietly in my hiding place .… Tertullus will explain all this to you.”177 The issue of rehabilitating the lapsed would, by mid-April to May 250, throw the Carthaginian church into a state of chaos. Some were dead, others were in hiding, many had lapsed, and a few had remained standing, and these few needed encouragement.178 at this time some confessors wrote to Cyprian petitioning that he examine their requests for granting peace to certain of the lapsed “as soon as the persecution is over and we can meet together with the clergy and reassemble.”179 However, some of the clergy, who were probably impatient with this arrangement, had decided to bypass protocol and joined “in communion with the fallen, offering the sacrifice on their behalf and giving them the Eucharist.”180 These appointed leaders (praepositorum est), were not only “acting

175 Ep 14.4; for an assessment see, Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 1:266, n.32. 176 Ep 14.4. 177 Ep 14.1.2. 178 Epp 10-12. 179 Ep 15.1.2. 180 Ep 17.2.1. 35 contrary to the law of the gospel” which states that “He who has eaten the bread and drunk the cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord,” but they were also acting against the confessors respectful petition of following proper procedure, that is, penance, confession of serious and grievous sins, and the imposition of hands by the bishop and clergy.181 Cyprian saw such actions as deceptive and as having dire consequences that would lead to the destruction of the flock. They were probably done “in order to curry favour,” “to win popular acclaim,” “or with an eye for profiteering from the unlawful traffic.”182 Such actions not only undermined “the honour of the martyrs, the humility of the confessors, and the peacefulness of our entire people,” but also caused the church to “blush even before the very pagans.”183 What was at stake here was not necessarily the authority of the bishop, although it was being undermined and Cyprian felt he could no longer remain silent: Insults to our episcopal dignity I could ignore and endure, just as I have always ignored and endured them. But this is not now the time for ignoring them when our brothers are being deceived by certain people among you. Without a thought of restoring salvation, they wish only to win popular acclaim – and they end up instead being a stumbling block.184

Rather, what was at stake was the preservation of customary tradition and the maintenance of discipline as regards the penitential process. Epistles 15 (to the martyrs and confessors), 16 (to the Carthaginian priests and deacons), and 17 (to the laity), all address this issue, stating the proper procedure and insisting on respecting past practice.185 To rein-in this “rash behaviour and unrestrained and reckless presumption,” Cyprian advised the confessors to exercise “prudence in weighing the requests.”186 To the clergy he exhorted that the rash and impetuous, “ought to have at least fear of God” lest he (Cyprian) be forced to make use of that admonition which the Lord bids me use, namely, that they should be temporarily prohibited from making the offering until they can plead their case before us, before the confessors themselves, and before all the people as soon as with the Lord’s permission we are gathered again to the bosom of the Church.187

181 Ep 15.1.2. 182 Epp 15.3.2; 16.2; 15.3.2. 183 Epp 16.1.1; 15.3.1. 184 Ep 16.2.2. 185 Epp 15.1.2; 16.2.3, 3.2; 17.2.1. 186 Epp 16.1.1; 15.3.1. 187 Ep 16.4.2. 36

To the Laity he admonished patience: wait for our return. Then, when, through God’s mercy, we have come to you and the bishops have been called together, a large number of us will be able to examine the letter of the blessed martyrs and their requests, acting in conformity with the discipline of the Lord and in the presence of the confessors, and in accordance, also, with your judgment.188

Earlier he had said, “… as soon as we have returned to the Church, these requests will be examined individually, in your presence and with the help of your judgment.”189 It is in this Ep 17, addressed to “his brothers among the laity,” that Cyprian first mentioned his intention to hold a council in which invited bishops, confessors, martyrs, and the laity were to examine the individual cases and reach a decision: All the same, my view is that we ought not to be hasty or do anything incautiously or hurriedly …. After the lord has first restored peace to us all and, as soon as we have returned to the Church, these requests will be examined individually, in your presence and with the help of your judgment.190 Unfortunately, Cyprian’s dealings with this matter were to prove disastrous.

The Early Summer to Late-summer Letters191 Roman Diplomacy/Enter Rome The sweltering heat of the North African sun made summer a notoriously unhealthy season, “a season which plagues with constant and serious illnesses.”192 There was also the as yet dangerous “plague of Gallus,” which began in Ethiopia or Egypt, had arrived in Italy in 248, was killing large numbers of people in 251, and “seems to have lasted intermittently for twenty years.”193 Apart from that travel was made easy. In the first of the summer letters, Epistles 18 and 19 addressed to the Carthaginian clergy in early, and late June 250, respectively, we find Cyprian making drastic concessions to the penitential discipline. As noted, he had insisted that reconciliation was possible, but in due course: “The mother needs first to receive peace from the Lord and then the question of peace for her sons can be considered.”194 However, two factors

188 Ep 17.3.2. 189 Ep 17.1.2, et iudicantibus uobis. 190 Ep 17.1.2, 2.1. 191 Early June to early November 250. In their chronological order: Epistles 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 23, 26, 27 and 28, 33, 29, 35, 30, 31 and 32, and 36. See Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 1:295; Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:171. 192 Ep 18.1.2. 193 Drinkwater, "Maximus to Diocletian," 40; Sage, Cyprian, 269 n.1. 194 Ep 15.2.2. 37 would lead Cyprian to reconsider this decision. The first, noted above, was the ever- present threat of death, and the second, was the ‘intrusion’ of the Roman clergy. The Carthaginian church was at this time probably experiencing shortages of presbyters and so, to bring relief to those faced with imminent death, Cyprian had permitted even deacons to grant pardon: In the case of those who have received certificates from the martyrs and can, consequently, be helped by those martyr’s privileged position before God, should they be seized by some sickness or dangerous illness, they need not wait for our presence, but they may make confession of their sin before any presbyter in person, or if a presbyter cannot be found and their end is coming fast, even before a deacon. In this way, after hands have been laid upon them in forgiveness, they may come to the Lord with that peace which, in their letter to us, the martyrs requested should be granted.195

Clarke observes that this concession by Cyprian was a new situation for the church, and the first in which we see Cyprian making a decision without referring to previous tradition, appealing to a previous synodal decision, or making reference to a practice elsewhere.196 Cyprian’s pastoral expediency to delegate power to his priests and deacons was motivated by the desire for the salvation of souls, as he noted, “the mercy of God should not be denied those who call upon the grace of God.”197 However, the politics at play in this debate cannot be overlooked. The decision could also be viewed as a political move to incorporate, without much pomp, the honour and respect given to the intercessory role of the martyrs, with whom he had been in conflict. The concession was also an adaptation of the Roman practice of granting reconciliation to repented lapsed in danger of death, which Cyprian must have heard of, and which he modified by insisting on death-bed reconciliation to those in possession of the certificates from martyrs.198 The situation in Rome was quite different from that in Carthage. Apart from the death of bishop Fabian in January 250, the next martyrs we get from the Roman church appear in Epistles 28 and 29, in late summer. When it came to the issue of certificates, the Roman clergy and confessors had agreed to wait until the Roman church had a bishop: Moreover, you [Cyprian] should have a letter from the confessors […]They, too, advocate the strictness of the Gospel; they drive away the unlawful petitions

195 Ep 18.1.2. 196 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 1:296, introductory note to Ep 18. 197 Ep 18.2.2. 198 Ep 18.2.3; Dunn, "Synod of 251," 243; For a differing view see Clarke who argues that the decision was made before he received Epistle 8 from the Roman clergy, Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 1:296. 38

which are shaming the Church, asserting that if they readily agreed to this they might not readily repair the breaches made in the Gospel discipline.199

From this it appears that the problem of how to deal with the certificates of the martyrs was mostly an African, if not Carthaginian problem. While Rome did not face the problem of lenient confessors, the clergy there had agreed to offer death-bed pardon. Epistles 8 and 9 shed further light on how fickle Church relations were. These two epistles, composed sometime in July, appear to be Cyprian’s first formal communication with the Roman church during the persecution. This six- month hiatus, as Clarke comments, is a good indicator of the “deep confusion into which Decius’ persecution threw the Churches.”200 Epistle 8 was in fact not intended for Cyprian’s eyes, but was probably “an enclosure accompanying a copy of the eulogy on Fabian for the Carthaginian clergy.”201 Cyprian’s refusal to budge in allowing for broader reconciliation, had possibly led a group of his priests to report him to their fellow presbyters in charge of the Roman church. In their turn the Roman clergy had written back in an episcopal language that exuded authority. They addressed themselves as “Church leaders” (praespositi – a term which Cyprian would “normally associate with bishops,” but had also used for his Carthaginian priests and deacons while they acted in his stead). The Roman clergy found fault with “blessed pope Cyprian’s” cowardly retirement in the face of persecution, and his authoritarian leadership, and exhorted their Carthaginian counterparts to be good shepherds and not hirelings. They insisted that it was the clergy’s duty to act in the place of their “neglectful leaders” and to ensure that the lapsed were not forsaken, but were rather exhorted to do penance, lest they became more sinful.202 For the Roman clergy, it was necessary that the leaders be present among their people, offering comfort and encouragement so that when the lapsed were to be arrested a second time, they would have the courage to become confessors, “and thereby be able to set right their former error.”203

199 Ep 30.4. 200 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 1:206, 220. Another example that shows the rather slow dissemination of news is seen in Ep 24 (written around August/September 250) in which the just released bishop Caldonius writes to Cyprian exhibiting ignorance of events taking place, and is unsure of what to do with the many cases of the lapsed he is confronted with – “If, therefore, you have come to any decision in council together, write to me” (Ep 24.1.2). 201 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 1:203, introductory note to Ep 8. 202 Ep 8.1.1, 2.3. 203 Ep 8.3.1. 39

It was most likely this communication between ‘leaderless’ presbyters, that pushed Cyprian to reconsider and reformulate the practice of reconciliation. However, not to be outwitted, Cyprian firmly and resolutely insisted on a gathering of the whole Church. While those in danger of death could be granted pardon, as long as they had the certificates of martyrs, those not in danger of death were instructed to wait for an assembly of the Church, in which the leaders (praepositi), that is, bishops, assemble in company with the clergy, and in the presence as well of the laity who stand steadfast [praesente etiam stantium plebe]– to them honour is due for their faith and their fear of the Lord – and thus we may be able jointly to settle all matters by taking sacred counsel together [disponere omnia consilii communis religione possimus].204

If, however, the lapsed were impatient and in “excessive haste,” then the battle was still being fought, “he who cannot be deferred can be crowned.”205 Two things emerge from Cyprian’s communication with the Roman clergy. The first is that he was forced to re-think and reform. The second is that the ‘undue respect’ that the Roman clergy had given themselves, drove him to secure his hold on authority. Upon receiving the testimonium of martyred Pope Fabian, which was but one of many copies sent to several churches, and the enclosed Epistle 8 meant for his clergy, Cyprian responded in two letters (Epistles 9 and 20). His immediate response is seen in Epistle 9 in which he couched his frustration in the praises he heaped on the Roman clergy for having managed to keep the administration of the church especially at a time of sede vacante when there was “great danger that the collapse of a leader may lead to the downfall of his followers.”206 Having said that he attached a copy of Epistle 8 in the hope that it was a forgery, “for it is an extremely grave matter if the truth of an ecclesiastical letter has been corrupted by any falsehood or fraud.”207 The second response, Ep 20 (July 250) - the apologia - was probably written after considerable reflection, and most likely without having received a response to Epistle 9 (June/early July 250). In this letter Cyprian attempted to explain his conduct, his maintenance of Church discipline, and his zeal.208 While he was obviously disturbed by the reports of his ‘retirement’ being spread in Rome, he argued that it was in the best

204 Ep 19.2.2. 205 Ep 19.2.3. 206 Ep 9.1.2; On the status of Epistle 8 and the enclosed eulogy on Fabian, see introductory notes to Ep 8 and Ep 30, Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 1:203; Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:115. 207 Ep 9.2.2. 208 Ep 20.1.1. 40 interest of the Church. And with that same zeal for the Church, and “in conformity with the Lord’s precepts” he had done his best to govern his church through letter writing: “In these Letters [thirteen in all] you will find counsel for the clergy, exhortation for the confessors, rebuke when required for the exiled, and an urgent appeal to the entire community that they should beseech the mercy of God.”209 It was again with this same zeal that he conceded to the counsel of the Roman clergy: You counselled that comfort should be given to those who fell ill after their lapse and, being penitent, were anxious to be admitted to communion. I have, therefore, decided that I too should take my stand alongside your opinion, thereby avoiding that our actions, which ought to be united and in harmony on every issue, might differ in any respect.210

However, so as not to be outdone Cyprian gave his own perspective on the whole situation, and it was the same proposal he had been making in all circumstances: Besides, as regarding the remainder [the lapsed not in danger of death], I have given instructions that even though they may have received a certificate from the martyrs they should be deferred until we are personally present. Then, when peace has been restored to us by the Lord, we church leaders can meet together in a large gathering, and after exchanging views with you also, we will be able to arrange or amend all the various issues.211

This last point reveals Cyprian’s shrewdness. While showing respect to the Roman clergy, the same respect he had shown the confessors in making the concession as discussed above, he was sure to distinguish them from the real decision makers, the leaders. Another factor to take into consideration is that at this point he envisaged a meeting at which the Roman church would be present (plures praepositi conuenire in unum coeperimus). From this point forward, Cyprian who spoke of his contacts with very many colleagues - plurimi collegae, who were all in agreement with his decisions, acting in unison, and speaking with one voice. For example, Ep 25 was addressed to a senior bishop Caldonius, who had deferred a case of penitents in his diocese in order to consult with others: “if, therefore, you had come to any decision in council together, write to me.”212 In his response Cyprian commended the bishop for his discretion and prudence, “experienced and well versed as you are in the Lord’s Scriptures,” and attached a dossier of five letters that he had written

209 Ep 20.2.1. 210 Ep 20.3.1. 211 Ep 20.3.3. 212 Ep 24.1.2. 41

to our clergy and to laity and to the martyrs and confessors as well. These letters have been sent to very many of our colleagues and have met with their approval; they have written back saying that they also align themselves with this same policy of ours, in conformity with the catholic faith. Would you also pass on this document to as many colleagues of ours as you can, so that we may all adhere to the one course of action and to the one agreed policy in conformity with the precepts of the Lord.213

With the entrance of the Roman clergy in the matter the issue had ceased to be a local or domestic problem, no longer affecting “just a few or one church only or one province but it concerns the entire world.”214 An affair that had now become a general concern needed the cooperation of the whole Church, and Cyprian probably saw himself as the one who was not only capable but also strategically placed to gather around him bishops “from both within our province and overseas.”215

Along came Lucianus In the meantime, in the month of June 250, word had reached Rome that some Carthaginian confessors had undertaken to be ministers “to those who are in the flower of confession.”216 A Roman confessor whose sisters had sacrificed and had had their case tried in Rome but had been deferred until a bishop had been appointed begged a Carthaginian confessor, Lucianus, to place his petition his colleagues, “your brothers and my honoured masters, and ask them that whomsoever of your number is first to receive the crown, should forgive these sisters of ours, Numeria and Candida, of such sin.”217 This group of imprisoned confessors (men and women) agreed to grant universal reconciliation in the name of the martyrs: You ought to know what has happened to us. When the blessed martyr Paulus was still in the body, he summoned me and said to me: ‘Lucianus, before Christ I say to you that should anyone seek peace after I have been called away, grant it in my name’. And moreover, everyone [sic] of us whom the lord has deigned to call away in this time of great tribulation, we have all together issued a joint letter granting peace to everyone together.218

This decision was made when the confessors were shut up in two cells, “crammed together” such that the “resultant heat [was] so overwhelming that no-one could endure

213 Ep 25.1.1, 1.2. 214 Ep 19.2.1. 215 Ep 43.3.2; see also Epp 17.3.2; 26.1.2; 30.1.2; 30.5.4. 216 Ep 21.3.2. 217 Epp 21.3.2; 30.5.2, 8; 21.3.2. 218 Ep 22.2.1. 42 it,” and some were dying “by hunger and thirst in accordance with the emperor’s command.”219 Evidently, the confessors were “being put under intense pressure to comply,” and as Clarke observes, these imprisonments were “the sequel to the decision to step up measures to induce apostasy,” and were not legal penalties, but merely “detentive strategy” with “stop-go technique of punishments and privations,” sometimes lasting a year as happened to the Roman confessors.220 The pardon granted by the confessors was, however, decided on the condition “that as soon as the Lord has granted peace to the Church herself, they may receive peace in accordance with the command of Paulus and, as we have decided, after their case has been laid before the bishop and they have made confession.”221 This resolution made in good faith was sent to Cyprian informing him that peace had been granted by all the confessors “to all those whose conduct since their fault you shall find, upon examination, to be satisfactory. It is our wish that you should make this resolution known to other bishops also, and it is our desire that you should be at peace with the holy martyrs.”222 The respect given to him, the pastoral solicitude that lay behind the pardon, and the horrid conditions in which the confessors acted must have meant nothing to Cyprian who saw it as a direct affront and usurpation of his episcopal authority. Cyprian did not even bother responding to this letter. In fact, this was his last communication with the Carthaginian confessors, henceforth he would be communicating with the “brave and beloved brothers … the front-line troops” and upholders of Church discipline, the Roman confessors, even though he would mention the stalwartness of the Carthaginian confessors in his De Lapsis.223 Owing to this episode, the time between August and September 250 became the most hectic in which a flurry of letters exchanged hands.224

Consequences of Lucianus’ Actions Lucianus’ actions will have two noticeable ripple effects worth mentioning here. The first is that they emboldened a group of impatient lapsed to write an abusive letter to Cyprian. The second, is that his actions led to a mob pogrom. Concerning the first,

219 Ep 22.2.1. 220 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 1:330, introductory note to Ep 22. 221 Ep 22.2.2. 222 Ep 23. 223 Ep 28.1.1, 2.1; De Lapsis, n. 5. 224 The exchange of Epistles 20, 26, 27 and 28, 33, 29, 35, 30, 31 and 32 "suggests a fairly tight timetable." See introductory notes to Ep 27 and Ep 33, Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 1:355; Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:144. 43

Cyprian had earlier written to his clergy insisting that they should not rush into making decisions as the matter involved the “counsel and opinions of us all”: … I would not dare to prejudge such an issue nor take on myself alone a decision which is everyone’s concern. In the meanwhile, therefore, we ought to stand by the letters I last wrote you. I have already sent a copy of them to many of my colleagues also; and they have written at length to say that they agree with our determination and that there should be no departure from it until peace has been restored to us by the Lord and we are thus able to gather together to investigate each case separately.225

While one group of lapsed, responded “with meekness and humility” in agreement with this proposal, another group of the lapsed, probably supported by Cyprian’s old opponents, wrote an anonymous document, “in the name of the church” (both letters are lost to us), disregarding the episcopal opinions of Cyprian and his colleagues, and demanding immediate admission to communion.226 Cyprian commended the obedient and faithful lapsed and reminded the boastful “certain people” that he was the bishop upon whom the church was founded and through whom “every act of the church is governed.”227 The line had been drawn. Cyprian proceeded to do the next logical thing, which was to excommunicate, as he had earlier warned (in mid-April 250) against the unruly confessors who had been causing scandal within the community.228 Upon the advice of his colleagues he excommunicated a certain visiting presbyter, Gaius Didensis, and his deacon for “obstinately persisting in their presumptuous and defiant behaviour” of “admitting the lapsed into communion” and “deceiving some of the brethren from among our laity.”229 The condemnation served as a warning to anyone – whether he be presbyter or deacon from our own or from other churches – if anyone should be possessed of such a headstrong and outrageous temerity as to admit the lapsed into communion before we have come to our decision, he is to be banished from communion with us; he will have to present the case for his rash conduct in the hearing of us all when, by the Lord’s leave, we have assembled together.230

The rift in the relationship between the self-exiled bishop, some of the confessors, a portion of the clergy, and a group of the lapsed had fast become irreparable.

225 Ep 26.1.2. 226 Ep 33.2.1, 1.2. 227 Ep 33.1.1. 228 Epp 13.5.1; 14.3.2. 229 Ep 34.1. 230 Ep 34.3.1. 44

At this point Cyprian’s options were few. He simply had to fall back on his stalling tactic, to wait until there was peace and decide together. For example, in the case of certain sub-deacons Philumenus and Fortunatus and an acolyte Favorinus, who had withdrawn for a time and had now come back, he wrote: I do not consider that it is proper for me to give a decision on this question by myself alone; many of the clergy are absent still and have not considered it their duty to resume their station even at this late date. We will have to hold an examination and inquiry into each case separately and investigate them at greater length in the presence not only of my colleagues but of the entire congregation as well. This is a matter which may establish a precedent for the future concerning ministers of the church; we must, therefore, exercise mature deliberation in weighing such a question and making a pronouncement of it.231

In the meantime, the sub-deacons were temporarily cut off from taking their monthly salaries until Cyprian’s return. This was a preventative measure not so that “they should be understood to be stripped of their ecclesiastical ministry, but that their case may be deferred completely without prejudice.”232 Cyprian’s compromises were necessitated not always by pastoral expediency but by the need to maintain a firm grip against the organised rebellion he was facing.

Mob Psychology The second effect of Lucianus’ letter is that it unleashed an avalanche of mob justice, as impatient crowds went on a rampage attacking their leaders: In several towns in our province church leaders have been attacked and mobbed; and they have been compelled to put into execution on the spot that peace which the martyrs and confessors, so they kept clamouring, had granted once and for all to everyone. They have intimidated into submission their leaders who were without sufficient force of courage and strength of faith to resist them.233

These incidences of public attacks on bishops say something about mob justice in Roman society, namely that the effective power and influence of the crowds must not be underrated. The public mob was notorious for its thirst for entertainment and exerting punishment. The patron-client relationships were hinged on the patron’s ability to satisfy his clientele.234 The Christians were at constant risk from mob justice.

231 Ep 34.4.1. 232 Ep 34.4.2. 233 Ep 27.3.1. 234 Geoffrey De Ste Croix, E M., "Suffragium: From Vote to Patronage," The British Journal of Sociology 5, no. 1 (March 1954): 34, https://www.jstor.org/stable/588044. 45

In a letter to Fabius of Antioch, Origen reported that a year before the Decian persecutions in Alexandria, someone, “whoever was the prophet and creator of evils for this city stirred up the heathen against us [the Christians], whom they seized, beat with clubs, stabbed … in the face and eyes with pointed reeds, took … to the suburbs, and stoned … to death …. then they all rushed in a group to the houses of the godly and attacked, plundered, and looted their own neighbours … making the city look as if it had been overwhelmed by enemies .… This state of affairs continued long and intense.235

Old men, women, virgins, “all cringed in terror.”236 Famously, Tertullian had complained that Christians were blamed for “every public calamity” and every misfortune of the people: “if the Tiber rises as high as the city walls, if the Nile does not rise to the fields, if the weather will not change, if there is an earthquake, a famine, a plague – straightaway the cry is heard: ‘Toss the Christians to the lion!’ So many of them for just one beast?”237 Cyprian also had explained his retreat as occasioned by fear of the populace who “clamoured for me violently and repeatedly,” and “many times in the circus have they shouted for him to be thrown to the lion.”238 The stoning and burning that the presbyter Numidicus is said to have survived and got rewarded for, is seen by Clarke as an act of “mob pogrom” rather than an official execution.239 His wife was “burnt to ashes (or should I say preserved) along with the others. Numidicus himself was half-burnt, buried under a pile of stones and left for dead.”240 His body “was discovered half-dead” by his daughter, who nursed him back to life. For this “brilliant light of his confession” he was “enlisted in the ranks of our Carthaginian clergy.”241 Not only were the pagan crowds easily roused to frenzy, but the Christians were equally easy to excite. In language similar to that of Origen above, Cyprian regretted that “certain of the fallen, whether of their own accord or incited by someone else, began to make wild demands and charged forth striving to extort themselves, by means of violent attack, the peace that had been promised them by the martyrs and confessors.”242 The culprit was the “wealthy layman,” Felicissimus, who was soon to emerge as the

235 H.E 6.41. 236 H.E. 6.41. 237 Apology 40.1-2. 238 Epp 20.1.12; 59.6.1. 239 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:195, introductory note to Ep 40. 240 Ep 40.1.1. 241 Ep 40.1.1. 242 Ep 20.3.1. 46

“ringleader and chief of a revolutionary faction” – the laxist party.243 And when he does emerge he will be excommunicated not only on the grounds of obstinacy, embezzlement, robbery and adultery, but also because of contriving and setting “a section of the people at loggerheads with their bishop.”244 Felicissimus’ party was soon joined by the five presbyters, who according to Cyprian, “previously, gave encouragement and incitement to certain confessors,” corrupting their minds and seeking “to shatter our community and set a part of it up in arms against the holy episcopate established by God, they are now deploying their envenomed brand of deception in order to destroy even those who have fallen.”245 The teaming up of Felicissimus and the old rivals of his, and the means they employed in inciting the people, posed such a threat to Cyprian that he could say, …our heart, ailing as it is, is now beset with sorrow even more profound: it is that at a time of such anxiety and crisis I cannot hasten to you myself. For we have to stay on our guard lest, through the menaces and plots of these traitors, our arrival might give rise in Carthage to serious disorders, lest, whilst it is a bishop’s duty to ensure peace and tranquillity for all, he might appear to have been the cause for rioting and to have sparked off persecution once more.246

Similarly, when the bishops at the synod of 251 (as shall be further discussed in the next chapter) refused to grant a hearing to Novatian’s envoys the renegades did their best to ensure that there should be no end to their folly: here, too, they are trying to drag asunder the members of Christ into schismatic factions …they are running in all directions – going from door to door, calling on many in their homes, and moving from town to town in a number of districts. They are on the look out for people to join them in their obstinacy, in this schismatic error of theirs.247

The crowd, whether pagan or Christian, could easily be roused.248 Ramsay MacMullen comments that “stoning was a common form of group vengeance. Children learned it at play [and] a sense of participation animated the whole.”249 Origen, contemporaneous with Cyprian, was aware of how people could be excited by shouts of favour or perhaps

243 Ep 41.2.1. 244 Ep 41.1.1 245 Ep 43.3.2, 2.1, 2.2. 246 Ep 43.4.2. 247 Ep 44.3.1. 248 Chadwick, Church, 146. 249 MacMullen, Roman Social Relations, 66-68. 47 excited for money, and cautioned against giving them too much responsibility. Tertullian simply saw them as a ‘herd’.250 The force of the crowds could explain Cyprian’s repeated attempts to solicit the support of his people, as well as his pleading with them to agree with his judgments. In a later incident Cyprian wrote to Cornelius narrating how he struggled to get his plebs to agree to admit former schismatics from the laxist party into their ranks: Oh how I wish, dearly beloved brother, that you could be present here with us when those who make their way back from schism are warped and twisted sinners! Then you would see under what difficulties I labour to persuade our brethren to show forbearance, to stifle their feelings of bitter resentment, and to consent that these evildoers should be let in and given healing treatment. They do indeed show joy and delight when those who come back are good enough people … but, correspondingly, they put up noisy protest and resistance whenever those who return … are diehard and shameless sinners …. It is with enormous difficulty that I manage to persuade my people – I really exhort it out of them – that they allow the admission of sinners.251

The situation was also the same in Rome. The people felt it was their right to have a say in the life of the Church. For example, in Ep 49 when Cornelius reconciled some of the lapsed without heeding the objections of the laity he said, “And in fact the resentment our brethren have felt has proved all the more reasonable in that one or two, despite protests and objections from the people, were received in through my leniency and then turned out to be worse than they had been.”252 Clarke observes the public nature of the procedure and concludes that “such readmission procedures were probably regarded as a public hearing in which plebs might be canvassed, or cajoled, or scandalised, over candidates; it was a community affair, though with the bishop as the ultimate authority.”253 To conclude from this above argument that the Christian crowd was always rowdy and ready for violence would be misleading. We should also note that even among the crowd there would have been the upper class, with whom Cyprian maintained relations.254 Alexander Evers observes that in talking of the people Cyprian rarely, if ever, uses vulgus or multitude which “mostly indicate a politically unstable or rebellious group of people.”255 When he does use vulgi, it

250 For Origen's view see, Everett Ferguson, "Origen and the Election of Bishops," Church History 43, no. 1 (March 1974): 26f, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3164078; For Tertullian's view see, Rankin, "Class Distinction," 303. 251 Ep 59.15.3. 252 Ep 49.15.4. 253 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 3:307, n.4. 254 Pontius, Vita 14.3. 255 Evers, Church, Cities, People, 14, 79. 48 is in connection with the company that Novatian kept, “defrauders and adulterers,” as contrasted to the lapsed whom he [Novatian] denied communion: For the case of one who has committed adultery is graver and much more serious than the case of one who has obtained a certificate of sacrifice …. The latter was the victim of error, thinking that it was enough to avoid offering sacrifice, the former has assailed another’s marriage rights or he has visited some brothel, going down to the sewers and slimy stews of the rabble [uel lupanar ingressus ad cloacam et caenosam uoraginem [v]ulgi].256 Cyprian as noted above, used plebs more than he used populus, and plebs has a more positive meaning. Besides, there were those who, like in any human society, acted with “meekness and humility, in fear and trembling before God” and, therefore, are deserving congratulations, and there were, those “certain people [who] had the outrageous audacity to take it upon themselves to be ‘the church’.”257

What next? Lucianus’ daring actions, as we noted above, led to a flurry of communication between Cyprian and the Roman church, as they made a concerted campaign against the onslaught. The entrance of the Roman church cannot be accounted for. Apart from the eulogy to Fabian, Cyprian had received no personal correspondence from Rome. Epistle 8, as noted above, was not meant for him; Epistles 9 and 20 were his attempts to dialogue; “For about nine months, Cyprian has had little but silence from Rome.”258 In August/September 250, that silence was broken when the Roman clergy wrote in agreement with his position. It was at this time that Novatian came onto the scene, as the writer of Epistle 30, and Novatian shared Cyprian’s views: “There can be nothing more fitting during time of peace, nothing more essential during the hostilities of persecution than adherence to the just severity of the gospel discipline … we are being true, as we read, to our ancient strictness, our ancient faith, our ancient discipline.”259 The Roman clergy agreed with Cyprian that the problem had become global and required extensive consultation, “you have only to look around at the devastation which affects the entire globe; everywhere lie the ruins and the debris of the overthrown. It is apparent that the sin is spread far and wide; the counsel we should seek must be equally extensive.”260 The need for a universal gathering was even more urgent. A letter probably

256 Ep 55.26.1. 257 Ep 33.2.1, 2.2, 1.2. 258 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 1:354, introductory note to Ep 27. 259 Ep 30.2.1, 2.2. 260 Ep 30.5.4. 49 containing the same urgent need for extensive consultation had also been sent to Sicily: “You will find attached a copy of the letter which we have also sent to Sicily.”261 The “final resolution to the problems must await a time when common counsel can be taken together by bishop, clergy and laity”: For it appears to us to be excessively invidious and oppressive to examine without the advice of many people the question of an offense which appears to have been committed by many people and not pronounce together a united verdict when it is notorious that the occurrence of a sin of such gravity has been widespread, amongst many people. Indeed, it is impossible for a decree to be firm unless it shall appear to have received the consent of the great majority.262

Does this not suggest that even the Roman church had a keen sense of common discernment? The Roman response also assures Cyprian that he is not fighting alone; “… by giving our approval to your accomplishments we can gain applause along with you … For men will conclude that we have all laboured in concert together since they will find that we are all united in complete harmony on questions of ecclesiastical censure and discipline.”263 The Roman response emboldened Cyprian to act more confidently. Given the assurance that he had allies such as these he promptly proceeded to make careful arrangements to facilitate the wide dissemination of accurate copies of his letters. For example, he said to a fellow bishop, “Would you also pass on this document to as many colleagues of ours as you can, so that we may all adhere to the one course of action and to the one agreed policy…”264 Cyprian made great use of his skill as rhetor to persuade. For example, in epistle 31 the Roman confessors, languishing in the dungeons praised him for his eloquence: “your letter has dazzled us with light …we have drunk it in with such thirsting hearts.” The propaganda war had to be won with persuasion, consensus-building, and not power.265 With the backing of the Roman clergy and confessors, and with the support of other bishops, who at this time were beginning to visit him while in his exile – Cyprian was in a better position, but, foreign support alone, would not help him achieve his aim. Hence, with the stormy winters approaching, Cyprian turned his attention to his church.266

261 Ep 30.5.2; Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 1:355, introductory note to Ep 27. 262 Ep 30.5.3. 263 Ep 30.1.2. 264 Ep 26.1.2. 265 Ep 31.1.2; Geoffrey D. Dunn, "Cyprian and the Episcopal Synod of 253," Latomus (July-September 2004): 687. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41542578. 266 "Storms at sea are described as rising suddenly," Baney, Some Reflections, 5. 50

The Winter Letters: About excommunications, supplements, and visions 267 In this period, towards the end of 250 and early 251, there is a marked reduction in the correspondence.268 The “risky winter seas,” did not deter Cyprian from writing a commendatory letter to the ‘hallowed Roman martyrs’, now in their second year in prison. Their faith remained strong and their resolution towards the lapsed, constant.269 It was during this time of few correspondence that we find Cyprian undertaking stock- taking measures as a way of preparing for the battle that lay ahead, as it were. The winter period is marked by yet another distinctive feature in Cyprian’s attitude. Having consolidated his support base, Cyprian, with fellow bishops present with him in his exile (suggesting a marked return to normalcy), began appointing people to clerical offices - persons who could have possibly intensified the friction, that is, confessors who had previously aligned with Cyprian’s opponents.270 In appointing them Cyprian dispensed all normal procedures of “scrutiny and approval, normally carried out by bishop and his flock together.”271 Cyprian justified these ‘unilateral’ appointments by alluding to such things as the divine vote of God: “But there is no need to wait for evidence from men when already God has cast his vote”;272 compelling visions a Confessor had had; exceptional merit; and family credentials of the candidate(s);273 as well as divine monitions as in the case of Numidicus who was preserved from death. However, in the last of the letters of appointment (Ep 40) Cyprian did not bother defending his actions by appealing to other bishops present with him, or to visions. He appealed to divine inspiration and sanction. 274 Clarke states that having had the previous appointments accepted by the Church (Ep 38 and 39) he probably felt confident to act without defending his actions.275 Cyprian argued that clerical appointments were necessary as he needed people for despatching correspondence – something like ‘clerical ministers’, to be at his episcopal

267 In their chronological order: Epistles 37, 38, 39, 40, 34, 41, 42 and 43. 268 See Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:171, introductory note to Ep 37. 269 Epp 36; 37. 270 Epistles 29, 38, 39, 40. 271 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:177, introductory note to Ep 38. 272 Ep 38.1.1, Sed expectanda non sunt testimonia humana cum praecedunt diuina suffragia. 273 Ep 39.1.1: “Celerinus … has been joined to our clergy not by the election of man but by the favour of God” - non humana suffragatione sed diuina dignatione coniunctum. 274 The "wide and significant" role of visions and prophecy has undertones associated to the Montanist movement. For treatment on this matter, see, Cecil M. Robeck, Prophecy in Carthage: Perpetua, Tertullian, and Cyprian (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1992), 57. 275 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:195, introductory note to Ep 40. 51 service.276 For Clarke the “extent of the ‘clericalisation’” of the church’s activities implies that the Church had “become very much a society within a society” able to function independently of the Roman government structures.277 While Cyprian’s argument might have been tenable, it can easily be argued, in the context of his dispute with other clergy, that Cyprian felt the need to surround himself with like-minded, reliable and dependable persons. The appointments also raise the question of clerical numbers within the Carthaginian church; how big or small was the clerical population? And why would Cyprian go to such lengths of appointing persons without following procedure? The continued tension between bishop and his confessors and part of the clergy culminated in the breaking of unity when Felicissimus disregarded Cyprian’s delegates, among whom were three bishops, sent to oversee the distribution of alms, a responsibility that he had earlier delegated to his priests and deacons.278 This open schism only worked to strengthen Cyprian’s resolve for an assembly, as well as pushing him to enforce condemnations passed on recalcitrant clerics, such as the case of Gaius Didensis discussed above. A Homecoming? The period culminated with Epistle 43 which was addressed to the whole people (plebi uniuersae), particularly the lapsed, who stood at the centre of the conflict. The persecution had quieted in Carthage and apparently so elsewhere but would continue intermittently until Decius’ death in June 251.279 The relationship with his clergy, especially the ‘old opponents’ had gotten to a level where fear of their actions hindered him from returning to Carthage for the Easter celebrations. Although he had loyal clergy to advise the laity, Cyprian decided to write to them personally, warning them against his opponents’ venom. He accused the opponents of trying to create a brand-new tradition, a sacrilegious establishment: And this, in spite of the fact that it had been firmly decided not only by us but also by the confessors and clergy of Rome, and indeed by all the bishops both within

276 Ep 29. 277 Ep 41; Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:107, introductory note to Ep 29. 278 Ep 41. It is roughly about this time that Cyprian will begin drafting his treatise De Unitate, which will be read at the post-Easter synod 251. 279 Dangers of persecutions would have continued until June 251: The synod that met in April 251 did so "...when the persecution died down and opportunity offered for us to convene together..." (Ep 55.6.1). See, Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 3:170 n.19, 77 n.39, 81 n.41. Epistle 55.9.1, written in August 251, mentions how Cornelius, elected in March 251, was courageous to take office at a time when "that savage tyrant was menacing bishops of God with dreadful horrors." See also, Maurice Bévenot, "Cyprian and his Recognition of Cornelius," The Journal of Theological Studies 28, no. 2 (1977): 356, https://www.jstor.org/stable/23958587. 52

our province and overseas, that no change should be introduced concerning the fate of the fallen until we should all have met together. Then, after sharing our views, we should lay down a decision which was tempered alike with strictness and with compassion.280

Cyprian, therefore, turns to the people, both the stantes and the lapsi, strategically reminding them, three times, that he had been their popular choice, and that their vote had been divine and expressed the will of God;281 hence, they should remain steadfast against the malicious deceptions of Felicissimus and his henchmen, and not abandon God’s ‘true’ priests: This is the latest and the last trial of this persecution; under the Lord’s protection even it will soon pass and then we shall be there with you in person after Easter- day, along with my colleagues. In the presence of these colleagues we will be able to arrange and determine whatever needs to be done, acting in accordance with your views as well as with the common counsel of us all, just as we have firmly decided to do.282

Ultimately, in the mind of Cyprian, the Church must emerge triumphant.283 Clarke observes that, even though he had tried to fill-in the depleted ranks in his clergy, Cyprian still seemed to be “outnumbered … and, for the moment, outmanoeuvred.”284 Patout Burns paints a rather bleak picture when he makes the observation that, “As Easter 251 approached and the refugee bishops returned to their sees to celebrate the feast, Cyprian … could count on the support of only three of the eight presbyters remaining in Carthage.”285 The strategic turning to the people could then be interpreted as a political gesture to ‘excite them’ and ensure their support in time for the synod. Those of the faithful who choose to remain aligned with Felicissimus were implicitly threatened with excommunication.286 It was during this period before the synod of 251 that De Unitate and De Lapsis were written.287

280 Ep 43.3.2. 281 Ep 43.1.2, 1.3, and 5.4. On the divine will, it was also part of the Roman beliefs that positions of authority were elected by the gods and the people. 282 Ep 43.7.2. 283 Ep 43.3.1. 284 Ep 43.1.2; Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:211, introductory note to Ep 43. 285 Burns, Cyprian, 4. 286 Ep 43.7.2. 287 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:213, introductory note to Ep 43. 53

An Assessment of the period The above analysis has been an attempt to look closely at the events and circumstances with which Cyprian was confronted. The period between April 250 and March 251 was without a doubt one of Cyprian’s most hectic and, to an extent, defining periods for his episcopacy. The challenges he faced, as compared to subsequent periods, were overwhelming. The number of extant letters falling within this period takes up about half of his extant correspondence. The two years in which he conflicts with Stephen over the rebaptism controversy (254–256) will not produce this much communication. It would be fought on a different platform: bishops and synods. This period under discussion was fought primarily by letter writing and persuasion to win support. The Decian persecution had disrupted the life of the Church, but even before that, Cyprian had been a man not without enemies. The persecution and events following from it gave his opponents the opportunity they needed to defy him. When he had been elected bishop, it was from the overwhelming support of the people, and now that he had fled in time of persecution and was denying easy pardon to the lapsed, it is to them, the people, that his opponents turned, to sway them and turn them against their bishop. Cyprian, we might say, was forced to fight his battle away from home, from his people.288. Cyprian had to fight against strong personalities, Lucianus, Felicissimus, the old opponents, and, to persuade the Roman clergy. Similarly, he had to persuade fellow bishops to agree with his conclusions. In his letters there is also the oft-repeated call for patience until his return and an assembly be held. Cyprian might have inherited a well-functioning Church with a yearly synodal process, but as the above narrative has attempted to show, he would not have imagined, at the onset of the persecutions, having to extensively disseminate letters with resolutions towards the lapsed to bishops across Africa; neither was it his original intention to summon them to Carthage for purposes of resolving the whole matter. From the evidence in the early letters Cyprian probably had in mind something of a diocesan synod, in which he would gather with his clergy and the people.289 But as we have seen, the matter escalated and became complex and ‘universal’, thereby demanding the collaboration of the ‘entire Church’, and with the collaboration of the Roman clergy, a global synod was in view.290

288 Ep 43.4.1. 289 See Ep 14.1.2 written before mid-April 250. 290 See Epp 30.5.4; 43.3.2, written September/November 250, and early to mid-March, respectively. 54

It is not easy to judge Cyprian’s underlying motivation. Whether it was the socio- political dimension in which he saw himself as the grand seigneur – “well known, man of great renown and dignity, surrounded by numerous attendants and followers,” or whether his motivations were purely religious, is unclear.291 One thing is certain though, he, like the Roman clergy, felt the need to protect the Church, and “to hold securely to the ever- guarded rule of her discipline like some rudder of safety in a storm.”292 The concessions Cyprian made were not without reflection and pragmatism. Although he was a stalwart defender of customary tradition, he was also pragmatic, and as it were, read the signs of the times. The summer threat of illness coupled with his clergy’s appeals to Rome forced him to accept reconciliation of the sick penitents and those in danger of death. Both politics and pastoral care act as motivations. He somehow had to calm the situation lest, perhaps, the number of deaths from the plague as well as the fact that he kept deferring judgment until the synod would have alienated everyone.293 The unfolding of the events described above also raises two questions concerning population. The first, which we shall examine in the next section concerns the Carthaginian clergy. How big was the Carthaginian presbyterate, and why would Cyprian make an effort to fill the depleted ranks? If the five dissident clergy gave Cyprian such a hard time that he had to turn to the laity, does one not wonder what fraction of the clergy the five would have constituted, or was it rather a matter of force of personality? While there may have been other clergy soon to return from exile or from hiding: “many of the clergy are absent still and have not considered it to be their duty to resume their station even at this date,” there is no doubt that towards the end of the exile Cyprian was in a desperate situation.294 The bishops who were with him had probably left for the Easter celebrations in their own dioceses, and now Cyprian could only count on three priests as opposed to the five dissident presbyters.295 The second question concerns the ratio between the stantes and the lapsi. Is Cyprian to be taken literally when he says, “thousands of certificates were being issued everyday,” or is it his proclivity to exaggerate?296 Are we to agree with Henry Hayman who speaks of the stantes as being numerically in the minority, but wielding moral

291 Hunink, "Christian and Gentleman," 31. 292 Ep 30.2.1. 293 Sage, Cyprian, 217. 294 Ep 34.4.1. 295 Ep 43.1.1. 296 Ep 20.2.2. 55 power?297 Could it also be said that Cyprian was aware of the force of the crowd and how matters could easily turn violent if they were to be agitated? So, we find in Cyprian a growing awareness of the problem at hand, the need to consolidate his power in the face of dissension, and with this comes the strong awareness of his office as guarantor of unity in the midst of turmoil. It cannot be denied that circumstances came upon the Church suddenly, and required prudent and collective resolutions, and Cyprian endeavoured to hold to that perspective. We judged that even in small matters concerning unruly confessors, or Church administration, Cyprian maintained, or at least, considered communal discernment a priority. Even when circumstances changed and focus shifted, there remained one constant in Cyprian’s attitude: when peace comes, we shall all meet and take counsel together. The presence of the laity, and their role in reaching a communal resolution is one that is attested to in Cyprian’ correspondence, and is in fact, too numerous to dismiss as irrelevant. While Clarke points to the politician and the rhetor’s instinct in Cyprian, at face-value these statements point to a role and a function that cannot be overlooked or dismissed. In the next section we shall try to judge him on that basis. Did he mean what he said?

297 Henry Hayman, "The Position of the Laity in the Church," The Journal of Theological Studies 5, no. 20 (July 1904): 506, 507, https://www.jstor.org/stable/23949851. 56

CHAPTER THREE: THE SYNOD OF 251

From the above section we gathered that the persecution and the period of exile were trying times for Cyprian as he had to contend with pressure exerted both from without, that is, the implementation of the Decian edict on his flock, and from within, that is, the dissension from members of his clergy and some of the confessors. We also saw how in the midst of all this Cyprian tried to maintain balance as, on the one hand, he had to keep firm control on the dignity of his office as bishop, elected by the judgment of God and the vote of the people, and, on the other hand, he had to defend the Church’s dignity and discipline by insisting on the proper functioning and administration of the Church, as seen in his constant appeals for unity and discipline. To maintain his control Cyprian did several things. First, he tried to keep his presence felt by staying in touch with his church through letter writing. Second, with tensions from his clergy intensifying and his reputation at stake, he turned to the support of his episcopal colleagues, to whom he sent many of his letters seeking approval of his policies. Third, from the beginning of his correspondence in exile he never shrunk from the idea and need of gathering the Church together in council; the bishop(s), priests, deacons, and the laity. Even as tensions intensified and threatened his very authority, he insisted that resolutions should wait until he returned from exile, whereupon the whole Church would gather to “discuss, weigh, and determine” questions together. In this section I shall investigate the reports we get from the proceedings and decisions of the much-awaited synod of 251. In studying this I shall attempt to ascertain, from the reports, whether Cyprian kept his word. Information on this synod is scarce, but from the little that we have we can gather relevant information as to agenda, procedure, and outcome. The synod of 251 is to be reckoned as Cyprian’s first of seven synods as bishop, of which we have an actual record as to dating.298 Therefore, a reconstruction of this synod and the events surrounding it will help us in appreciating whether the intended objective was met. By doing this I aim at showing that Cyprian’s attitude towards, and consciousness of, common counsel never really altered even though circumstances forced him to become the ‘archetypal-bishop’ and ‘churchman’.299

298 For an argument placing Epistles 1-4 before to a pre-Decian era, thereby allowing for a synod(s) in 248/9, see Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 1:149, introductory note to Epistle 1; Sage, Cyprian, 147. 299 See, for example, Burns, Cyprian, 49,50; Safranski, St. Cyprian, 137; R. Eno, "Shared Responsibility in the Early Church," Chicago Studies 9 (1970): 132. 57

General Summary of Events The synod of 251 took place in the month of April, after the Easter celebrations which fell on the 23 March 251. This timing would have allowed attending bishops a month’s travel to Carthage.300 The first extant letters (Epistles 44 – 48) that sketch events around the synod were written sometime in the middle of 251, probably in June. The three-month gap in communication is intriguing and therefore, worthy of discussion. While the bishops, priests, and laity were gathered in assembly, news of unsettling events in Rome came to them. News of Cornelius’ election which had taken place “in the first half of March 251” must have reached the assembly while in session.301 This must have been immediately followed by envoys from Novatian’s party who brought news of Novatian’s election and accusations against Cornelius.302 The Novatian party was denied audience and it was agreed to withhold judgment and not make any public announcement until a delegation, sent on an investigative mission, could return with news and letters of commendation from the sixteen bishops who had attended Cornelius’ election.303 At this time, the Council would have continued in some format, suspended, or concluded. As we shall see it is not clear what happened. In the meantime, other bishops would have returned to their dioceses leaving behind some hangers-on, whose purpose is not well articulated, but who would have acted as an advisory team. Discretion was advised; people going to Rome were cautioned about the matter. In this interim, Cyprian travelled to Hadrumetum, some 160 kilometres south of Carthage, where he appraised the church there of the synodal resolution, of which they were unaware, and he discouraged them from addressing letters to Cornelius, as they had done, until a decision was reached.304 While the African delegation was still in Rome on a mission that would probably have taken several weeks, as they had to acquire signatures from the bishops who had been present at Cornelius’ election, envoys from Rome arrived in Carthage with the intention of clearing Cornelius’ name. Upon the testimony of Cornelius’ envoys and the subsequent return of the African delegation, Cyprian moved to send a formal letter of recognition to Cornelius and notified all the bishops of his region to do the same. This would place the official recognition of Cornelius sometime in June 251.

300 See Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 3:253, n.49. 301 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:224, introductory note to Ep 44. 302 See also H.E. 6.43.7ff. 303 Ep 55.24.2. 304 Ep 48.2.1. 58

Two things are to be noted from the above general narrative. The first is that the decision by the assembly to delay making a judgement concerning Cornelius’ election, the lengthy investigation that followed, as well as Cyprian’s travel to Hadrumetum, compromised the relationship between Cyprian and Cornelius.305 Second, as a result of this debacle Cyprian wrote three extant letters (Epistles 44, 45, and 48) by way of mollifying an obviously agitated Cornelius, and this is where a reconstruction of events gets somewhat complicated.

Unpacking the Event Each of the three letters presents a version of what transpired and recreating these events has been the subject of much discussion. While it is generally agreed that Epistles 44, 45, and 48 were written around the same time, that is, June 251, the debate is whether the events described belong to the process of the synod, or some other gathering outside the synod. This is especially apparent when looking at Epistle 44. For purposes of this paper, and in trying to get a glimpse of how the Church functioned, I shall briefly summarise the arguments. But first, I shall highlight the three key passages, after-which I shall consider the main proposals before concluding that a denial of Epistle 44’s place within the synodal process is a denial of the active role of the lower clergy and the laity. In the first report in Epistle 44, Cyprian said: But they came bursting into our assembly, shouting scandalous abuse and causing an uproar; they demanded that we and the people should publicly investigate the charges which they kept saying they were laying and could prove. We refused.306

In the second report found in Ep 45 he wrote: All the same, we would have already made our feelings and inclination perfectly plain to our brethren and to all the laity gathered here in Carthage at the time when, upon receiving recently letters from both parties, it was your letter only that we read out; we made it known in the hearing of everyone that you had been appointed bishop .… But those bitter and abusive allegations which had been heaped up in the document forwarded by the opposing side we rejected […] In making this judgment, we also bore in mind what was proper to be read out and heard before a solemn assembly of so many of our brothers, at which God’s bishops were seated together and where his altar was placed.307

305 In following the synodal resolution the Church in Hadrumetum had written a second letter to Rome; this time addressed not to Cornelius, as they had in the first letter, but to the presbyters and deacons. This letter eventually got into the hands of Cornelius. 306 Ep 44.2.1. 307 Ep 45.2.1, 2.2. 59

In the third passage in Epistle 48 he said: Unfortunately, our province is unusually widespread, including adjoining areas of Numidia and Mauretania. It was, accordingly, the resolution of the bishops to prevent any perplexity being created in the minds of our far-distant brethren through uncertain information about a schism in Rome. We should therefore hold back the full truth of the matter and the time to express our assent to your appointment was when the authority for so doing had been made the stronger; then, when individual consciences had been cleared of every last scruple, letters should be sent by every one of us over here, without exception (as is now being done). Thus our colleagues should together unequivocally express their approval of, and attach themselves to, you and your communion, that is to say, abide by the unity and, along with that, the charity of the Catholic Church. By God’s grace this has all happened; by His providence our plan has succeeded. And in this we take joy.308

Graeme Clarke sees these three passages as presenting us with an example of “ecclesiastical diplomacy in action” as Cyprian gradually revealed information about the events around the news from Rome.309 But this does not help us much in ascertaining the actual sequence of events. For example, how did the African bishops eventually reach the decision to acknowledge Cornelius’ election? Did they convene a second autumn synod after the April Synod?310 Or did they call an ad hoc meeting of the bishops still present in Carthage? Some meeting did take place, but details about it are unknown to us. While Clarke contends that “it is theoretically feasible that there were autumn Council sessions in 251 and 252,” he claims that they “are neither attested nor necessary.”311 Other scholars propose both spring and autumn synods.312 This suggests that we do not know much, and all possibilities lie open before us. Maurice Bévenot, who deals with the events leading to the recognition of Cornelius over Novatian, is hesitant to place the narrative described in the three letters (45, 46 and 48) within the context of the 251 synod.313 This is because there is “uncertainty of its [synod’s] date relative to the letters … and to the probability that its

308 Ep 48.3.2. 309 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:225, introductory note to Ep 44; See also, Bévenot, "Cyprian and Cornelius," 353. 310 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 3:302, introductory note to Ep 64; Geoffrey D. Dunn, "Cyprian and his Collegae: Patronage and the Episcopal Synod of 252," The Journal of Religious History 27, no. 1 (February 2003): 4. 311 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:228, n.6. 312 Dunn sees no problem with the argument that the synod might have "remaine[d] in session for some time awaiting the return of the two envoys." He also proposes a decision made post factum. Dunn, "Synod of 251," 269, n.69, 70, 71; Clarke argues that the eventual decision was made by an "ad hoc group of episcopal advisors" called in to come to a decision after the return of the envoys. Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:228, n.6. 313 Bévenot, "Cyprian and Cornelius," 346. 60

[synod] main purpose was to decide their policy towards the lapsed and the measures to be taken against Felicissimus…”; yet in spite of this he concedes that the events described in Epistle 45 point to a “religious meeting.”314 Graeme Clarke, on the other hand, is willing to admit that the events described in Epistle 45 and 48 refer, without a doubt, to the Council of 251 where, “in fact the assembled bishops sat in solemn conclave together…, whilst minor clergy and the local plebs would remain standing.”315 He argues, however, that the events of Epistle 44 neither refer to a synod nor a liturgical service, but to a congregational gathering “where bishop and people might meet for discussion and debate.”316 Clarke’s argument for isolating the events is dependent on two words that Cyprian used. In the first instance Cyprian used the term statio (in statione) which implies a congregational gathering, and not necessarily a synod.317 In the second instance the word used is conuentu which implies an assembly or a Council.318 Another reason why Clarke isolates the incident in Epistle 44 is that it would be inconceivable to have Novatian’s party’s “calumniating and slanderous documents” being read in a liturgical / Eucharistic gathering.319 This is in reference to Cyprian’s defence where he said, That is why, my very dear brother, when there reached me such documents written against you even from your fellow-presbyter who had his seat with you, I directed that there be read to the clergy and laity only those writings which rang out with the tone of religious simplicity but not those writings which barked and howled with execrations and abuse.320

One would still have to ask, however, where the riotous abuse caused by Novatian’s party took place. Whereas Clarke, as we have noted, prefers to present the assembly as a congregational gathering, but does not specify when it would have taken place, Maurice Bévenot simply states that, “This may have been for the council, but need not.”321 While I agree with Dunn that “there is nothing to indicate that this episode did not take place at the very beginning of the dispute, when the synod would still have been in session,” it is also probable that it could have happened soon after the synod, and within the interim period between the sending off of the envoys, and the time falling soon after the arrival of

314 Bévenot, "Cyprian and Cornelius," 349. 315 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:239, n.18. 316 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:231, n.11. 317 Epp 44.2.1; 49.3.1; Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:231, n.11; 276, n.21. 318 Ep 45.2.1: “…in tanto fratrum religiosoque conuentu considentibus dei sacerdotibus et altari posito.” 319 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:239, n.18. 320 Ep 45.2.5. 321 Bévenot, "Cyprian and Cornelius," 349. 61

Cornelius’ legates, but, before the official recognition of Cornelius, which is placed sometime in May/June 251.322 This timeframe of about two months would have allowed Cyprian and “the many colleagues who had gathered around [him while they] waited … for the arrival of” their envoys occasion to gather either as bishops alone, so as to discuss the delicate matter, or to gather as a Congregation, with the whole assembly.323 Michael Sage’s conclusion, which is compelling, avoids the unnecessary hurdles by stating that the synod of Carthage, unlike that of Rome, “was of long duration, probably from March through the summer of 251.”324 This supposition, helps resolve and accommodate speculations on the decision to excommunicate Novatian, the eventual recognition of Cornelius, and also enables us to place the liturgies and the Congregational assemblies within the scope of the synod. Daily eucharists were a common feature, sometimes two gatherings taking place, that is, the evening agape meals and the morning sacrifice. But some may possibly deceive themselves with this comforting reflection that even while it is clear that water only is offered up in the morning, yet (they claim) ‘when we come to supper, we offer a cup that is mixed’. But when we dine we cannot call all the people together to share in our meal; we cannot celebrate the full truth of this sacrament if we do not have all of the brethren present.325

I therefore find no dilemma in situating liturgical assemblies within the event of the synod. The fact that Novatian’s party continued to move “from door to door … from town to town in a number of districts” seeking support from the people warrants us to speculate that Cyprian with the bishops around him, and the local clergy together with the people, did not sit idly as the investigations were being conducted.326 If this is the case, then it presents us with a piece of a mosaic of the Carthaginian church in action. This ‘congregational assembly’ described in Epistle 44 would present a picture in which issues

322 “But there arrived before them [before the envoys] our colleagues Pompeius and Stephanus; they … have also themselves, provided for our information here clear testimony and evidence of the situation. Consequently, there was no need to pay any further heed to those who had come as agents of Novatian” Ep 44.1.3. Clarke and Bévenot identify the colleagues as Italian legates sent by Cornelius, whereas Patout Burns identifies them as African bishops who happened to be in Rome. Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:230, n.9; Bévenot, "Cyprian and Cornelius," 349, 350; Burns, Cyprian, 6; Dunn, "Synod of 251," 246 no.70. 323 Ep 44.1.2. That such gatherings were possible is attested to in Epistle 49 where Cornelius enthusiastically writes to Cyprian informing him of the return of the Confessors. In this letter Cornelius tells Cyprian that he had called for a diocesan synod to formally receive them into communion. However, before that council, the presbyters had summoned them for interrogation: “And so they came forward. The presbyters plied them with questions over their actions” (Ep 49.1.4). 324 Sage, Cyprian, 258, 259. 325 Ep 63.16.1; See, Burns and Jensen, Christianity in Roman Africa, 240-242. 326 Ep 44.3.1. 62 were resolved communally and not reserved to the episcopate only; “bursting into our assembly … they demanded that we and the people should publicly investigate the charges….”327 With this piece of information, we are to assume that the people had an active role and were not passive spectators in an ecclesiastical drama. Even if they were there to simply shout out acclamations of approval or disapproval, it would not take away from the fact that they were actively involved in the decision-making process of the Church.

Epistle 55 and the Synod For a better appreciation of the synod of 251 we turn to Epistle 55, written between August 251 and before the synod of May 252; the Italian synod having convened in summer of 251 and Decius having died in June of that year.328 This Epistle, addressed to a fellow African bishop, Antonianus, who had been absent at the gathering of 251, serves as a report on the outcomes of the synod. While I am aware that details in this report are biased towards Cyprian’s favour, I believe that within this report we are able glean and answer such questions as; what were the resolutions reached, and how were they reached? Did the meeting have an agenda, and who attended? An investigation into these matters, while not offering a comprehensive picture of the synod, will aid us in assessing whether Cyprian’s plans, addressed in the above section on the Decian correspondence, were met. Were there any changes in focus or did the Council remain true to Cyprian’s expectations? In making this assessment I intend to demonstrate that although initial pastoral concerns seem to have been side-lined for more pressing collegial matters, the silence of the lower clergy and laity that comes out in this letter, and subsequent letters, does not necessarily imply a change in attitude towards collective counsel. Synodality, in the sense of active participation, was the ‘normal functioning’ of the early Church. Epistle 55 is important because it sheds light on three areas. First, it elaborates on Novatian’s error and his stoic position towards the lapsed. Cyprian dedicated the last part of this letter to describing Novatian’s error.329 He accused Novatian of failing to “maintain charity with his brethren and the unity within the Church, and he has therefore

327 Ep 44.2.1. 328 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 3:160, introductory note to Ep 55. 329 Ep 55.24-30. 63 lost even what he had formerly been.”330 Second, it clarifies the supposed accusations levelled against Cornelius. Novatian and his followers accused Cornelius of having tainted himself “with the stain from any certificate of sacrifice” and had joined “sacrilegiously in communion with bishops [Trofimus] who had sacrificed.”331 This would have been sensitive information and might explain Cyprian’s lack of openness towards Cornelius in Epistles 44-48, discussed above. It seems that while matters between Cyprian and Cornelius may have been resolved after the initial fiasco, Cornelius’ opponents may have persisted in tarnishing Cornelius’ reputation. At this point Cyprian might have felt that it was now necessary and safe to clarify the issue with Antonianus. In fact, he dedicated a large section of the letter to defending Cornelius’ character and actions in light of the synod’s resolutions.332 The third and most important point for my present argument is how Epistle 55 presents the resolutions reached by the synod as well as how Cyprian explained or defended his shift in policy on the issue of the lapsed.

Resolutions: A Healthy Compromise Bishop Antonianus had been shaken by Novatian’s persistent rebellion, by the accusations levelled against Cornelius, and by Cyprian’s apparent shift in policy towards the lapsed.333 And so to respond to the third issue, Cyprian began by explaining that his retreating from his earlier position concerning the lapsed was not out of fickleness nor a slackening of attitude towards the gospel, but, was adopted, “after careful deliberation and lengthy consideration” as well as by changing circumstances, and the need to bring “salvation to the many.”334 A summary of the resolutions of the 251 Council was attached to Epistle 55: “All this is contained in the document which I am sure must have reached you; in it there are listed, in summary form, the various resolutions passed.”335 Unfortunately, this document has been lost to us.336 But among the resolutions reached we know of at least five: 1) it was resolved to offer reconciliation to the lapsed lest they “fall away even further” and

330 Ep 55.24.1. 331 Ep 55.10.2. 332 Ep 55.8-23. 333 See Ep 55.1-3. 334 Ep 55.3.2, 7.2. 335 Ep 55.6.1. 336 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:302, n.15. 64 find “themselves shut out from the church.”337 2). The lapsed were expected to undergo prolonged penance with their cases being scrutinised individually: For a start, those who had obtained certificates should be admitted to communion. But in the case of those who had sacrificed, comfort should be brought to them in the hour of their death; our reasoning was that in the grave there is no confession and that we cannot insist that a man does penitence if the fruits of that penitence are withheld from him.338

The objective was not only to prepare the reconciled for battle, in case they should face further persecution, but also to prepare them for death, in case they died. 3) It was resolved that those who did not perform any penance should be denied reconciliation, even on their death-beds: And that is the reason why, dearly beloved brother, in the case of those who do no penance, who give no evidence that they are wholeheartedly sorry for their sins, who make no public profession of their grief, we have determined that they ought to be altogether excluded from any hope of peace and communion if, on becoming dangerously ill, they should start to beg for them.339

4). It was resolved that cases concerning the lapsed were to be referred to individual bishops and so be judged in their local dioceses.340 However, while the bishops were given the right to judge cases, it was agreed that the ultimate Judge who could “ratify” or “emend” the verdict determined on earth, was God.341 5). From Epistle 59 we also get to know that the synod also endorsed the condemnations that had been issued earlier to Fortunatus, Felicissimus and their followers, as well as condemning a second time the deposed bishop of Lambaesis, Privatus, who had been condemned at a synod held sometime between 238 and 248.342 Significant in the resolutions made was the categorising of sins committed during the persecution – something which had been absent during the persecution. We get for the first time a clear distinction between those who had sacrificed (sacrificati) and those who had obtained certificates (libellatici).343 This classification of faults allowed the synod to determine the appropriate sentence to be meted out to individual cases upon investigation. Even among the sacrificati we get further distinctions between those who had acted

337 Ep 55.6.1. 338 Ep 55.6.1, 17.3. 339 Ep 55.23.4. 340 Ep 59.14.2. 341 Ep 55.18.1. 342 Epp 59.9.1; 45.4.1; 59.10.2. 343 Ep 55. 13.2, 14.2. 65 without hesitation, and those who had succumbed after a long struggle; those who had dragged the whole family into sacrificing, and those who had “confronted the test on behalf everyone else”; those who had forced their tenants and friends to sacrifice, and those who had “spared their tenants and farmers” providing shelter for “refugees in flight on their way to exile.”344 This recognition of the various grades of weakness is quite significant in that it shows how and why Cyprian would eventually lean towards leniency. Not only that, but the synod’s classification of sin permitted the members to accuse the Novatianists of being too rigid, like the Stoics, “who claim that all sins are equal and that it is quite wrong for a man of gravity to be easily moved to pity.”345 Lauren Hudson points out this shift from rigidity to moderation in Cyprian’s Epistles, and states that initially Cyprian had regarded the lapsed, both the libellatici who had polluted their consciences, and the sacrificati who had partaken of the sacrifice, as dead and therefore, outside the Church. 346 However, before the writing of Epistle 43 and the De lapsis, sometime in mid-March 251, Cyprian had begun to mellow, referring to the lapsi as semi-conscious and as being able to be revived and to receive the peace of the Church: “For those of you who fell through the wiles of the adversary, now is the time, during this second trial, for you, in all faith, to look to your hope and your peace.”347 While he remained resolute and rigid regarding the penitential procedure, we also find a gradual shift towards accommodating leniency for the sake of concord: “no change should be introduced concerning the fate of the fallen until we should meet together. Then, after sharing our views, we would lay down a decision which was tempered alike with strictness and with compassion.”348 The healthy compromise reached by the synod of 251, granting the semi- conscious libellatici and sacrificati an opportunity to receive the peace of the Church, either after individual examination and a period of penance, or in exitu, was therefore, not far from what Cyprian would have imagined. 349 This concession was deemed as necessary and essential for the salvation of the lapsed. The Church had to prevent the lapsed from reverting into paganism or heresy, by keeping them safe within the fold.

344 Ep 55.13.2. 345 Ep 55.16.1. 346 Ep 33.1.2, written Aug/Sept 250. Lauren Hudson, "Cyprianic Ecclesiology: Redefining the Office of the Christian Bishop" (MA diss., Georgia Southern University, 2013), 42, https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd/858. 347 Ep 43.7.1. 348 Ep 43.3.2. 349 Ep 55.16, 17.3. Hudson, "Cyprianic Ecclesiology," 45. 66

Hence, even though the reconciliation could not be easily granted, it was crucial that the lapsed be kept within the fold so that when Christ appears again, they will be within the embrace of the Church, and so could receive judgement or mercy from him: what was outside the Church could not be saved, even martyrs who died outside the Church.350 Although the argument is hinged on the salvation of the lapsed, we can discern from this, a pragmatic desire to keep and maintain numbers. Although Cyprian does not explicitly state it, there is a tendency in him, and other contemporary writers, to exaggerate figures, or to argue on the numbers supporting them so as to appear superior to their opponents. This is a point I shall return to in a later section, but it suffices to say that in the wake of the persecutions and the emergence of rival Christian communities, it mattered to have significant support. For example, in the very early stages of the controversy concerning the lapsed, Cyprian dedicated epistle 17 to the ‘standing’ laity (fratribus in plebe consistentibus), promising them a role to play in the upcoming synod. However, as the synod was approaching and opposition was mounting, Cyprian dedicated epistle 43 to all the laity (Cyprianus plebi uniuersae), both the standing, and especially the lapsed, over whom the battle was being fought.351 What is remarkable in the resolutions is Cyprian’s reversal in policy concerning the libellatici. In the De Lapsis Cyprian had argued that they too “will not be able to escape and avoid God [their] judge,” and hence, should not “flatter themselves that they need repent the less, who, although they have not polluted their hands with abominable sacrifices, yet have defiled their conscience with certificates.”352 Now, after the lengthy debate and healthy compromise reached by the synod he will say, “For a start, those who had obtained certificates should be admitted to communion.”353 This about-turn in policy is remarkable when placed within the context of his rigorous position regarding the penitential discipline, especially as it was practiced. Tertullian, whom Cyprian regarded as his ‘master’, had, in his Montanist days, insisted that neither the hierarchical Church nor the martyrs, could forgive the post-baptismal sin

350 Ep 55.19.2. 351 See Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 1:293: n.1; Clarke, Letters of Cyprian 2:213, n. 1. 352 Cyprian, "The Lapsed," trans. and ed. Roy J. Deferrari, Treatises: The Fathers of the Church 36 (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1958), 80, n.27. 353 Ep 55.17.3. 67 of adultery; only “the Church of the Spirit” could, “through a man who has the Spirit; it is not the Church which consists of a number of bishops.”354 But you grant this power even to your martyrs …. If Christ is in the martyr so that the martyr may absolve adulterers and fornicators, let him reveal the secrets of the heart and so pardon sins – then he is Christ” …. I may not believe that any person has this power unless he furnishes the same proofs. (On Purity 22).

For Tertullian, post-baptismal sin was non-negotiable. However that may be, there was the possibility, in God’s grace, of: a second hope, one which is indeed the very last …. Only once, however, because it is already a second time; never again, however, because the last time was in vain …. Since this second and last penitence is so serious a matter, it must be tested in a way which is proportionately laborious …. This external act, rather expressively designated by the Greek word for it in common use, is exomologesis [and was accompanied by fasting, prayer, public prostration] at the feet of the priests and kneel[ing] before the beloved God, making all the brethren commissioned ambassadors of your prayer for pardon (On Penance 7-12).

We noted above how the Roman clergy’s decision to support Cyprian’s view was for the sake of maintaining traditional practice: “God forbid that the Roman church may ever release her hold on her old strictness by irreligious laxity; may she never let the sinews of her severity grow slack, thereby overthrowing the grandeur of her faith.”355 And we also noted how Cyprian dedicated three letters, to the martyrs and confessors, to his priests and deacons, and to the laity, insisting on maintaining the penitential procedure.356 It would then be no wonder that Antonianus was shocked at Cyprian’s about-turn. To argue in favour of the possibility of change in policy, Cyprian dedicated part of the letter in reminding Antonianus how certain ‘predecessor’ bishops had battled to come to terms with reconciliation offered to adulterers, which, a generation earlier, had been compared by Tertullian to idolatry: “And so, adultery, since it is the next thing to idolatry … will share its fate as it does its rank, and be joined with it in punishment as it is in position” (On Penance 5). First, Cyprian highlighted how, “even in the case of adulterers we allow a certain period of penitence and the peace is granted to them.”357 Second, he pointed out how this practice met with disapproval from other bishops: “And you must remember that even amongst our predecessors there were certain bishops here in our

354 Tertullian, "Treatises on Penance: On Penance and On Purity," trans. William P. Le Saint, Ancient Christian Writers 28, edited by Johannes Quasten and Walter J. Burghardt (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1959), 122 no.21. 355 Ep 30.3.3. 356 To the martyrs and confessors, Ep 15; to his priests and deacons, Ep 16; and to the laity, Ep 17. 357 Ep 55.20.2. 68 province who judged that peace ought not to be granted to adulterers and they, therefore, shut off completely any room for penitence in the case of sins of adultery.”358 And then lastly, he concluded that even though there was heated debate around this issue the disagreeing bishops did not “shatter the unity of the catholic Church, obstinate in their harshness and rigour though they remained.”359 The circumstances regarding the shift in policy towards adulterers is not explicit, but it was an issue that, according to Clarke, had stirred the whole Church, East and West, in the early third century.360 Yet another example from which we can detect a change in attitude, or at least fluidity in practice, is presented to us in Epistle 64. This letter was probably written in 252 and was a post-synodal report sent to Fidus, a bishop who disagreed with the idea of baptising infants before the eighth day, a practice that he saw as being in opposition to the Jewish ritual of circumcision. This case, although not our main concern, shows how a practice, known to, but not recommended by Tertullian, was common practice in most churches.361 While Tertullian would have argued that “a postponement of Baptism is most advantageous … in the case of children … let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ,” what is at stake in Epistle 64 is not whether babies should be baptised or not, but how soon after birth they should be baptised.362 In his response, Cyprian disagreed with Fidus’ position, and, in the name of fellow bishops said, “As far as concerns the case of infants …. Our Council [in Concilium nostro] adopted an entirely different conclusion …. we all formed the judgment that it is not right to deny the mercy and grace of God to any man that is born … we must do everything we possibly can to prevent the destruction of any soul.”363 We can deduce, therefore, that in his arguments Cyprian seemed to have acknowledged that the times were changing, and the Decian persecution had forced the Church to reconsider and revise some of its ‘ancient’ practices. In revising these ‘customary traditions’ the Church was inevitably creating something new. Cyprian urged other bishops to come to terms with the ‘new normal’ for the sake of unity. It is interesting to note how in this battle over admission of the lapsed, Novatian, who was

358 Ep 55.20 -21. 359 Ep 55.21.1. 360 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 3:194 n.87. 361 See, Burns and Jensen, Christianity in Roman Africa, 179. 362 Tertulian, Baptism 18. 363 Ep 64.2.1, 2.2. For dating of Epistle 64 see, Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 3:302, introductory note. 69 disparagingly dubbed the “doctrinal purist” and “champion of the Church’s teaching,” by Cornelius, now stood for the fading era in which the Church had prided itself as being the vanguard of discipline and the Church of the pure: the supreme display of personal pride, that a man should dare to do or even imagine himself able to do what the Lord did not allow even the apostles to do, that he should think he is able to divide the tares from the wheat, or as if it was to him that had been granted power to wield the winnowing fan and to cleanse the threshing floor, that he should set about separating the chaff from the grain.364

Cyprian, on the other hand, having once subscribed to the strict tradition, now found himself as one willing to let go, for the sake of concord among bishops: “Bearing in mind this kindness and mercy which He [God] shows, we have no right ourselves to be overrigid [sic] or harsh and callous in caring for our brothers … we have no right to be so hardhearted [sic] and unyielding as to knock back their repentance….”365 Michael Sage observes that in seeking to maintain the status quo Novatian became the enemy refusing to admit that that the Decian persecution had “provoked a situation in which the older methods could be maintained only at a great cost. If the rigorism was to be allowed, the tremendous numbers who had fallen … would be driven away from the Church forever.”366 While Sage’s argument might hold true, it fails to acknowledge the presence, within the Carthaginian community, of those who preferred the old way. The middle-way chosen by the synod certainly failed to appease both the laxist and the rigorist parties as both parties eventually proceeded to appoint rival bishops in 252.367 However that may be, what matters in this argument is that the concession reached by Cyprian serves as an example of how seriously he took the synodal process of listening and discerning together, to the point of having to give up his views for the sake of unity and concord.

Process As we noted above Cyprian specifies in his letter to Antonianus, that the decision to admit penitents was reached after lengthy deliberations at the Council. Cyprian shed light on what these deliberations would have entailed when he said “Scriptural passages were produced, in a lengthy debate, on both sides of the issue and eventually we arrived at a balanced and moderate decision, striking a healthy mean.”368 While we do not

364 H.E 6.43; Ep 55.25.1. 365 Ep 55.19.1. 366 Sage, Cyprian, 260. 367 Ep 59. 368 Ep 55.6.1. 70 possess the record of the proceedings, we can deduce some form of procedure by looking at the internal evidence of Epistle 55 which is awash with scriptural passages. There are “nearly thirty direct biblical quotations and some twenty more biblical allusions” in the whole letter.369 Beginning from Ep 55.18.2 to 55.23.3 there are thirteen direct quotations and seven allusions to Scriptural passages which refer to Christian charity and mercy towards sinners. It is possible that these passages either express Cyprian’s long and deliberate personal reflections that made him adopt the moderate resolutions of the synod, or, they are an echo of the many Scriptural passages presented and debated in the synod in defence of admitting penitents.370 For example, the paragraph of Epistle 55.18.2 which precedes Cyprian’s argument on why they had to be merciful to the lapsed quotes six biblical verses on charity and mercy towards sinners. While it is possible that the Scripture passages were the result of his personal reflections trying to convince himself why it was necessary to loosen up, the passages give us an insight into how a church faced with complex realities drew meaning from the Scriptures and came up with pastoral solutions in the light of the Sacred text. Apart from appeals to the Scriptures we also find references to traditional practices, as noted in the case of adultery above. The traditional practices seemed to have worked well in an era when persecutions were sporadic and localised, and not universal, and so, in turning to the Scriptures, the Council sought to find pastoral approaches that would permit it to apply the medicine of mercy, even if temporarily. This moderate approach was needed in these new circumstances where failure to apply mercy would inadvertently lead to a wholesale diminution in numbers. This interplay between tradition and Scripture will eventually take centre-stage in the three synods (254-256) dealing with the re-baptism controversy, where both sources will be pitted against each other as two strong personalities, Cyprian, and Stephen, faced each other. But, as this is not the focus of this thesis, it suffices to say that at the 251 synod, in debating the issue of readmitting penitents, as well as the Novatian schism, the synod judged the traditional practice in the light of the Scriptures, so as to better respond to contemporary pastoral needs. We cannot ascertain whether other processes followed, but we can assume that each bishop was given the opportunity to speak and offer his opinion or argument on the

369 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 3:163, introductory note to Ep 55. 370 Ep 55.3.2 for his personal reflections. 71 issue. Information on this approach comes to us from the Sententiae Episcoporum numero LXXXVII, which is a record of the Synod of Spring 256 in which eighty-seven (although only eighty-four were physically present) bishops from “the provinces of Africa, Numidia, and Mauretania,” gathered for an emergency synod in Carthage.371 In this synod Cyprian, as president, gave the opening speech which was followed by the arguments or sententiae of the eighty-four bishops …and when the letter of Jubianus written to Cyprian had been read, and also the reply of Cyprian to Jubianus, about baptising heretics, and what the subsequent Jubianus had rejoined to Cyprian, - and Cyprian said: You have heard, my dearly beloved colleagues, what Jubianus our co-bishop has written to me … It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another….372

Philip Amidon compares this procedure to that of the Roman Senate: a relatio setting forth the matter to be discussed was read to the assembled bishops, followed by a roll call in which each of them, again in imitation of the senators, stated his sententia. The verb often used in both assemblies to designate this action was censere. Like the senators, the bishops suffered no inequality among themselves. The resolution they finally voted was, as in the Senate, written up in the form of a letter sent to interested parties … and archived. 373

And like the Senate, the procedure was open to the public. Having observed thus, Amidon then argues that it was not necessarily the case that the bishops of the third century followed this senatorial procedure. By the third century there were different Parliamentary procedures in wide use by different assemblies, and while they were loosely related to that of the Roman Senate, they had their own local flavours. Romanisation in institutions like town councils, made headway partly “by voluntary imitation, partly by legislation,” and hence, we can talk of an indirect borrowing.374 He further states that “municipal councils alone afforded most if not all of the African bishops models of parliamentary procedure in the Roman style.”375 He then concludes by stating that “it follows that no inferences can be drawn about the self-consciousness or

371 Cyprian, "Seventh Council," 199. 372 Cyprian, "Seventh Council," 199. 373 Amidon, "Procedure," 328, 329. 374 Amidon, "Procedure," 328. 375 Amidon, "Procedure," 332. 72 competence of bishops-in-synod by studying the legal position of other bodies using the same procedure; it will be the Christian sources themselves which will tell us what the episcopal council meant for the Church in general.”376 The fact that the Sententiae Episcoporum LXXXVII was the culmination of no less than three council meetings, with other gatherings in Numidia, (Ep 70, Spring 254/255), lengthy correspondence (Epistles 69, 73, and 74), and energetic pamphleteering (exemplified in the De rebaptismate), makes it an unsuitable criterion for how previous synods may have been conducted.377 The report lacks the heated debate “between the extremes of harsh and unrealistic rigorism and sinful polluting laxity,” as well as the attainment of “healthy compromise” that Cyprian speaks of in the synod of 251.378 There are no questions posed, nor is there any hint of trying to win over the opponent. Rather, there is consensus and re-affirmation of Cyprian’s judgment. It is most likely that the synod was summoned so as “to affirm the African position prior to communicating it to Rome [Stephen].”379 Also lacking in the report is the suggestion of possible “noises about unrepresentative attendance,” especially from the Mauretanian bishops who were not well represented. The fact that there were not many of them present is a possible indicator of disagreement on principle.380 By contrast the report on the synod of 251 had attempted to respond to possible queries about representation by bringing in Rome’s synod and its adoption of the African resolution: And in case anyone might regard the number of bishops who met in Africa to have been too few, you should know that we wrote to Rome also on this matter, to our colleague Cornelius. And he, meeting in Council with a large number of his fellow bishops, has agreed upon the same verdict as ours, after debating with equal seriousness and striking the same healthy balance.381

Having noted these above irregularities, I shall not consider the Sententiae as a true representation of how synods were conducted. What it does tell us, however, is that also present were “the presbyters and deacons, and a considerable part of the congregation.”382

376 Amidon, "Procedure," 336. 377 Graeme W. Clarke, The Letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage, 4 vols., Ancient Christian Writers 47 (New York: Newman Press, 1989), 4: Letters 67-82, p.7, introduction. 378 Ep 55.6.1; Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 3:21, introduction. 379 Decret, Early Christianity, 47. 380 For discussion on the absence of the Mauretanian bishops see, Sage, Cyprian, 4. For the suggestion that some bishops were offended by Cyprian's policies in 251, see, Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 3:170, n.20. 381 Ep 55.6.2. 382 Cyprian, "Seventh Council," 199: “cum presbyteris et diaconibus, praesente etiam plebis maxima parte.” 73

It has been proposed that the De lapsis was written in light of the 251 synod and was either read as part of the opening statement as with Jubianus’ letter above, or it was meant as a sermon.383 If that assumption is correct, then it was directed to the whole community – confessors, martyrs and the stantes (De lapsis 2) with the aim of winning their support and consent. But that is as far as we can go. For a consideration on procedure I shall turn to Rome and Cornelius’ report on his synod. Even though it does not offer much insight, it sheds some light.

The Roman Report Cornelius also had a keen appreciation of the role played by the laity in the decision-making processes. Charles Hefele’s point that Cyprian was the first to depart from the “ancient practice of having only bishops as members of synods” cannot therefore be substantiated as I shall argue.384 In his letter to Fabius of Antioch, in which he presented a report on the Roman synod and its decrees on the Novatian controversy, Cornelius mentioned the laity, no less than three times, and in all circumstances, they are presented as having played an active role in key situations.385 The first incident referred to how the repentant confessors returned to the Church: “All the artifices and dirty tricks that he [Novatian] had long kept out of sight they revealed in the presence of several bishops and many presbyters and a crowd of laymen.”386 In the second incident, one of the three bishops who had been duped into ordaining Novatian, had returned to the Church and was “readmitted as a layman, since all the laity present pleaded for him.” In the third episode, Cornelius described Novatian’s ordination as being done against the objection of “all the clergy and many of the laity.”387 This report given to Fabius described the re-admittance of the repentant bishop to the lay state as having taken place in one meeting “in the presence of bishops, priests and laity,” whereas a similar report, by Cornelius, sent to Cyprian in Epistle 49 (end of July 251), reported three assemblies occurring at different places and times. It is to this report that I shall now turn in order to understand how the Church acted in resolving matters.388

383 Sage, Cyprian, 234. Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:301, n.15; Burns, Cyprian, 85. 384 Hefele, History of Councils, 1:19. 385 H.E. 6.43. 386 H.E. 6.43. 387 See H. E 6.43. 388 Clarke sees the two reports as tendetious documents. Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:272, n.45. 74

Cornelius’ report to Cyprian brings out the notion that there were three separate gatherings. The first was something like a court hearing, between the Roman presbyters and the repentant confessors – “And so they came forward. The presbyters plied them with questions over their actions.”389 The second was more of a diocesan synod convened after Cornelius had received word of the proceedings: “When word was brought to me of all these proceedings, I decided to call together a meeting of the presbyters. Also attending were five bishops who happened to be in Rome that day.”390 Clarke notes that this assembly is “a clear example of a ‘diocesan synod’.”391 The third meeting was more of a congregational assembly: Naturally the faithful had to be notified of all these proceedings so that they might see installed in their church the very people whom they had seen, to their grief, wandering and straying from it for so long. When their feelings on the matter had been ascertained, a great number of our congregation assembled together. With one voice they all gave thanks to God, expressing in tears and joy in their hearts as they welcomed them just as if they had come freed on this very day from the confines of their prison.392

Clarke observes that this three-fold procedure bears “some analogies to the process of submitting a petition or libellus to the Emperor.”393 First of all, there would be a preliminary and informal sounding of reactions before lesser magistrates, in our case the presbyters quizzing the confessors.394 Then would follow the presentation of the libellus itself in person, which was to be conveyed via an agent or patron (presbyteri), in our case it is the repentant confessors, Urbanus and Sidonus who presented themselves before the presbyters. This would be followed by a preliminary examination by lesser officials before it is examined by the emperor/bishop and his consilium prior to calling in the actual petitioners.395 The reason why the Roman clergy had deferred issues during the persecution was because they had “not had a bishop appointed who could regulate all these matters and who could, by his authority and counsel, deal with the question of those who have lapsed.”396 From this report we can see that the Roman church now had a bishop who could act as adjudicator, but not without the cooperation of his local congregation. The clergy

389 Ep 49.1.4. 390 Ep 49.2.1. 391 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:270, n.11. 392 Ep 49.2.2, 2.3. 393 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:265, introductory note to Ep 49. 394 Ep 49.1.2. 395 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:265, introductory note to Ep 49; 68, n.7; 70, n.11. 396 Ep 30.5.3. 75 played their role as lesser judges before presenting the whole matter in council. The laity (populus) are reported to be present at the third assembly, not as mere spectators, but actively participating by enthusiastic acclamation and assent. So, while the ultimate decision lay with the bishop, who could override the people’s resistance, consensus was reached by engaging with the clergy and the laity; it was prudent to solicit the will of the people.397 According to Clarke, this procedure reveals that the working rules of such local councils were the same as for full synods, even in the case of Provincial synods to which bishops travelled with their attendants from places within 200km of Carthage.398

Numbers Matter While it is not clear how many bishops, priests and deacons attended the synod of 251, we can estimate by comparing with the Roman synod. Eusebius reports that “a large synod convened at Rome attended by sixty bishops and an even greater number of presbyters and deacons, while in the provinces the local clergy separately considered what was to be done.”399 Considering the fact that Eusebius was writing after the Council of Nicaea (325), this information might be an exaggeration of figures on his part, as we have already noted that Cornelius speaks of only five bishops who happened to be in Rome. Cornelius reported that the Roman church had “forty-six presbyters, seven deacons, seven sub-deacons, forty-two acolytes, fifty-two exorcists, readers, and doorkeepers, and more than fifteen hundred widows and people in distress.”400 If, by size, Rome was comparatively bigger than Carthage, then, it would be reasonable to assume that Carthage had a Christian population not bigger than that of Rome. However, it is not clear from the tabulation of other scholars how the clerical population would have been constituted. Thani Nayagam makes his calculation by first noting the thirty-six clerics explicitly mentioned in Cyprian’s correspondence: “There is mention of at least twelve priests, six deacons, seven sub-deacons, six acolytes, one exorcist, and four lectors,” together with the two clerics mentioned in the Acta Proconsularis (a priest and a sub-

397 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 3:261, n.21. 398 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 1:150, n.3. 399 H.E 6.43. 400 H.E.6.43. 76 deacon), and Cyprian’s biographer, Pontius, the deacon.401 Having obtained this figure, he then speculates that this total of thirty-six, “can represent only about half the actual number of the clergy working in a big city like Carthage where the Christians were so numerous” and so concludes that the “the clergy in Carthage counted between some sixty and hundred.”402 This estimation would make the clerical population of Carthage equal to, and even bigger than that of Rome, something which would fail to find support in Cyprian’s assertion when he writes to Cornelius: “To be sure, Carthage must yield place to Rome in size...”, and ‘size’ in this letter, is in reference to church, and not to geographical population.403 Burns and Clarke seem to offer a more bleak and fragile representation of the presbyterial population in Carthage. They make the tentative deduction that “a full complement of presbyters in Carthage before the persecution began would have been less than ten,” and, based on the presbyters mentioned in his letters, Carthage would have had “something between six to eight presbyters … at any one time,” while the total number of clerics would be “some thirty of them and more.”404 This fragile assumption makes the church of Cyprian either a relatively small church, or a church with an overwhelmed presbyterate. Epistle 43 to the laity, paints a desperate picture in which the refugee bishops having returned to their own dioceses for the Easter celebration, Cyprian can only rely on three loyal presbyters: Virtius, “a presbyter of the greatest loyalty and integrity,” Rogatianus and Numidicus, “presbyters and confessors both” and also deacons “together with all the other ministers.”405 Of course, such a reading fails to take into account the number of clergy who had deserted their posts during the persecution. Cyprian’s desperation is seen in how he described “the rebel party of Felicissimus,” consisting of five presbyters, as corrupting the “minds of certain confessors” and shattering the community; “this in effect is another persecution, this is another trial.”406 Similarly, as early as Epistle 29 (late September 250), Cyprian would mention the lack of clerics as forcing him to appoint people to the clerical ranks without following the proper protocol of consultation: “And since, it was proper that I send my letter by the hands of clerics, and knowing as I do that very many of our own clerics are

401 Thani Nayagam, Carthaginian Clergy, 49. 402 Thani Nayagam, Carthaginian Clergy, 50. 403 Ep 52.2.3. 404 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 1:39-44, introductory note; Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:214 n.2; Burns, Cyprian, 4; Burns and Jensen, Christianity in Roman Africa, 375; Clarke, " Biography," 679. 405 Ep 43.1.1. 406 Ep 43.2.2, 3.1. 77 absent and that the few who are there in Carthage are scarcely enough to cope with the daily services of the church, it proved necessary to appoint some new clerics who could be sent.”407 If Nayagam’s estimation of sixty to a hundred clerics is correct, then the active participation of the laity, in a congregation of several hundreds, would have been reduced to noisy protestations or shouts of acclamation or approval. If, however, Clarke and Burn’s assumption of a handful of clerics is representative of the situation on the ground, then we would understand why Cyprian fought hard to keep the presbyters under control. We would also understand why Cyprian “courted his plebs so assiduously,” and why he would turn to the support of other bishops. Similarly, we would also have a different appreciation of the very role of the laity, as that of offering counsel or testimony, in a small and supposedly ‘closely-knit’ society within a society.408 Despite the above speculations, the synod of 251, unlike that of Rome in the same year, was not a diocesan synod, it was a provincial synod. And whereas the bishops who attended the synod in Rome did so because they “happened to be present in Rome that day,” the bishops who attended the Carthaginian synod, as noted above, were invited for the sole purpose of meeting and discussing the issue of the lapsed: …and we shall be there with you in person after Easter-day, along with my colleagues. In the presence of these colleagues we will be able to arrange and determine whatever needs to be done, acting in accordance with your views as well as with the common counsel of us all, just as we have firmly decided to do so.409

Cyprian’s synod, and indeed all the reported subsequent synods in his ten years as bishop, were mostly provincial synods and the bishops who attended came from Numidia, Tripolitania, and Mauretania, with their attendant priests. Even though Cyprian did not give us the exact number of attending bishops for the 251 synod, we can deduce that, if the synod of May 252 (held in a time of relative peace, as compared to 251 emerging from persecution) had 66 bishops present (see Ep 64; “Cyprian and his other colleagues present at the Council, sixty-six in number, send greetings to their brother Fidus”), and if, each bishop brought with him one attendant, then the 251 synod could have had a conservative estimation of “somewhere in excess of 120 or 130 people”; and this without

407 Ep 29.1.1. 408 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 1:41, introductory note. 409 Ep 49.2.1; 43.7.2. This is despite Eusebius’ claim that surrounding bishops had been invited (see H.E.6.43). 78 counting “all the laity here in Carthage.”410 Of course, the plebi uniuersae could be an exaggeration on the part of Cyprian, but even then, a congregation reaching several hundreds would not be a small figure to go unnoticed.411 In the aftermath of the persecution (and even during), unity of the episcopate was central in maintaining a Catholic identity, therefore, “concord between bishops” became “the essential link” in Cyprian’s ecclesiology.412 It mattered for one to have as much backing as possible. We have, for example, the case of Cornelius’ election versus that of Novatian. One of the key arguments that lies in the debate is, how many bishops were present at the ordination? There were sixteen bishops at Cornelius’ election, and Novatian only had three bishops whom he got drunk before forcing them to ordain him.413 Similarly, the Laxist bishop Fortunatus had claimed that there were twenty-five bishops at his appointment, a fact that Cyprian dismissed by stating that there were only five “shipwrecked souls who had already been excommunicated by us” and a handful of people.414 Similarly, when Cornelius reported on the outcome of the Roman synod to Fabius of Antioch, he, as indicated by Eusebius, attached a document of the bishops present at Rome who condemned the stupidity of Novatus [sic], indicating at once both their names and the name of the community over which each one presided; and of those who were not present, indeed, at Rome, but who signified in writing their assent to the judgment of the aforesaid, he mentions the names and, as well, the city where each lived and from which each wrote.415

The authenticity of this report by Eusebius is questionable as Cornelius only mentioned the presence of five bishops who happened to be in Rome at that time. It, however, shows us the tendency to exaggerate figures so as to convince the audience. This would explain why Cyprian, even without giving a precise number, often used expressions like, “a generous number of bishops,” or “very many bishops,” and even “all the people.” Contrasted to this, Cyprian’s appeal to the Roman church when some people pointed to the number of African bishops present at the synod of 251 as being too few to effect considerable decisions points to the fact that numbers mattered!416

410 Ep 45.2.1 “plebi istic uniuersae”, Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 3:260, n.76. 411 Geoffrey Dunn proposes that the indication of plebi uniuersae in Ep 45, "could suggest another forum, like a Sunday Liturgy." Cyprian, he argues, "must have been exaggerating to claim that every person in Carthage was at the assembly!" Dunn, "Synod of 251," 243 n.47. 412 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 3:171, n.20. 413 Ep 55.24.2; H.E.6.43.8. 414 Ep 59.11.2, 10.2. 415 see H.E.6.43. 416 see Ep 55.6.2: “And in case anyone might regard the number of bishops who met in Africa to have been too few….” 79

We can conclude then that the silence placed on the lower clergy and the laity (in Cyprian) does not imply an absence on their part, nor a change in Cyprian’s attitude. Emphasis on the ‘bonds of catholic unity’ and episcopal responsibilities, at a time when the milieu was changing, “seemed to be considered to be a more potent weapon in the propaganda war about the correctness of his decisions than the argument that he had the support and consent of his own ecclesial community.”417 And while he was aware of the need for a united front of solid bishops in these changing times, with him as leader, the Synod remained for him “the time for everyone to contribute and exchange their views together and to deliberate upon them” and then “determine what ought to be done.”418

An Assessment The above section has been an attempt to put together available information in order to recreate the synod of 251 and therefore, get a better appreciation of how the North African Church made use of this process to deal with the tensions that resulted from the persecution. What we have noted is how Cyprian made use of this process not only as a means to govern his local church, but also as an opportunity to secure his hold on authority, especially in the wake of dissent from his clergy and some of the confessors. We have seen how the unfolding of events and the escalation of resistance within his diocese made him resolute in his resolve to deal with the issue of the lapsed in a conciliar fashion, with everyone engaged. We have seen how his initial intention might have been to have a local gathering of his church but this was soon superseded by the need to gather the whole Church, with Rome and other overseas bishops included, as the problem had become universal. And we have also seen how in reality it was only the Provincial Church that managed to meet: Mauretania, Numidia and Proconsularis, and even then, there is indication that the bishops might have been too few. In his report on the meeting we have also noted how there is reticence about those people who had been his backbone throughout the exilic ordeal, and how such silence can be attributed to a concentration of power in the unity of bishops. Obviously, the Church found itself faced with new problems and the bishops had been forced to formulate rules and procedures in circumstances that were unprecedented.419

417 Ep 55.7.2; Dunn, "Synod of 251," 248. 418 Ep 55.4.3. 419 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 3:163, introductory note to Ep 55. 80

Cyprian’s retelling of the 251 synod makes a reconstruction of events practically impossible and has obviously contributed to the absence of the laity and clergy from reports on the proceedings.420 His correspondence does not offer much insight into the categories of person’s expected to participate in the 251 Council. For example, in his letter to Antonianus, he first reiterated, verbatim, his original intention, agreed to by the Roman church, that, in the time of peace the whole Church; bishops, priests, deacons, confessors and ‘standing’ laity, should exchange views in Conference.421 Immediately after that, and throughout the same letter, emphasis shifts to the bishops: “when the persecution died down and opportunity offered for us to convene together, there gathered in Council a generous number of bishops who had been preserved safe and unharmed thanks to their own staunch faith and the protection of the Lord.”422 At the onset of the Decian persecution, and indeed, all throughout the exilic ordeal, Cyprian had kept in constant touch with his church, and even though the relationship with his clergy and some of the confessors was abrasive, and even though the matter of the lapsed had evolved into a universal problem, Cyprian remained insistent that the matter facing the whole Church should eventually be resolved, once there was peace, in a conciliar manner, by the whole Church. This, in essence, was Cyprian’s mind and intention, but even with this we find that at times, in his correspondence, he tended to vacillate on the degrees of importance, especially between the confessors and the clergy. Epistles 15-17 offer a good example of this fluctuation – sometimes the confessors are given pride of place and at other times it is given to the clergy, or the laity – dependent on who the recipient of the letter was, and also depending on Cyprian’s mood. In some Epistles, he passed over in silence all members of his church and mentioned only the key role to be played by the bishops. Yet, despite all this, the issue, he maintained, was to be resolved in a conciliar manner, “taking sacred counsel together.”423 The post-exilic letters present us with a different scenario and emphasis. First, the number of letters exchanged in the period between the two synods of Easter 251 and May 252 is fewer when compared to the Decian correspondence. There are a total of fifteen extant letters and of these, the dating of two is uncertain.424 When there is a flurry of

420 Dunn, "Cyprian and the Episcopal Synod of 253," 676. 421 Ep 55.5, see also Ep 30.5.3. 422 Ep 55.6.1. 423 Ep 19.2.2. 424 Clarke places Epistle 62 anywhere between post-Easter 251 and August 257; Epistle 64 between the Council of 251 and that of 253, but most probably 252. 81

Letters (Epistles 44 to 54, written within the months of June and July), it is because Cyprian was in the throes of rectifying a political blunder made at the onset of his relationship with Cornelius. The letters written in this period were addressed mainly to the Roman church; Cornelius (eight exchanges), the Roman confessors (three letters, Epistles 46, 53, and 54), one to bishop Antonianus (Ep 55), and one to bishop Epictetus and his church in Assuras, 150 kilometres to the SW of Carthage.425 As such, when we consider that the respondents were mainly bishops, then the silent treatment given to the lower clergy and the laity is understandable. An underlying question in Graeme Clarke’s four volume commentary is, what happens when problems that were considered local become global? And what happens when local solutions to global problems clash? There develops, he (Clarke) says, “a tendency to require uniformity and to police ‘discipline’.”426 In such a scenario the general players, though still important, tend to be side-lined as the institution is forced to move towards a centralisation of authority. In our examination of the synodal resolutions we noted how Cyprian, from the beginning, was a man ready to let go of his egoism in favour of dialogue and common discernment. The threat of the summer illness as well as the Roman practice of offering reconciliation to those in danger of death, had forced him to adapt and modify his attitude towards the lapsed. It was with this same attitude that he approached the synod of 251, and as we have seen, he was willing to accept granting immediate reconciliation to the libellatici, for the sake of concord and unity. The fact that he could concede and modify shows that although preferring to have his own way, he was prepared to read the signs of the times for the sake of pastoral pragmatism. We also noted the problem of numbers. This is an area that I believe, owing to scanty information, has not been satisfactorily dealt with, yet it is one that could significantly contribute to the discussion. Cyprian, and his contemporaries’ tendency to exaggerate figures in their favour, is not much help, so too is their tendency to downplay their opposition, and, as we noted, we rarely get the voice of the rival parties. What holds true is that the greater the support one had, the more authority one wielded, especially in a context where there were rival Christian communities. Similarly, as regards the holding of local or provincial synods, the bigger the population, the more complex the procedure, the

425 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 3:317, introductory note to Ep 65. 426 See, Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 3:28, introduction; 290, introductory note to Ep 63. 82 smaller the population, the more open and engaging the procedure. Despite all this, as we have again noted, the crowd or the people, was no idle party, they saw it as their right to be heard and to be visible. In conclusion, the synod of 251 certainly set a precedent for subsequent synods, which would eventually tend to place previous synodal decisions on a par with the Scriptures and customary practices as authoritative and determinative sources for resolving conflict as well as for the development of theology.427 But all this was to the detriment of what Cyprian had originally envisaged as Church: the lower clergy and the laity were fast being eclipsed by the bishops and the need for episcopal unity. Yet, even in this growing episcopal consciousness, the lower clergy and the laity still had a role to play.

427 Dunn, "Synod of 255," 214. 83

CHAPTER FOUR: THE LAITY IN THE ELECTION OF BISHOPS

Geoffrey Dunn argues that synods were the pastoral means employed by Cyprian in shepherding the North African Church.428 He, however, examines Cyprian’s use of synods in terms of collegiality, that is, Cyprian’s relations with other bishops, and, rightly so, because sifting information regarding the role of the laity or lower clergy in synods is near impossible once we move from the synod of 251. Similarly, Cyprian’s epistulatory correspondence with his church ended in Mid-March 251, with Epistle 43, written just before his return from the long exile. Henceforth, his attention would turn to his relations and his dealings with other bishops. It would take some seven and a half years for him to write another letter – “and this time final” - to his Carthaginian flock – two weeks before his martyrdom.429 This seven-year hiatus, should not work against our perception of Cyprian’s care for the church, but rather, should make us see the fulfilment of the desire that he expressed in Epistle 43: “Severe indeed is the torment which I am now made to suffer, my dear brothers, in being unable to come to you in person at this time, in being unable to approach you in person each one of you, and to address in person to you words of exhortation….”430 In the meantime, while the persecutions raged on, he kept in touch by the best way possible: “Nevertheless, I am proffering advice to you myself, insofar as I can, and I am visiting you in the way that I can, by this letter of mine.”431 It is probable then, that after his return from exile, Cyprian employed a hands-on approach in administering his church by his very presence as well as by the treatises.432 Thus, instead of pursuing the subsequent synods from which we get next to nothing on the laity, I shall turn my attention to an important area in the life of the Church, the election of bishops. I will argue that Cyprian’s silence on the laity, regarding the synodal process, does not necessarily imply that he had abandoned them. I will propose that an appeal to their importance emerges more fervently in his letters, when he is either defending his, or Cornelius’, authority as bishop, or, when arguing against recalcitrant bishops. The conflicts that Cyprian had to endure had to do with significant persons who posed an immediate threat to his legitimate authority, whether it was

428 Dunn, "Synod of 251," 235f. 429 Clarke, "Chronology of the Letters," 698. 430 Ep 43.4.1. 431 Ep 43.1.1. 432 Clarke, "Biography," 689. 84

Felicissimus and his old opponents, or the rich layman Puppianus, whether it was the threat posed to Cornelius in Rome, or the Spanish bishops, the office of bishop was at risk from usurpers. As he had strenuously appealed to the people in the lead-up to the synod, so too would he remind them of their role in the election of bishops. To achieve my end, I shall again turn to his Epistles. By looking at the content and context of his correspondence I will argue that some epistles present a rather selective approach to what constituted the electoral process. It is evident that, whilst there are certain variations as regards elements that are necessary for the electoral procedure to take place or to be validated, some factors seem to be constant, as they are attested to in almost all the correspondence to which we shall have recourse. It is only in epistle 67, a post-synodal letter, that we get the African Church’s understanding of the electoral process, and it favours the role of the local congregation. This would point to the fact that the process of electing bishops, which included the active role of the laity, must have been regarded, at least, in some areas in the Carthaginian and North African churches, and in Spain, as ‘common practice’, thereby hinting at a local / regional, but not necessarily a universal tradition. This section does not attempt to offer a comprehensive argument on the whole electoral process, with all its elements. Rather, it is an attempt to investigate and elucidate the importance that Cyprian attached to the laity, whose role and participation in the elective process of the Church belonged to them by right and duty as members of the Church. By looking at the narrative in his letters we can extrapolate that synodality, as a process of journeying and working together, was a way of being Church for Cyprian: the bishop, together with fellow bishops, with his clergy and the laity, deciding together.

The role of the laity in relation to Cyprian’s ecclesiology The question of the role of the laity in the election of bishops as presented in the writings of Cyprian, or in the early Church in general, has occasioned much literature.433

433 On the role of Lay participation in Episcopal elections see, Evers, "Post Populi," 165-180; Burns, Cyprian, 93-99; Patrick Granfield, "Episcopal Elections in Cyprian: Clerical and Lay, Participation," Theological Studies 37, no. 1 (March 1976 ): 41-52. Amidon, "Procedure," 328-339; Although Geoffrey Dunn did quite substantive work on the Synods presided by Cyprian, he does not always focus solely on lay participation. Dunn, "Cyprian of Carthage and the Episcopal Synod of Late 254," 229-247; Geoffrey D. Dunn, "Sententiam Nostram Non Nouman Prominus: Cyprian and the Episcopal Synod of 255," Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 35 (2003): 211-21; Geoffrey D. Dunn, Cyprian and the Bishops of Rome: Questions of Papal Primacy in the Early Church, Early Christian Studies 11 (Strathfield, NSW, Australia: St Pauls, 2007), https://acuresearchbank.acu.edu.au/item/86v11/cyprian-and-the-bishops-of-rome-questions-of-papal-

Scholars differ on whether the laity had an active, or passive voice. Some, like Patrick Granfield, offer insight into Cyprian’s views on ‘shared responsibility’. Arguing in the light of the Second Vatican Council’s affirmation of the “fundamental equality of the People of God,” its insistence on the principle of subsidiarity and collegiality, as well as the need for a democratization process in the Roman Catholic Church, Granfield concludes that in Cyprian we find a champion for the “the cause of community participation.”434 Others, like Nayagam, writing before the Second Vatican Council, tend to deny the laity any voice, arguing that “…the laity, though present [in councils], remains silent,” or, their “suffragium does not mean an actual voting, but an approval expressed by their silence.”435 Still others, like Geoffrey Dunn, examine Cyprian’s interactions with other bishops, and in particular, “the extent to which models of classical patronage and ecclesiastical politics operated among bishops.”436 He argues that in the collegial relationships, there was a “theoretical equality but a practical inequality”; equality in the sense that each bishop had power in his own community; inequality in the sense that some bishops, owing to their age, length of office, or size of church, naturally wielded more dignity, gravitas and authority over others; and such was Cyprian, better born, better educated, and better placed.437 Others like Stewart-Sykes have judged everything in light of the patronal system, and the need for balance of power. He argues that the necessity of the presence and approval of the plebs is fundamental to safeguard the Church from the power of its own bishops, as is the power of the episcopate necessary to defend the Church against the power of lay patrons. In this patronal setup the appointment of presbyters was therefore the preserve of the bishop.438 The theme of the election of bishops comes out in twelve letters in the correspondence, that is, Epistles 3, 33, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 55, 59, 66, 67, and 68. Interestingly, apart from Epistle 3 whose dating cannot be securely established, all the references come in times of conflict. Epistles 33 and 43 during the Decian persecution,

primacy-in-the-early-church; Dunn, "Synod of 252," 1-13; Geoffrey D. Dunn, "Cyprian and the Episcopal Synod of 253," Latomus (July-September 2004): 672-688. https://www.jstpr.org/stable/41542578; Dunn, "The Carthaginian Synod of 251,”235-257. 434 Granfield, "Episcopal Elections," 42. 435 Thani Nayagam, Carthaginian Clergy, 59, 64. 436 Dunn, "Synod of 252," 1. 437 Dunn, "Synod of 252," 8, 10; Dunn, "Synod of 251," 254; Geoffrey D. Dunn, "Cyprian's Rival Bishops and Their Communities," Augustinianum (June 2005): 61-93. 438 Alistair C. Stewart, "Ordination Rites and Patronage Systems in Third-Century Africa," Vigiliae christianae 56, no. 2 (2002): 128, http://search.ebscohost.com.divinity.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdah&AN=ATLA00013865 29&site=eds-live. 86 are written in the context of his old opponents and some of the confessors who had openly defied his authority. Epistles 44, 45, 46, 49, and 55 belong to the correspondence with Cornelius, in which Cornelius was battling to secure his authority in the wake of the Novatian schism in Rome. Epistle 66 is in response to a certain Florentius, also called Puppianus, probably a confessor who still wielded enough authority to ruffle Cyprian’s feathers; and Epistles 67 and 68 mark the beginnings of the ideological tensions which are soon to erupt between Stephen and the other bishops, concerning the rebaptism controversy. In the above sections we noted how a group of confessors, led by Lucianus, had decided to grant pardon to all penitents, and how they wrote a note informing Cyprian of their move, and requesting him to make their decision known to other bishops.439 Cyprian’s response was directed, not to the confessors, but to his presbyters and deacons.440 In this response Cyprian tried to take in the request of the confessors, but made the blunder of bringing in the recommendation of his fellow bishops, who had written “at length to say that they agree with our determination and that there should be no departure from it until peace has been restored … and we are thus able to gather together and investigate each case separately.”441 While this precautionary letter was written in good faith and with the aim of bridging “the gap between reconciling confessors, impatient lapsed, turbulent clergy – and himself,” the contents of the letter stimulated a hostile and anonymous response written by certain people in the name of the church.442 The hostile and provocative letter disregarded the counsel of Cyprian’s colleagues, and also sabotaged Cyprian’s authority.443 In response to these accusations Cyprian dug in his heels and, emphatically stating the origins of his office, as well as its duties and inviolability, said, Our Lord, whose precepts it is our duty to fear and to follow, regulates the dignity of the bishops and the structure of His Church, when He speaks as follows in the gospels, addressing Peter: I say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it [sic] …. From this source flows the appointment of bishops and the organisation of the Church, with bishop succeeding bishop down through the course of time, so that the Church is governed through these same appointed leaders. This establishment has been founded, then, in this way by the law of God. I am, therefore, astounded that certain people have the audacity to take upon themselves to write to me a letter ‘in

439 Ep 23. 440 Ep 26. 441 Ep 26.1.2. 442 Ep 33; Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 1:352, introductory note to Ep 26. 443 Ep 35.1.2. 87

the name of the church’, whereas, in fact, the church has been established upon the bishop, the clergy and all those who remain faithful … they should not compose letters ‘in the name of the church’, for they are well aware that it is rather they who are writing to the church.444

This argument summarises Cyprian’ ecclesiology that will be built on, and repeated in his correspondence and in the De Ecclesiae, the interpretation of which has been the subject of much literature, especially regarding the subject of the primacy of Rome. So, for Cyprian, although the bishop is a divinely appointed praepositus (leader) upon whom no one, except God, could pass judgment, and on whom the management of Church affairs rested, he is not necessarily an autocrat. The office of bishop, though shared by many, was “a single institution with a single foundation built on the unity of the Church. While the power of the episcopate was divided among many bishops, all share the same source of authority.”445 For the sake of discipline and unity, the bishop cooperates with fellow bishops, and in his church he should work in consultation with the clerics and the standing faithful since, with him, they make up the ecclesia.446 Michael Sage argues that Cyprian’s view of the episcopate as deriving its power and authority from God through Apostolic succession really begins in Epistles 32 and 33 with the ‘supposed’ arrival of Novatian on the scene. With the support of the Roman clergy, and the mounting pressure from his rivals in Carthage, Cyprian “was forced to acknowledge his own position as scripturally supreme.”447 His ecclesiology, even though it is not always clearly defined as such in his correspondence, can, therefore, be summed up in the words: “responsible to God alone,” yet never acting in isolation.448 And in cases of dispute his maxim can be summarised as, “agree to disagree, but please, stay united.”449 Such an ecclesiology helps us understand why he would say such things as: “I cannot make a reply of my own, for it has been a resolve of mine, right from the beginning of my episcopate, to do nothing on my own private judgment without your counsel and the consent of the people.”450 It should be no surprise then, that we find two portraits in Cyprian, one highly episcopal, and another promoting ecclesial discernment.

444 Ep 33.1.1, 1.2. 445 Sage, Cyprian, 244. 446 For summary see, Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:147, n.5. 447 Sage, Cyprian, 226, 227. 448 For detailed analysis, see, Eno, "Shared Responsibility," 129-141; Safranski, St. Cyprian, 137ff. 449 Bakker, Geest, and Loon, "Cyprian's Stature and Influence," 19. 450 Ep 14.4. 88

Epistle 43: An appeal to ‘the whole people’ – plebi uniuersae Epistle 43 is one of the three letters addressed to the plebi uniuersae: the others being Epistle 17, to the laity of Carthage, and Epistle 58 to the people of Thibaris. The context of this letter has been discussed above. With the emperor’s attention turned towards defending the frontiers, the implementation of the edict had been relaxed. Cyprian’s plan of returning to his diocese had been foiled by Felicissimus, who had teamed up with a certain group of the lapsed and Cyprian’s rivals who had initially protested against his election.451 Outnumbered and outmanoeuvred, Cyprian feared that his return could spark a second wave of persecution on his church, and so he delayed but still hoped to return in time for the synod, with episcopal reinforcements. In the meantime, epistle 43 was sent to the people to be read in public during Eastertide, warning them to keep away from Felicissimus’ faction.452 Away from his people for almost two years, Cyprian could have feared that the plot by the old opponents was to elicit “the suffragium of the plebs” and replace him with a rival bishop.453 This would eventually happen with the appointment of Fortunatus in 252.454 Apart from setting the platform for the synod of 251, epistle 43 would be the first in his correspondence to make mention of key components necessary for the election of a bishop: “the votes you cast and the judgement of God.”455 He even deemed the votes of the people as divinely inspired; “just as your divinely inspired votes indicated….”456 The formation of the rival group consisting of presbyters of seniority and authority was a direct attack on Cyprian’s episcopal standing. Hence, in order to fight “to hold that position and to keep his Church together” Cyprian did not just need episcopal reinforcements, he also needed the people who put him into that office – the very people, both the stantes and the lapsi, whose popular acclaim had silenced his opponents.457 To speak, therefore, of the people’s suffragia as being divine was to remind them, thrice, that by voting in favour of him, they had not only rejected his rivals, but that their voice or vote was equal to the judgment of God, the iudicium Dei.458

451 Ep 43.4.3. 452 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:211, introductory note to Ep 43. 453 Ep 43.4.1. 454 Ep 59.11.1. 455 Ep 43.1.2, “suffragium uestrum et Dei iudicium.” 456 Ep 43.1.3, “secundum uestra diuina suffragia.” Clarke translates ‘suffragium uestrum’ to read “the votes you cast,” whereas it should read “your vote.” I shall shortly turn to this subject in a subsequent section. 457 Pontius, Vita 5. 458 Epp 43.1.2, 1.3, 5.4. 89

Epistle 44 and 45: The Roman Schism Epistle 44 and 45 can be paired together as they both address the issue of the appointment of Novation as rival bishop in Rome. The context, as with that of Epistle 43, has been discussed in a previous section. Why Cyprian and the synod delayed in giving their judgment on who the legitimate bishop of Rome was, is a matter of debate, but, from his own words, it was so as to ascertain whether the correct procedure was followed. With the arrival of Cornelius’ delegates, and the subsequent return of the African investigating commission, the bishops of Africa sent their testimonies of approval to Cornelius.459 Whether these were sent individually or collectively is unknown, but their testimonials were necessary for Cornelius to secure his office. Central to the debate was the issue of there being one occupant of the bishop’s chair. There could not be two bishops in one diocese. What Novatian had done was to “set up outside the church and in opposition to it an illicit head, in defiance of the sacred ordinance firmly laid down and instituted by God concerning Catholic unity.”460 So, while a bishop was God’s appointed leader, and once he had “been made and approved by the testimony and judgment of his colleagues and people, it is just not possible for another to be appointed.”461 This statement is to be understood within the context of Novatian’s envoys sent to the synod. They had burst into the synod “shouting scandalous abuse” demanding that the bishops and the people “should publicly investigate the charges which they kept saying they were laying and could prove.”462 These allegations, as we noted before, were so acrimonious and abusive to the person of Cornelius, that Cyprian “out of regard for the respect we owe each other and out of concern for the dignity and sanctity of the episcopate” decided not to read out the contents of the letter “before a solemn assembly of so many of our brothers, at which bishops were seated together and where His altar had been placed.”463 It was only in his letter to Antonianus that Cyprian could feel at ease to divulge some of the accusations. Therefore, in Epistle 43 we have a case of a public outcry demanding a public hearing which was denied by Cyprian and the synod when they not only refused a hearing to Novatian’s delegation, but also deliberately withheld information until the matter had been investigated. In their turn, Novatian’s party rallied support by “going from door to door, calling on many in their homes, and moving from town to town in a number of

459 Ep 45. 460 Ep 45.1.2. 461 Epp 45.2.3; 44.3.2. 462 Ep 44.2.1. 463 Ep 45.2.2. 90 districts.”464 One can only surmise that if it was to the sentiments and the will-power of the people that Novatian was appealing, then it was to their right judgement, as members of the Church, and to their bishops, as shepherds of the flock and defenders of the unity of the Church that Cyprian appealed.465 As he said, “It ill-became our dignity to allow the good character of our colleague, already chosen, appointed and approved by many with their favouring support, to be questioned further by the malicious tongues of jealous rivals.”466

Epistle 55: In Defence of Cornelius Letter 55, also discussed above, is important because Antonianus seemed to have been sympathetic with the Novatian movement, and Cyprian’s letter was an attempt to clarify matters, and possibly win him over to the synod’s resolution. Cornelius had obviously been a victim of character defamation. He had been accused of offering pardon to the apostate bishop Trofimus, and his congregation, and indiscriminately reconciling those who had sacrificed, and this worried Antonianus.467 So, Cyprian set out at length (from Ep 55.8.1 – 23.3) to defend him: I now turn, my dearly beloved brother, to the character of our colleague Cornelius. My purpose is that you should have a more truthful appreciation of Cornelius, as we do, relying not on the lies of evil-tongued calumniators but rather on the judgment of God, who made him bishop, and on the testimony of his fellow bishops, who, without exception the whole world over, have given him their approbation in unanimous accord.468

Cornelius could not have even been Cyprian’s preferred candidate, if we are to consider the cordial relationship Cyprian had enjoyed with Novatian, exhibited in Ep 30, 35, but that he had been the first to be appointed at a time of sede vacante, and that the investigative commission had cleared him, made him legitimate. Added to this was his moral standing: he “took on this office of bishop, obtained neither through any corruption nor any extortion but through the will of God, who is the one who makes bishops.”469 Cornelius had also progressed through the stages of clerical appointment: “he reached the

464 Ep 44.3.1. 465 Ep 44.3.2. 466 Ep 44.2.1. 467 Ep 55.10-11, 12-13.1. 468 Ep 55.8.1. 469 Ep 55.9-10. 91 lofty pinnacle of the episcopacy by climbing up through every grade in the Church’s ministry”:470 And bishop he was made, by a large number of our colleagues who were present at the time in the city of Rome and who have sent to us on the subject of his appointment testimonials which acclaim his honour and esteem and cover him with glory by their praises. Moreover, Cornelius was made bishop by the choice of God and of His Christ, by the favourable witness of almost all of the clergy, by the votes of the laity then present, and by the assembly of bishops, men of maturity and integrity. And he was made bishop when no one else had been made bishop before him, when the position of Fabian … was vacant.471

Regarding Novatian’s claims Cyprian stated that once the position of bishop “had “been filled by the will of God and the appointment having been ratified by the consent of us all [consensione firmato],” then no one could be made bishop.472 The fact that he mentions the participation of “our colleagues present at the time in the city of Rome,” “the votes of the laity then present,” and “the witness of almost all of the clergy,” could point to a church that was still in the process of getting back together after the persecution; or it could point to a church somehow already divided, and therefore, a vote of the majority would have sufficed. To argue for an election by representation whereby a group of elders among the laity would vote on behalf of the others, would be misleading.473 The concept of the seniores laici, or representatives of the people, which was present in Tertullian was certainly not present in Cyprian. Tertullian described seniores, as “certain approved elders [who] preside, men who have obtained this honor [sic] not by money, but by the evidence of good character” (Apology 39.5). These lay leaders served several purposes, such as, administering the charity welfare, administering church property, curtailing the power of a bishop, or wielding power to excommunicate unworthy members of the Christian community.474 Epistle 59 in which Cyprian alludes to his own episcopal election maintains that a bishop “is chosen in time of peace by the vote of the entire congregation….” to show that this was the ideal, but not always the case.475 Just as

470 Ep 55.8.2. 471 Ep 55.8.4. 472 Ep 55.8.5. 473 Brent D. Shaw, "The Elders of Christian Africa," Mélanges Offerts en Hommage au Révérend Père Etienne Gareau (Québec: Editions de l’Université d'Ottawa, 1982), 207-226; W. H. C. Frend, "The Seniores Laici and the Origins of the Church in North Africa," The Journal of Theological Studies 12, no. 2 (1961): 280-284. 474 Frend, "Seniores," 282; Eno, "Shared Responsibility," 135; Stewart, "Ordination Rites," 119, 120. 475 Ep 59.6.1, “Quando populi uniuersi suffragio in pace deligitur.” 92 circumstances had forced him to appoint persons to clerical ranks, so too was the Roman case an exception.476 Epistle 55, therefore, mentions several necessary factors to be considered in the election of a bishop: the judgment of God, the moral uprightness of the candidate, the progression in clerical office (cursus honorum), the witness of the clergy, the vote of the people, the assembly of bishops, and the need for the chair to be vacant, since the Church is one and there cannot be two claimants to the single office.477

Epistle 66: To Florentius, also called Puppianus Epistle 66 is a personal letter written in Cyprian’s sixth year of office, to one Florentius also called Puppianus, who, during the persecution, had been hailed as a confessor.478 Puppianus had not only condemned Cyprian’s cowardly retreat during the Decian persecution but had also blamed him for the present schisms. He also mocked him for his reliance on private dreams and revelations thereby concluding that Cyprian was not worthy of being bishop; even his election had been fraudulent. These were direct and personal attacks from someone who obviously saw himself as having the right to challenge his bishop. Graeme Clarke makes interesting observations on Puppianus by stating that apart from being a layman and a confessor, he was also probably a “leading supporter” of a schismatic faction, either that of the rigorist Novatian, or of the laxist Felicissimus who, as we have seen, had also started his opposition against Cyprian while still a layman. Puppianus, like Felicissimus, was a wealthy layman, and “a socially eminent Christian” of senatorial status, thereby making him “a fitting rival to challenge Cyprian’s auctoritas.”479 If this is true, and considering the vitriolic nature of the letter, which indicates that Puppianus’ lost letter must have touched a raw nerve, then we can understand why

476 Epp 29; 38; 29; 40. 477 The cursus honorum was a Roman system referring to the sequential steps of ascendance in civil offices. Although Cyprian does not use this term in this letter, the fact that he deems the gradual progression in clerical office points to knowledge of the system, and possibly a borrowing from Roman government structures. 478 Ep 66.5.1. 479 In arguing thus, Clarke points out that Cyprian’s use of “double names” in the salutation is as a way of mocking Puppianus who had “flaunted his own distinguished family names … addressing Cyprian without that respectful deference which Cyprian saw as properly due to his episcopal rank” [see Ep 66.4.1, 7.1f.]. “On the grounds of nomenclature” Clarke also traces Puppianus’ family as having risen from magistrates to senatorial status “and being still prominent as manufacturers of lamps.” Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 3:323, n.1. 93

Cyprian argued in divine and socio-political terms. Not only had God made him bishop, he said, but also the devil, that is, the Romans, had also recognised his being a bishop, when in their public notice, probably hung in the forum or other public places during the persecution, they had posted: “If anyone holds in his possession any part of the goods of Caecilius Cyprianus, the bishop of the Christians.”480 Not only that, but his (Cyprian) virtue of humility had been “perfectly well known and appreciated by all the brethren, no less than by pagans themselves, and that you [Puppianus] both knew and appreciated it yourself when you were still in the church and in communion with me.”481 Obviously, Cyprian put up a spirited, but rather vulnerable argument that reveals not only “his heavy sacerdotalism,” but also his humanity: “For to believe that those who are so appointed are unworthy in character and vile in morals is precisely to maintain that it is neither by God nor through God that bishops are ordained in His Church.”482 In this instance not even grave moral failure, before or after an election, could invalidate a bishop’s appointment.483 Nowhere in this epistle did Cyprian point to the testimony of other bishops, or to the role of presbyters and laity in his election. Rather, he attested to the judgment of God, to the pagans who, by seeking to persecute him, actually acknowledge him as Christian bishop, and to his “clear conscience which is supported by the vigour of faith.”484 He reprimanded Puppianus of erring towards heresy and schism, which: occur when the bishop, who stands alone and who is the appointed leader in the Church, is held in contempt by the proud and arrogant, and when the man whom God deigned to honour as worthy of office is deemed unworthy by men … What an insolent sense of swollen self-importance, the high and mighty presumption of it all! …. By that you ought to realise that the bishop is in the Church and the Church is in the bishop, and whoever is not with the bishop is not in the Church.485

Epistle 66 is an example of how information can be withheld for a more personal cause. In this clash of forceful personalities, bishops, priests and laity did not matter: an appeal had to be made to a higher authority. Unlike all his other correspondence which end with a customary farewell, letter 66 ends brusquely with a threat, “You have my letter

480 Ep 66.4.1; Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 3:328, n.15. 481 Ep 66.3.1. 482 Ep 66.1.2; Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 3:322, introductory note to Ep 66. 483 See, Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 3:326, n.5. 484 Ep 66.2.2. 485 Ep 66.5.1, 8.3. 94 and I have yours. On the day of judgement both of them will be read out before the judgement seat of Christ.”486

Epistle 68 and 67: Replacing Bishops Epistles 68 and 67 are placed early within Stephen’s episcopate, that is, between 254 and 256, “before any major collision” between the two had occurred.487 Both letters give us a glimpse into the extent and impact of the Decian persecution, “of Cyprian’s international activities and networks,” and of the growing need for episcopal concord and unity: 488 our body of bishops is at once generously large and yet so tightly bound together by the glue of mutual concord and by the bond of unity: it is so that should anyone from our sacred college attempt to form a heretical sect and thus to savage and devastate the flock of Christ, there should be others to come to the rescue, and being practical and kindhearted [sic] shepherds, they should gather the Lord’s sheep back into the fold.489

In Epistle 68, Cyprian wrote to Stephen informing him that he had, “on more than one occasion,” received communication from “our colleague Faustinus, who dwells at Lyons.”490 Apparently, the bishops of the province of Gaul had also written to Stephen who had not responded, hence Faustinus had turned to Cyprian. The issue concerned a fellow bishop, Marcianus of Arles, who had aligned himself with Novatian. By adopting Novatian’s strict policies towards dying penitents, Marcianus had not only denied the “medicine of God’s compassion and clemency” to the penitents, but had also “departed from the truth of the catholic Church and from the harmony of our corporate body of bishops.”491 Cyprian contended that Marcianus’ actions had scoffed at the college of bishops, and as such, he deserved condemnation. Cyprian reminded Stephen that any ally of Novatian could not operate within the structures of the Church. Novatian himself had been denounced by “a large gathering of [African] bishops” in council on the grounds that “he had attempted to erect a godless altar, establish a spurious chair, and offer up sacrilegious sacrifices in opposition to the true bishop” (Cornelius), “who had already been appointed bishop within the catholic

486 Ep 66.10.3. 487 Dunn, "Cyprian of Carthage and the Episcopal Synod of Late 254," 236-237. 488 Clarke, "Chronology of the Letters," 703. 489 Ep 68.3.2. 490 Ep 68.1.1. 491 Ep 68.1.2, 1.1. 95

Church by the judgement of God and the choice of the clergy and laity.”492 Cyprian also reminded Stephen of how Marcianus’ intransigency was contrary to the mercy and compassion promoted by Stephen’s predecessors, Cornelius and Lucius. It was the duty of the college of bishops, who had already passed judgment on Marcianus, to preserve and honour the memory of those glorious predecessors of ours, the blessed martyrs Cornelius and Lucius. But much as we, for our part, honour their memory, you, dearly beloved brother, far more than anyone else, are in duty bound to bring honour to that memory and to uphold it, by exerting the full weight of your personal authority; after all, you are the one who has been appointed to replace and succeed them.493

The thrust of this letter was to get Stephen to add his voice to that of “the whole body of bishops” who, “throughout the world without exception” had made “the same declaration on the matter”: “I exhort you, therefore, to direct letters to that province and to the faithful who dwell at Arles, urging them that after Marcianus has been excommunicated, a successor be appointed in his place….”494 Stephen’s support would have added weight to the matter and therefore paved the way for the church at Arles to proceed in condemning Marcianus. The whole process of deposing and denouncing Marcianus, it appears, was to be enacted by the bishops of the province of Gaul, together with the faithful at Arles. This letter is important because in it we find Cyprian presenting the judgment of God and the suffragio of the clergy and the laity as being on par. Cyprian gives to the clergy and laity the right to depose a sitting bishop because of his moral failings – a right and an action that he had earlier argued to be God’s prerogative, and God’s alone.495 The community was invited to play an active part in ridding themselves of such corruption. Epistle 67 is a response from thirty-seven African bishops gathered in council, to two Spanish communities in Legio-and-Asturica, and Emerita - some 400 kilometres apart.496 Astrurica (modern day Astorga) and Legio (modern day Leon) were 47 kilometres apart in the far NW. of Tarraconensis. Emerita was SW. of the Iberian Peninsula in the Roman province of Lusitania, some 400 kilometres as the crow flies, from Legio and Aturica. The town of Caesaraugusta, which also gave a supporting document to these communities, was another 400 kilometres from either. That such communities could work together not only points to well-developed lines of

492 Ep 68.2.1; “de Dei iudicio et cleri ac plebis suffragio.” 493 Ep 68.5.1. 494 Ep 68.4.3, 3.1. 495 Epp 33.1.1; 59.5.2. 496 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 4:145, n.2. 96 communication, but also to an established synodal system as well as the impact that the Decian persecution had upon the Christian communities.497 The issue at stake was the case of two Spanish bishops, Basilides and Martialis, who, during the Decian persecution, had been “contaminated with abominable certificates of idolatry.”498 After these crimes Basilides had blasphemed against God as he lay on his sickbed, and Martialis had “denounced Christ” at a public hearing before the procurator Ducenarius. For his part Basilides had stepped down “of his own volition” in order to do penance, whereas Martialis had persisted in his offense by frequenting pagan social clubs and having his own sons buried “in the company of strangers among heathen graves.”499 These actions, according to the Spanish bishops, had made the two bishops “unfit to govern their bishoprics or to perform their sacred offices as priests of God.”500 Matters had been made worse when, after the two communities had elected new bishops, the two bishops had refused to step down and appealed to Rome for support, which they readily got from Stephen. The Spanish communities, therefore, turned to the African bishops for guidance and support. The underpinning question asked was: “what manner of men are fit to do service at the altar and to celebrate the divine sacrifices?”501 In the name of the thirty-seven bishops, Cyprian dedicated a large section of the letter to describing the moral worthiness expected of candidates to the office, and also the due processes to be followed in the election.502 The bishops argued that the law of God as prescribed in the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, was clear that only spotless and uncontaminated men should minister at the altar, the prayers of holy men without blemish are heard by God, whereas an unholy priest defiles the whole community (similar accusations had been made by Puppianus against Cyprian), hence the faithful should separate themselves from such persons.503 It was of vital importance then, that appointment to the priesthood be done “only after painstaking application and scrupulous inquiry”, and in this part the role of the local congregation was regarded as crucial, “especially as they have in their own hands the power (quando ipsa maxime habeat potestatem) both to select bishops who are worthy and to reject those who are

497 Clarke, "Third-Century Christianity," 592; Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 4:145, n.2; Clarke, "Chronology of the Letters," 703. 498 Ep 67.6.2. 499 Ep 67.6.2. 500 Ep 67.1.1. 501 Ep 67.1.2. 502 Ep 67.1.2 – 5.3. 503 Ep 67.1.2, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2. 97 unworthy.”504 “Moreover, we can see that divine authority is also the source for the practice whereby bishops are chosen in the presence of the laity and before the eyes of all, and they are judged as being suitable and worthy after public scrutiny and testimony.”505 Here God directs that His priest is to be invested before the assembled people; that is to say, He is instructing and demonstrating to us that priestly appointments are not to be made without the cognizance and attendance of the people, so that in the presence of the laity the iniquities of the wicked can be revealed and the merits of the good proclaimed, and thus an appointment may become right and lawful if it has been examined, judged and voted upon by all […] And we notice that the apostles observed this rule not in the appointment of priests and bishops only, but even in the case of deacons as well….506

Paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 are worth quoting in their entirety: 5.1 Hence we should show sedulous care in preserving a practice which is based on divine teaching and apostolic observance, a practice which is indeed faithfully followed among us and in practically every province.507 And it is this: when an episcopal appointment is to be duly solemnized, all the neighbouring bishops in the same province convene for the purpose along with the people for whom the leader is to be appointed; the bishop is then selected in the presence of those people, for they are the ones who are acquainted most intimately with the way each man has lived his life and they have had the opportunity thoroughly to observe his conduct and behaviour. 5.2 And we note that this procedure was indeed observed in your own case when our colleague Sabinus was being appointed: the office of bishop was conferred upon him and hands were laid upon him in replacement of Basilides, following the verdict of the whole congregation and in conformity with the judgement of the bishops who had there convened with the congregation as well as of those who had written in to you about him.

Having stated this Cyprian then said, “This appointment was validly administered….”508 From the above passages the position of the African bishops appears unequivocal; the selection or deposition of a bishop was the duty of the local Christian community to which the bishop was to serve.509 In effect, the laity had power to elect or to depose. Epistle 67 is a well-thought-out response. It is not a personal response written in defence of one’s actions or in reaction to criticism; rather, it is written in the name of thirty-seven African bishops in council. It, therefore, does not give us Cyprian’s opinions, but speaks of a phenomenon that was known throughout Roman Africa, at least, “in

504 Ep 67.3.1, 3.2. 505 Ep 67.4.1. 506 Ep 67.4.2, 3. 507 Propter quod diligenter de traditione diuina et apostolica obseruatione seruandum est et tenendum quod apud nos quoque et fere per prouincias uniuersas tenetur (Ep 67.5.1). 508 Ep 67.5.3. 509 See also, Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 4:140, introductory note to Ep 67. 98 practically every province” (“fere per prouincias uniuersas”). The very distances separating Africa and Spain, and the distances within the three Spanish communities indicate not only the level of communication among the churches, but also the widespread application of a practice.510 An example of the diversity of practice in the electoral process is evident in Origen’s homily on the election of Joshua as successor to Moses.511 In this homily, while arguing in favour of election of bishops by God, Origen (c.184 – c. 253), alluded to different electoral processes probably known to the people: You hear obviously the ordination of a leader of the people clearly described, so that there is no need of exposition. Here there was held no acclamation of the people, no regard of kinship, no consideration of friendship … The government of the people is delivered to him whom God chose (Homily in Numbers 13.4).512

Origen was aware of other electoral procedures, such as, election by the people, yet he was not in favour of it because, for him, the people “are always accustomed to be moved by shouts for favour or perhaps excited for money” and such processes could easily evolve into public disorder as did most ancient elections which “were preceded by violence and followed by more violence.”513 Of Cyprian’s letters, Epistle 67 is, therefore, more objective in its dealings on the subject of episcopal elections, and from it we can gather the necessity for the consent of the whole community. The statement that bishops are chosen “in the presence of the laity” opens the debate on the actual role of the laity.514 Clarke would argue that the role of the laity was simply to passively stand by “witnessing a spirit-bearing Church.”515 Others argue that the clergy appointed the candidates516 while the bishops did the voting.517 Yet others propose a representative type of system whereby a select few, either the clergy, or the seniores laici, voted on behalf of the whole congregation. However, in epistle 67.4.2 Cyprian did not point to a passive presence in which the people were mere spectators, nor did he urge a select few to take matters into their own hands. Rather, he urged the people to play their role since an appointment became right and lawful only after the examination, judgment, and vote of all. The fact that Cyprian urged the people to play their role “ought to be a sufficiently strong argument in favour of the importance of

510 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 4:140, introductory note to Ep 67. 511 Homily in Numbers 13.4 quoted in Ferguson, "Origen," 26. 512 Qtd., Ferguson, "Origen," 26. 513 Eno, "Shared Responsibility," 140. 514 Ep 67.4.1, “plebe praesente.” 515 See Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 2:178, n.1. 516 Eno, "Shared Responsibility," 133. 517 De Ste Croix, "Suffragium," 35, 36. 99 their participation in the election of a bishop and other clergy.” 518 How that role was played is the subject of much debate.

Suffragium The central question in the debate is how did the laity exercise their suffragium? By suffragium did Cyprian mean a vote, voice, decision, judgment, consent, assent, opinion, or acclamation?519 De Ste Croix traces the development of the term suffragium in Roman society and argues that in the Early Republic it meant actual voting (a voting tablet, a ballot, or the right of voting), then it evolved to mean “a favourable decision, assent, approbation, applause.”520 By the time we get to Constantine, at the beginning of the fourth century, it had become a technical term “referring more to the patronage system in which an exercise of office was openly bought and sold.”521 The final stage of its development is reached by the end of the 5th century, “when it comes to mean not only the influence which the great man exercises but also the actual sum or other bribe given him in return for exercising it.”522 Stewart-Sykes, on the other hand, argues that by the time we get to Cyprian the term suffragium “was coming to mean patronage, rather than free vote.”523 And he also argues in favour of the patronal seniores laici as determining elections. Hence, he would argue that the answer lies “not in any degree of episcopal control of the election, but in the role of the lay seniores, who whilst members of the plebs would exercise considerable power as patrons themselves.”524 But, as we have argued above seniores laici was not an office to which Cyprian referred. Evers notes that Cyprian appears to be the first to formally use the term suffragium within the Church, and that the consultation of the plebs was a well-known phenomenon in public life outside the Church and indeed, throughout the Empire that “Christians had come to expect it within the Church as well”; and Cyprian gave it a theological significance in the theology of communion.525

518 Evers, "Post Populi," 177; See also, Charlotte Roueché, "Acclamations in the Later Roman Empire: New Evidence from Aphrodisias," Journal of Roman Studies 74 (1984): 181-199; Hayman, "Position of Laity," 515. 519 Stewart, "Ordination Rites," 33-47. 520 De Ste Croix, "Suffragium," 38. 521 De Ste Croix, "Suffragium," 39. 522 De Ste Croix, "Suffragium," 47. 523 Stewart, "Ordination Rites," 126. 524 Stewart, "Ordination Rites," 127. 525 Evers, Church, Cities, People, 112. 100

Cyprian never really specified the true meaning of suffragium or how he understood it. Sometimes he applied it to God, and sometimes to the people. For example, in the case of Numidicus, tortured and left for dead, he said, the scars are diuina suffragia making Numidicus worthy for appointment.526 To the laity he said your divine vote;527 and to both clergy and laity he said, a bishop was made after the judgment of God and the choice of the clergy and laity.528 It is probable that in Cyprian’s time suffragium had ceased to be an individual expression but had come to mean general approval and support. However, as Evers argues, the assumption that this communal expression of acceptance or denial never had pivotal results in elections since the judgment (iudicium) of fellow bishops carried greater weight, are “based on the well-developed and hierarchic structures within the Church of later times, and are perfectly in line with traditional and established ideas regarding the position of ecclesiastical leaders up to present day.”529 We should therefore guard against projecting “modern concepts of authority upon ancient society.”530 Even in the office of the Roman magistrate upon which the African Church modelled most of its structures, “the laity played a significant role in noisily voicing their opinions and could modify the magistrates determinations.” 531 Roueché notes that before they became formalised, prior to their being institutionalised and “absorbed into ritual and standardised,” acclamations had been “immediate and spontaneous” and could be used by opposing sides.532 Hence, it suffices to say that when Cyprian used suffragium, he gave it a positive meaning in which “the community at large, or at least to a larger extent” participated in the election of candidates.533 Apart from the suffragium there were also three other technical and sometimes interchangeable terms, each entailing an essential and necessary component of the electoral procedure: iudicium, testimonium and consensus.534 The iudicium could apply to God, the bishops or to all (Iudicium episcopi, iudicium omnium which are interchangeable with the judgment of God, iudicium Dei). The Testimonium was a form of character witness and also applied to all members, God, the bishops, clergy, the entire community.

526 Ep 40.1.1. 527 Ep 43.1.3: “uestra diuina suffragia.” 528 Ep 68.2.1: “cleri ac plebis suffragio.” 529 Evers, "Post Populi," 168. 530 Evers, "Post Populi," 169; See also, Eno, "Shared Responsibility," 131. 531 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 3:261, n.80. 532 Roueché, "Acclamations," 187. 533 Evers, "Post Populi," 168. 534 For more on these terms see, Fitzgerald, "Model," 242-244. 101

Testimonium and suffragium were also synonymous as they both expressed general support (consensus), yet suffragium implied an actual vote as opposed to character witness.535 From the evidence presented in the above discussion I am inclined to argue that suffragium indicates the true voice of the people, their God-given duty, whether by acclamation or by testimony, the people spoke, and assisted in coming up with a judgment.

An Assessment We have noted that an appeal to the indispensable role of the laity in the election of bishops emerged more fervently in Cyprian when he was defending himself, or a fellow colleague (Cornelius), against unscrupulous individuals, who were either denouncing his authority as bishop, or seeking to create rival Christian communities. An appeal to the entire congregation also comes out in his international dealings with other Christian communities, in which obstinate bishops refused to step down after error. Just as he had strenuously appealed to the people in the lead-up to the synod, so too would he remind them of their key role in the election of bishops when the office was at risk from usurpers. I have argued that Cyprian was not always as episcopocentric or a dominant “metropolitan” exercising supreme authority without delegation as he has been presented.536 Although he has been called “the theologian of the episcopacy par excellence among the fathers,” before he was a bishop, Cyprian was a convert, and when he became a bishop, it was the people who rallied for him , and this sense of gratitude was never lost in him.537 His episcopacy began with the crowds standing outside his door calling out for him to be their bishop (Vita 2), and his life ended, first, with the last of his letters, epistle 81, directed to the whole Church (presbyteris et diaconis et plebi uniuersae), then, at his trial and execution, we see the whole Church attending, crowding the court area, laying their handkerchiefs at the site of execution so as to catch his blood, and the long procession with lighted candles to his burial place marking the beginning of the cult of St. Cyprian (Acta Proconsularis). The people played a pivotal role in his life and ministry, even though he might have been silent about them in some matters.

535 Fitzgerald, "Model," 244 n.24. 536 Clarke, "Biography," 684, 685. 537 Eno, "Shared Responsibility," 132. 102

I have also argued that there was no one universal practice in electing bishops. At this time (mid third century) Church order was still fluid and developing thereby allowing for a variety of practices to exist – and the practice Cyprian was accustomed to was one in which the whole congregation played an active role in electoral procedures. However, we saw that in his letters Cyprian tended to vacillate in his ideas on the electoral process. At some points he passed over the role of the laity, and at other times he appealed to them. This does not, however, take away from the fact that a face-value reading of Cyprian that avoids a romanticisation of history and a projection of “modern concepts on ancient society” reveals something of a norm, a practice that was known within Carthage and other regions:538 this practice constituted the will of God, the judgment and consent of the bishops, the testimony of the clergy and the suffragium of the plebs, together with the other inconstant factors, such as, sede vacante, and the moral standing of the priest, which, as we have argued, could be set aside for the sake of concord and unity. The role of the faithful was crucial for Cyprian. While the role of fellow bishops cannot be doubted it appears that when he spoke of his own election, nowhere did he “stress or cite the number of comprovincial episcopal witnesses present …; rather it is the enthusiastic approval of populus (Ep 59.6.1) or plebs (Pontius, Vita 5) that is given emphasis.”539 The laity formed part of the Church and they had a God-given duty to perform and Cyprian was aware of it.

538 Evers, Church, Cities, People, 99. 539 Clarke, Letters of Cyprian, 4:150, n.15. 103

GENERAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

When Cyprian became bishop of Carthage in 248/9, the formalisation and professionalisation of Church structures and offices was well under way. Hence, when the Decian persecution broke out in 249-251, Cyprian would have found it sensible to fall back on, and work within the existing synodal structure that had purportedly been employed by his predecessors “of happy memory.”540 While it is not clear how the synodal system would have functioned during his predecessors’ days, we can gather that for Cyprian, it meant more than just a meeting of bishops; it involved the entire congregation, bishops, priests, deacons, and the laity – especially those who had remained standing in time of persecution. This, for him, formed the template of how matters were to be resolved. The inclusion of the laity in the synodal procedure was then not an innovation of his, but an adaptation and enhancement of an existing system.541 As the impact of the Decian persecution on the ‘universal Church’ intensified, so too did Cyprian’s determination for greater cooperation and collaboration among the churches. At one point he, with the backing of the Roman priests, had envisioned a synod to give a universal solution to a universal and unique problem, but this dream did not come to fruition.542 He probably ended up presiding over a Provincial synod, the attendance of which is not clearly specified as he had a proclivity to exaggerate and inflate numbers; but by all likelihood the attending members could have been fewer than he initially anticipated: “And in case anyone might regard the number of bishops who met in Africa to have been too few….”543 Amid the internal and external upheavals that he and the Church faced, Cyprian, who was first and foremost a Christian, before being a bishop and a nobleman, endeavoured to ensure the safety of the Church by holding “securely to the ever-guarded rule of her discipline like some rudder of safety in the storm.”544 As a leader (praepositus) who wielded power and knew how to use it, he presented himself also as someone who knew how to reach a compromise after debate, of course – probably the rhetor in him – and still emerge a winner for the sake of concord. Achieving consensus was, as we saw, not an easy enterprise as certain personal preferences had to be sacrificed for the common

540 Ep 71.4.1. 541 Evers, Church, Cities, People, 59,60. 542 Ep 30.5.2. 543 Ep 55.6.2. 544 Ep 30.2.1. 104 good. Not only personal convictions, but also customary practices had to be either set aside, or revised, for the sake of pastoral expediency and unity since discord could lead the Church to blush before the very pagans.545 It is within this context that I explored Cyprian’s understanding of synodality; whether in the synods of the Church, especially the crucial synod of 251 which has been the main focus of the second and third chapters, or in the practice of electing bishops, which occupied the fourth chapter. Concerning the exercise of synods, we observed Cyprian’s tact in responding to the problem surrounding the rehabilitation of the lapsed. Central to the conflict was the practice – prone to abuse - of the issuing of the martyrs’ certificates by the esteemed confessors. Cyprian’s resolve was to call for patience until peace had been achieved, and he had returned from exile to his church, and then the Church would have occasion to gather and weigh the issue together. This position remained a constant, even when he personally faced open dissension that threatened to disrupt the unity of the Church or his hold on power, or when at the instigation of his rivals the crowds ran amok in the streets of North Africa beating bishops into submission. The bulk of his extant correspondence, as we noted, belongs to the first exile period, and is awash with references and appeals to resolving conflict in a communal manner, with all people engaged. The synodal structure that he promoted required consensus, and included the laity, not because he feared they could turn against him, although this was possible, or because he owed them a favour since they had unanimously elected him into office, but because it was their right to be consulted as they, together with him, the bishop, and with the clergy, made up the Church. The existing report(s) on the event of the synod of 251 do not offer much insight into how the whole program would have taken place, but we did manage to sift enough information to determine the resolutions made and the manner in which they were reached. Of the participants, and especially the lower clergy and the laity, even though their presence is attested, we heard next to nothing. We explained that this silence could have been because the post-synodal reports were directed to fellow bishops and therefore had to naturally deal with episcopal matters. Unfortunately, this reticence about the role of the lower clergy and laity would adversely lead to their being silenced and almost forgotten as the Church gradually moved towards centralisation of authority.

545 Ep 15.3.1. 105

To further investigate Cyprian’s appreciation of the synodal way I then turned to the second matter that was key to his ministry, the election of bishops. We noted that taken as a whole, Cyprian’s ecclesiology focuses on the office of the bishop and the need for mutual concord and the bond of unity among bishops to whom was given by God and His Christ, the authority to govern the Church in the stead of Christ until He comes again. We also argued that despite this, when it came to the issue of how bishops came into office, Cyprian afforded an undeniable responsibility to the entire congregation whom the bishop was to serve and govern. Not only did I point out that the issues surrounding the electoral procedure appear mostly in letters where Cyprian was faced with conflict, either personal, or involving local communities, but I also argued that the evidence pointing to the inclusion of the laity in this key moment in the life of the Church is too evident to be ignored. From what we have gathered common consent or ecclesial discernment, as argued by Peter Norton, was for Cyprian “a ‘norm’ and not an exception,” which, as he further argues, continued well into Late Antiquity.546 A Zimbabwean proverb says, “muromo wavakuru hauwire pasi” – loosely translated, “the old man gives the best advice”; in other words, the past has a message for the present. As mentioned in the introduction, the thrust of this thesis was to contribute to the discussion on synodality by looking at the episcopacy of Cyprian. Part of Pope Francis’ (2013 -) endeavour has been to direct the Church of the third millennium towards the path of synodality where bishops, priests, and laity journey together, listening to each other and to the Holy Spirit.547 And although the pope describes it as “one of the most precious legacies of the Second Vatican Council,” it is a concept that goes back to the very mind of God, as it were, when God responded to the chaos provoked by sin, by gathering his people in Abraham, and preparing them as they progressed on the pilgrimage, for communion with God’s divine life, “a communion brought about by ‘convocation’ of people in Christ,” and perfecting them in glory.548 By looking to Cyprian, who is often considered the archetypal bishop and theologian of the episcopacy par excellence, I have attempted to show that before he was

546 Peter Norton, Episcopal Elections 250-600: Hierarchy and Popular Will in Late Antiquity, Oxford Classical Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 6. 547 Pope Francis, “Ceremony Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the Institution of the Synod of Bishops.” Address of His Holiness Pope Francis (Paul VI Audience Hall, Saturday 17 October 2015), accessed 03 April 2019, http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2015/october/documents/papa- francesco_20151017_50-anniversario-sinodo.html. 548 Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 753-760. 106 bishop, he saw himself as Christian, and as a Christian, he understood the importance of inclusion in the life of the Church in which all members shared in the apostolic mission, “though in various ways.”549 I would like to conclude by making an assertion on Benjamin Safranski’s remark, even though he himself is tentative in his admitting it: epistolary evidence “shows that Cyprian consistently maintained the importance of consensus among bishops, expressed and solidified through synodal consultation. This consensus … was not just a matter of governance but an expression of the Holy Spirit at work in the Church.”550 In coming to decisions Cyprian “allowed his mind to be transformed and assented to what he saw as the Spirit working through his colleagues.” To these fine remarks, I would make the further claim, that Cyprian realised this goal through not only his colleagues the bishops and the clergy, but also the laity.551

549 Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 863. 550 Safranski, St. Cyprian, 146. 551 Safranski, St. Cyprian, 146. 107

Bibliography Amidon, Philip R. "The Procedure of St. Cyprian's Synods." Vigiliae Christianae 37, no. 4. (December 1983): 328-339. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1583544. Bakker, Henk, Paul van Geest, and Hans van Loon. "Introduction: Cyprian's Stature and Influence." In Cyprian of Carthage: Studies in His Life, Language, and Thought, edited by Henk Bakker, Paul van Geest and Hans van Loon. LAHR 3, 1-28. Leuven: Peteers, 2010. Baney, Margaret Mary. Some Reflections of Life in North Africa in the Writings of Tertullian. PhD diss., Patristic Studies 80. Washington DC: The Catholic University of America, 1948. Barnes, T. D. "Legislation against the Christians." The Journal of Roman Studies 58 (1968): 32-50. http://doi.org/10.2307/299693. Beal, John P., James A. Coriden, and Thomas J. Green, eds. New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law. New York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2000. Bévenot, Maurice "Cyprian and His Recognition of Cornelius." The Journal of Theological Studies 28, no. 2 (1977): 346-359. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23958587. Blue, Bradely B. "In Public and in Private: The Role of the House Church in Early Christianity." PhD diss., University of Aberdeen, 1989. https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.280739. Bobertz, Charles Arnold. "Cyprian of Carthage as Patron: A Social Historical Study of the Role of Bishop in Ancient Christian Community of North Africa." PhD diss., Yale University, 1988. Brent, Allen. Cyprian and Roman Carthage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Burns, Patout J. Cyprian the Bishop. Routledge Early Church Monographs. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. Burns, Patout J., and Robin M. Jensen. Christianity in Roman Africa: The Development of Its Practices and Beliefs. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014. Catechism of the Catholic Church. English translation. 1st ed. 1994. Chadwick, Henry. The Church in Ancient Society: From Galilee to Gregory the Great. Oxford History of the Christian Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Oxford Scholarship online, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199246955.001.0001. Charles River Editors. The Roman Provinces of North Africa: The History of the Region and Its Rulers after the Punic Wars. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2018. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=1_JKvgEACAAJ. Ciccarese, M. P. “Letter, Epistle.” In Encyclopedia of the Early Church. Vol I. Edited by Angelo di Bernardino. Translated by Adrian Walford, 483. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 1992. Clarke, Graeme W. "Chronology of the Letters." Chap. 1B In Sancti Cypriani Episcopi Opera, edited by Gerardus Frederik Diercks. Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina III D, 691-705. Turnhout: Brepols, 1999. ———. "Cyprian: A Brief Biography." In Sancti Cypriani Episcopi Opera, edited by Gerardus Frederik Diercks. Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina III D, 679-690. Turnhout: Brepols, 1999. ———. "Double-Trials in the Persecution of Decius." Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 22, no.4 (1973): 650-663. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4435371. ———. The Letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage. Vol. 1, Letters 1-27. Ancient Christian Writers 43. Edited by Quasten Johannes, Walter J. Burghardt and Thomas Comerford Lawler. New York: Newman Press, 1984. 108

———. The Letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage. Vol. 2, Letters 28-54. Ancient Christian Writers 44. Edited by Quasten Johannes, Walter J. Burghardt and Thomas Comerford Lawler. New York: Newman Press, 1984. ———. The Letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage. Vol. 3, Letters 55-66. Ancient Christian Writers 46. Edited by Quasten Johannes, Walter J. Burghardt and Thomas Comerford Lawler. New York: Newman Press, 1986. ———. The Letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage. Vol. 4, Letters 67-82. Ancient Christian Writers 47. Edited by Quasten Johannes, Walter J. Burghardt and Thomas Comerford Lawler. New York: Newman Press, 1989. ———. "Prosopographical Notes on the Epistles of Cyprian II. The Proconsul in Africa in 250 A. D." Latomus 31, no. 4 (1972): 1053-1057. www.jstor.org/stable/41528528. ———. "Some Observations on the Persecution of Decius." Antichthon 3 (Jan 1969): 63- 76. https://doi:10.1017/S0066477400003920. ———. "Third-Century Christianity." In The Cambridge Ancient History: The Crisis of Empire, A.D. 193-337, edited by Alan K. Bowan, Peter Garnsey and Averil Cameron, 589-671. Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press, 2005. Cusack, Barbara Anne. “The Internal Ordering of Particular Churches [cc.460-572].” In New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, edited by John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, and Thomas J. Green, 610-672. New York/Mahwah, NJ: The Canon Law Society of America, 2000. Cyprian. "The Judgment of Eighty-Seven Bishops on the Baptism of Heretics.” In Ante- Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to AD 325, vol. XIII: The Writings of Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, vol II, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, translated by Robert Ernest Wallis, 199- 220. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1869. ———. "To Donatus." Translated and edited by Roy J. Deferrari. In Treatises: The Fathers of the Church, 36, 5-24. Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1958. https://doi-org.divinity.idm.oclc.org/10.2307/j.ctt284w3d.3. ———. "The Lapsed." Translated and edited by Roy J. Deferrari. In Treatises: The Fathers of the Church, 36, 55-90. Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1958. https://www.jstor.org.divinity.idm.oclc.org/stable/j.ctt284w3d.5. De Ste Croix, Geoffrey, E M. "Suffragium: From Vote to Patronage." The British Journal of Sociology 5, no. 1 (March 1954): 33-48. https://www.jstor.org/stable/588044. Decret, François. Early Christianity in North Africa. Translated by Edward L. Smither. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2009. Di Berardino, Angelo. Preface to “Cyprian of Carthage: Studies in His Life, Language, and Thought.” Edited by Henk Bakker, Paul van Geest and Hans van Loon. LAHR 3, vii-xiii. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Dossey, Leslie. Peasant and Empire in Christian North Africa. Transformation of the Classical Heritage 47. Berkely and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 2010. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pn5x0. Drinkwater, John. "Maximinus to Diocletian and the 'Crisis'." In The Cambridge Ancient History: The Crisis of Empire, A.D. 193-337, edited by Alan K. Bowman, Peter Garnsey and Averil Cameron, 28-66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 109

Dunn, Geoffrey D. "The Carthaginian Synod of 251: Cyprian's Model of Pastoral Ministry." I Concili Della Cristianità Occidentale Secoli III-IV: XXX Incontro di Studiosi dell'antichita Cristiana. Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 78. (May 2002): 235-257. ———. "Cyprian's Rival Bishops and Their Communities." Augustinianum 65 (June 2005): 61-93. ———. "Cyprian and His Collegae: Patronage and the Episcopal Synod of 252." The Journal of Religious History 27, no. 1 (February 2003): 1-13. ———. Cyprian and the Bishops of Rome: Questions of Papal Primacy in the Early Church. Early Christian Studies 11. Strathfield, NSW, Australia: St Pauls, 2007. https://acuresearchbank.acu.edu.au/item/86v11/cyprian-and-the-bishops-of-rome- questions-of-papal-primacy-in-the-early-church. ———. "Cyprian and the Episcopal Synod of 253." Société d’Études Latines de Bruxelles. (July-September 2004): 672-688. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41542578. ———. "Cyprian and Women in a Time of Persecution." The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 57, no. 2 (April 2006): 205-225. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdah&AN=ATLA00015 59965&site=eds-live. ———. "Cyprian of Carthage and the Episcopal Synod of Late 254." Revue des Études Augustiniennes 48 (2002): 229-247. ———. "Heresy and Schism According to Cyprian of Carthage." The Journal of Theological Studies 55, no. 2 (Oct 2004): 551-574. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23969596. ———. "Sententiam Nostram Non Nouam Promimus: Cyprian and the Episcopal Synod of 255." Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum: Internationale Zeitschrift fuer Konziliengeschichtsforschung 35 (2003): 211-221. ———. "Validity of Baptism and Ordination in the African Response to the 'Rebaptism' Crisis: Cyprian of Carthage's Synod of Spring 256." Theological Studies 67 no. 2 (2006): 257-274. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdah&AN=ATLA00015 12962&site=eds-live. ———. "The White Crown of Works: Cyprian's Early Pastoral Ministry of Almsgiving in Carthage." Church History 73, no. 4 (December 2004): 715-740. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4146745. Eno, R. "Shared Responsibility in the Early Church." Chicago Studies 9 (1970): 129-141. Evers, Alexander W. H. Church, Cities and People: A Study of the Plebs in the Church and Cities of Roman Africa in Late Antiquity. Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture 11. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. ———. "Post Populi Suffragium: Cyprian of Carthage and the Vote of the People in Episcopal Elections." In Cyprian of Carthage: Studies in His Life, Language, and Thought, edited by Henk Bakker, Paul van Geest and Hans van Loon. LAHR 3: 164-180. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Eusebius of Caesarea. "The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine." Edited by Betty Radice. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1965. Ferguson, Everett. "Origen and the Election of Bishops." Church History 43, no. 1 (March 1974): 26-33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3164078. “Schism.” In Encyclopedia of Early Christianity 2. Edited by Ferguson, Everett, Michael P, McHugh., and Frederick, Norris W, 1040. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 1997. 110

https://ebookcentral-proquest- com.divinity.idm.oclc.org/lib/undiv/detail.action?docID=1460792. Finney, Paul Corby. "Early Christian Architecture: The Beginnings (a Review Article)." Harvard Theological Review 81, no 3. (July 1988): 319-339. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdah&AN=ATLA00008 06729&site=eds-live. Fitzgerald, Paul J. "A Model for Dialogue: Cyprian of Carthage on Ecclesial Discernment." Theological Studies 59, no. 2 (June 1998): 236-253. Fowden, Garth. “Public Religion.” In The Cambridge Ancient History: The Crisis of Empire, A.D. 193-337, edited by Alan K. Bowman, Peter Garnsey and Averil Cameron, 553-572. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Frend, W. H. C. "The Seniores Laici and the Origins of the Church in North Africa." The Journal of Theological Studies 12, no. 2 (1961): 280-284. General Secretariat for the Synod of Bishops. Synodality and Primacy During the First Millennium: Towards a common Understanding in Service to the Unity of the Church. 2016 http://www.synod.va/content/synod/en/news/synodality-and- primacy-during-the-first-millennium--towards-a-co.html. Gold, Barbara K. Perpetua: Athlete of God. Women in Antiquity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. Granfield, Patrick. "Episcopal Elections in Cyprian: Clerical and Lay, Participation." Theological Studies 37, no. 1 (March 1976 ): 41-52. Grossi, Vittorino. “Schism – Schismatic.” In Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, edited by Angelo di Bernardino, 3:503-504. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014 http://search.ebscohost.com.divinity.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthTy pe=url,ip,cookie,uid&db=nlebk&AN=706670&site=ehost-live. Guitton, Jean. Great Heresies and Church Councils. London: Harvill Press, 1965. Haas, Christopher, J. "Imperial Religious Policy and Valerian's Persecution of the Church, A.D. 257-260." Church History 52, no. 2 (1983): 133-144. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3166947. Hayman, Henry. "The Position of the Laity in the Church." The Journal of Theological Studies 5, no. 20 (July 1904): 499-516. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23949851. Hefele, Charles Joseph. History of the Christian Councils: From the Original Documents, vol 1. Translated by Clark William R. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1872. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=h7h&AN=34634592&sit e=eds-live. Heffernan, Thomas J. "The Date of the Passio." In The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity: Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Hudson, Lauren. "Cyprianic Ecclesiology: Redefining the Office of the Christian Bishop." MA diss., Georgia Southern University, 2013. https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd/858. Hunink, Vincent. "St Cyprian, a Christian and a Roman Gentleman." In Cyprian of Carthage: Studies in His Life, Language and Thought, edited by Henk Bakker, Paul van Geest and Hans van Loon. LAHR 3, 29-42. Leuven: Peteers, 2010. International Theological Commission. Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church. (2 March 2018). http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20 180302_sinodalita_en.html. Jensen, Robin Margaret. "Recovering Ancient Ecclesiology: The Place of the Altar and the Orientation of Prayer in the Early Latin Church." Worship 89, no. 2. (Mar 111

2015): 99-124. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdah&AN=ATLAn3859 025&site=eds-live. Johnson, John G. “Groupings of Particular Churches [cc.431-459].” In New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, edited by John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, and Thomas J. Green, 566-609. New York/Mahwah, NJ: The Canon Law Society of America, 2000. Knipfing, John R. "The Libelli of the Decian Persecution." The Havard Theological Review 16, no. 4. (Oct, 1923): 345-390. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1507673. Loon, Hans, van. "Cyprian's Christology and the Authenticity of Quod Idola." In Cyprian of Carthage: Studies in His Life, Language, and Thought, edited by Henk Bakker, Paul van Geest and Hans van Loon. LAHR 3, 127-142. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. MacMullen, Ramsay. Roman Social Relations, 50 B.C. To A.D. 284. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. Mattias, Gassman. "Cyprian's Early Career in the Church of Carthage." Journal of Ecclesiastical History 70, no. 1. (January 2019): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022046917002780. Mattingly, David, J., and R. Bruce Hitchner. "Roman Africa: An Archaeological Review." The Journal of Roman Studies 85 (Nov 1995): 165-213. https://doi.org/10.2307/301062. https://www.jstor.org/stable/301062. Millar, Fergus. Rome, the Greek World, and the East: Government, Society, and Culture in the Roman Empire. Vol 2. Edited by Hannah M. Cotton and Guy M. Rogers. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2004. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9780807863695_millar. Musurillo, Herbert. "The Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs." In The Acts of the Christian Martyrs, edited by Henry Chadwick. Oxford Early Christian Texts, 86-89. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972. Norton, Peter. Episcopal Elections 250-600: Hierarchy and Popular Will in Late Antiquity. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. "The Passion of the Holy Martyrs Perpetua and Felicitas." In Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to AD 325, vol. XIII: The Writings of Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, vol II, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, translated by Robert Ernest Wallis, 276-296. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1869. Pope Francis, “Ceremony Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the Institution of the Synod of Bishops.” Address of His Holiness Pope Francis. Paul VI Audience Hall, Saturday 17 October 2015. Accessed 03 April 2019. http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2015/october/documents/pa pa-francesco_20151017_50-anniversario-sinodo.html. Pontius. "Life of St. Cyprian." Translated by Mary Magdeleine Müller and Roy J. Deferrari, In The Fathers of the Church, edited by Roy J. Deferrari, Early Christian Biographies, 3-26. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2001. Pope Francis, Letter of His Holiness Pope Francis to The People of God. 2018. http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2018/documents/papa- francesco_20180820_lettera-popolo-didio.html. Quasten, Johannes. Patrology. Vol. 2: The Ante-Nicene Literature after Irenaeus. Westminster: Christian Classics, 1986. Rankin, David I. "Class Distinction as a Way of Doing Church: The Early Fathers and the Christian Plebs." Vigiliae Christianae 58, no. 3 (2004): 298-315. 112

Rebillard, Éric. Christians and Their Many Identities in Late Antiquity, North Africa, 200- 450 CE. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012. https://doi:10.7591/9780801465994. Rives, J. B. "The Decree of Decius and the Religion of Empire." The Journal of Roman Studies 89 (1999): 135-154. https://doi.org/10.2307/300738. https://www.jstor.org/stable/300738. Robeck, Cecil M. Prophecy in Carthage: Perpetua, Tertullian, and Cyprian. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1992. Roueché, Charlotte. "Acclamations in the Later Roman Empire: New Evidence from Aphrodisias." Journal of Roman Studies 74 (1984): 181-199. Safranski, Benjamin. St. Cyprian of Carthage and the College of Bishops. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2018. Sage, Michael M. Cyprian. Patristic Monograph Series. Cambridge, Mass: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1975. Saint Jerome. "Cyprian the Bishop.” Translated by Thomas P. Halton. In On Illustrious Men: The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 100, 95-97. Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1999. doi:10.2307/j.ctt2853x3.74. http://www.jstor.org.divinity.idm.oclc.org/stable/j.ctt2853x3. Senz, Nicholas. “What is ‘Clericalism?” Aleteia. Accessed 22 March 2021. https://aleteia.org/2018/08/23/what-is-clericalism/. Shaw, Brent D. "The Elders of Christian Africa." In Mélanges Offerts En Hommage Au Révérend Père Etienne Gareau, 207-226. Québec: Editions de l’Université d'Ottawa, 1982. Stewart, Alistair C. "Ordination Rites and Patronage Systems in Third-Century Africa." Vigiliae christianae 56, no. 2 (2002): 115-130. http://search.ebscohost.com.divinity.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsd ah&AN=ATLA0001386529&site=eds-live. Sullivan, Daniel David. The Life of the North Africans as Revealed in the Works of Saint Cyprian. Patristic Studies 37, Washington DC: Catholic University of America, 1933. Tertullian. "Apology." Translated by Emily Joseph Daly. In Apologetical Works; Octavius, edited by Rudolph Arbesmann, Daly Emily Joseph and Edwin A. Quain, 3-126. Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1950. http://www.jstor.org.divinity.idm.oclc.org/stable/j.ctt31nkmh. ———. "Concerning Baptism." Translated by Alexander Souter. In Translations of Christian Literature: Tertullian's Treatises Concerning Prayer, Concerning Baptism, 46-72. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, New York: The MacMillan, 1919. ———. "The Chaplet." Translated by Edward A. Quain. In The Fathers of the Church: Disciplinary, Moral, and Ascetical Works, edited by Rudolph Arbesmann, Daly Emily Joseph and Edwin A. Quain, 225-268. Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1959. http://www.jstor.org.divinity.idm.oclc.org/stable/j.ctt32b2dj.9. ———. "Treatises on Penance: On Penance and on Purity." Translated by William P. Le Saint. In Ancient Christian Writers 28, edited by Johannes Quasten and Walter J. Burghardt, 129-280 Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1959. Thani Nayagam, Xavier S. The Carthaginian Clergy During the Episcopate of Saint Cyprian. South India: Tamil Literature Society, 1950. Walker, G.S.M. The Churchmanship of St. Cyprian. Ecumenical Studies 9. London: Lutterworth Press, 1968. 113

Wilhite, David E. "Cyprian's Scriptural Hermeneutic of Identity: The Laxist 'Heresy'." Horizons in Biblical Theology, 32 no 1 (2010): 58-98. https://doi.org/10.1163/187122010X494777. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdah&AN=ATLA00017 87751&site=eds-live.

114

Table detailing Cyprian’s letters.

Epistle addressee date 7 Cyprian to Priests and deacons of Carthage Early April 250 5 Cyprian to Priests and deacons of Carthage Before mid-April 250 6 Cyprian to Sergius and other Carthaginian Before mid-April 250 confessors 13 Cyprian to Rogatianus and other Before mid-April 250 Carthaginian confessors 14 Cyprian to Priests and deacons of Carthage Before mid-April 250 11 Cyprian to Priests and deacons of Carthage Early to mid-April 250 10 Cyprian to Carthaginian martyrs and Second half of April 250 confessors 12 Cyprian to Priests and deacons of Carthage April/May 250 15 Cyprian to Carthaginian martyrs and End of April/early June confessors 250 16 Cyprian to Priests and deacons of Carthage End of April/early June 250 17 Cyprian to Laity of Carthage End of April/early June 250 18 Cyprian to Priests and deacons of Carthage Early June 250 19 Cyprian to Priests and deacons of Carthage Early June 250 8 Roman clergy to Carthaginian clergy June/July 250 9 Cyprian to priests and deacons of Rome June/early July 250 20 Cyprian to priests and deacons of Rome July 250 21 Celerinus to Lucianus June/later July 250 22 Lucianus to Celerinus June/later July 250 24 Bishop Caldonius to Cyprian August/September 250 25 Cyprian to /bishop Caldonius August/September 250 23 Carthaginian confessors to Cyprian August/September 250 26 Cyprian to Priests and deacons of Carthage August/September 250 27 Cyprian to priests and deacons of Rome August/September 250 115

28 Cyprian to the priest Moyses and other August/September 250 Roman confessors 33 Cyprian to the Lapsed August/September 250 29 Cyprian to Priests and deacons of Carthage Late September 250 35 Cyprian to Priests and deacons of Rome Late September 250 30 Priests and deacons of Rome to Cyprian September/November 250 31 Moyses and other Roman confessors to Late September 250 Cyprian 32 Cyprian to priests and deacons of Carthage Late September 250 36 Priests and deacons of Rome to Cyprian Towards the end of 250 37 Cyprian to Moyses and other Roman End of 250/beginning of confessors 251 34 Cyprian to priests and deacons of Rome End of 250/beginning of 251 38 Cyprian to priest, deacons, and laity of Later stages of the exile Carthage 251 39 Cyprian to priest, deacons, and laity of February/March 251 Carthage 40 Cyprian to priest, deacons, and laity of Early 251 Carthage 41 Cyprian to his ecclesiastical commission Early 251/March 251 (bishop Caldonius and others) 42 Caldonius and others to Cyprian Early 251/March 251 43 Cyprian to all the laity of Carthage Early 251/March 251 Persecution is now over in Carthage 44 Cyprian to bishop Cornelius of Rome June 251 45 Cyprian to bishop Cornelius of Rome Mid-year 251 46 Cyprian to Maximus and other Roman Mid-year 251 confessors 47 Cyprian to bishop Cornelius of Rome Mid-year 251 48 Cyprian to bishop Cornelius of Rome Mid-year 251 50 Bishop Cornelius of Rome to Cyprian Towards end of July 251 116

49 Bishop Cornelius of Rome to Cyprian Towards end of July 251 53 Maximus and other Roman confessors to Towards end of July 251 Cyprian 52 Cyprian to bishop Cornelius of Rome Mid-year 251 51 Cyprian to bishop Cornelius of Rome Mid-year 251 54 Cyprian to Maximus and other Roman Mid-year 251 confessors 55 Cyprian to bishop Antonianus August 251 (or thereabouts) 65 Cyprian to bishop Epictectus Second half of 251/first third of 252 64 Synodal letter to bishop Fidus Between April 251 and May 253 59 Cyprian to bishop Cornelius of Rome Summer of 252 (but before sailing season is over) 56 Cyprian to bishop Fortunatus and other Eastertide 253 bishops (provisionally) 57 Synodal letter to bishop Cornelius of Rome Early May 253 58 Cyprian to the people of Thibaris Early May 253 60 Cyprian to bishop Cornelius of Rome Early May 253 61 Cyprian to bishop Lucius of Rome Between September and December 253 The dating of most of the following epistles becomes tentative from this point 66 Cyprian to Florentius, also called Puppianus Most probably in 254 63 Cyprian to bishop Caecilius Between 254 and 256 62 Cyprian to bishop Januarius and other Anywhere between post Numidian bishops Easter 251 and August 257 82 Cyprian to Silvanus and other confessors Perhaps Decian period 69 Cyprian to Magnus Between June 251 and Spring 255 117

70 Synodal letter to thirty-two Numidian Spring 254/spring 255 bishops 68 Cyprian to bishop Stephen of Rome Later part of 254/first half of 255 (early episcopate of Stephen) 67 Synodal letter to churches of Legio and Autumn 254 onwards to Asturica and Emerita August 257 (death of Stephen) 71 Cyprian to bishop Quintus of Mauretania Between spring 255 and spring 256 72 Cyprian to bishop Stephen Late April 256 73 Cyprian to bishop Jubaianus May/June 256 74 Cyprian to Pompeius Not long after ep 73? 75 Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea to Cyprian Beginning of October 256? 76 Cyprian to bishop Nemesianus and other Later 257 (twelve months Numidian bishops after ep 75) 77 Bishop Nemesianus and others to Cyprian Later 257 78 Bishop Lucius and others to Cyprian Later 257 79 Bishop Felix and others to Cyprian Later 257 80 Cyprian to bishop Successus Mid-August 258 81 Cyprian to priests, deacons, and all laity of A week or two before his Carthage death, September 14, 258.