Cyprian on How Christians Deal with Adversity

Here’s another gem from Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200-258) in “To Demetrian.” The pagans were blaming Christians for a run of plague, drought, and pestilence that had stricken the land. According to the pagans, since Christians had abandoned the old religion, the gods were exacting vengeance. Cyprian, however, seizes on the circumstances to explain how Christians respond differently than pagans to adverse circumstances:

On the other hand, there is no pain from the outbreak of present evils for those who have confidence in future good things. In sum, we are not terrified by adverse events, nor are we crushed by them, nor do we grieve about them, nor do we complain in any natural disaster or physical sickness. Living by the Spirit rather than the flesh, we overcome weaknesses of the body with the strength of the soul. We know and are confident we are being tested and strengthened by means of those very disasters that place you on the rack and harass you (p. 87).

JTR

Cyprian of Carthage on Pointless Apologetic Exchanges

I’ve recently been reading through Cyprian of Carthage’s On the Church: Select Treatises in the Popular Patristics series from SVSP and was struck by Cyprian’s exasperation in the treatise “To Demetrian” in dealing with the pagan apologist:

You often come to me with an eagerness for making a case against me rather than with intentions to learn anything. On such occasions you prefer, sounding off shouted insults, to press your own case more repeatedly and indecently rather than to listen to ours tolerantly.

It seems silly to engage with you when it would be easier and less effort to quell the billowing waves of a stormy sea with cries of protest than to restrain your rage by means of arguments. It is definitely a pointless task, and not liable to success, to present light to a blind man, speech to a deaf one, wisdom to one irrational, when the irrational man cannot think, nor the blind allow in light, nor the deaf hear (pp. 68-69).

Who has not felt the same when dealing with those who only care to build and knock down straw men? Let the reader understand.

JTR

Eusebius, EH.7.3-6; Cyprian and Stephen's Conflict Over the (Re)Baptism of the Lapsed

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea's Ecclesiastical History: Book 7, chapters 3-6. Listen here.

Notes and Commentary:

These chapters continue to review the baptismal controversy that followed after the Decian persecution and the Novatian schism. What should be done to the lapsed, fallen, or heretics who desired to be restored to the church?

Chapter 3 begins with the position of Cyprian of Carthage who held that the lapsed had to be submitted again to baptism for purification. This view was opposed by Stephen of Rome who held that baptism (or rebaptism) was not required for restoration.

Chapters 4-5 shares a letter from Dionysius of Alexandria to Stephen celebrating the peace now achieved in the churches. It provides a summary of the churches and their bishops, including:

Demetrian at Antioch;

Theoctistus at Caesarea;

Mazabanes at Aelia (Jerusalem);

Marinus at Tyre (succeeding Alexander);

Heliodorus at Laodicea (succeeding Thelymidres);

Helenus at Tarsus and Cilicia;

Firmilian at Cappadocia.

At the death of Stephen, he was succeeded as bishop by Xystus, to whom Dionysius wrote a second letter On Baptism.

Dionysius describes how Stephen wrote regarding his conflict with Helenus and Firmilian over this issue of baptism of those who had “come over from heresies” and his threatening withdrawal of fellowship with them because of it.

Mention is also made to his communication with two presbyters, Dionysius and Philemon, who “had formerly been of the same opinion as Stephen.”

Chapter 6 notes that in this same letter Dionysius also makes reference to “the Sabellian heresy.” It is described as having begun “at Ptolemais in the Pentapolis” and as being an “impious doctrine” offering blasphemy against God the Father and “great unbelief” in “the only begotten Son.”

Conclusion:

These chapters describe the conflict between Cyprian and Stephen over the baptism (rebaptism) of those who had fallen during persecution or heresy. It again describes the writing of Dionysius and his efforts to forge peace and unity. Two of his letters are cited, one to Stephen, and a second to Xythus, Stephen’s successor. Lastly, mention is made of his combatting the Sabellian heresy. When the church has outward peace, it must also be vigilant to maintain inward peace and fidelity.

JTR

Eusebius, EH.6.42-44: The Novatian Controversy

Image: Representations of Cornelius of Rome and Cyprian of Carthage, who opposed the Novatian Schism.

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: Book 6, chapters 42-44. Listen here.

Notes and Commentary:

These chapters address the Novatian Controversy which developed as a result of the Decian persecution.

Chapter 42 continues Dionysius’s account of the Decian persecution. This includes the gruesome description of the martyrdom of Ischyrion by impaling. It also describes those who fled to the Arabian mountains, including aged bishop Chaeremon of Nilopolis and his wife, who were never found again (and who were perhaps sold into slavery by the Saracens).

It also introduces the problem that arose when the persecution had ended as to how to treat those who had offered pagan sacrifices to escape persecution but who now repented.

Some offered leniency, admitting these as consistentes (“bystanders”, the highest order of penitents), admitting them to their prayers and feats but barring them from communion.

Chapter 43, however, describes the harsher response of Novatus [also known in Latin as Novatianus], a presbyter of Rome, who argued that there was no salvation for those who had fallen away during the persecution. This group are referred to as the “Puritans” [katharoi].

A synod was held at Rome which resulted in the expulsion of Novatus.

Eusebius next cites a letter of Cornelius bishop of Rome to Fabius of Antioch concerning the synod on Novatus and his sect. He describes Novatus as an opportunist who exercised “wolf-like friendship” in his desire to serve as a bishop. He manipulated two rural bishops irregularly and falsely to ordain him as a rival to Cornelius. It is also suggested that his conversion was instigated by Satan and he was irregularly baptized on his deathbed. It is even said that when administering communion he required the oath, “I will not return to Cornelius.” He closes by noting that Novatus had become “bare and desolate” as brethren deserted him to return to the church, though he notes that five bishops were allied with him.

Chapter 44 adds one more tale from the letter of Dionysius to Fabius, who, it is suggested, was sympathetic to Novatus, regarding an old believer who had lapsed named Serarpion. Being near death, Serapion sent his grandson for the presbyter. The presbyter sick himself and unable to come, sent the grandson with a small portion of the eucharist. The boy arrived and gave the portion to Serapion, who then died. Dionysius reports this as an example of divine preservation of the man till he could receive communion before death.

Conclusion:

These chapter are an important witness to the Novatian controversy and how the early Christians decided to deal with those who had lapsed during the Decian persecution. It also offers an account of schism within Rome, and how this was addressed in a synod. Eusebius suggests that the church was able to maintain its unity despite these challenges and condemn the Novatian sect.

JTR

Calvin on Cyprian on Christian Unity

I preached Sunday on Christ’s prayer for future disciples as part of his High Priestly prayer (John 17:20-26). A good bit of focus was given to Christ’s prayer for unity: “That they all may be one….” (v. 21). I’ve also been re-reading Calvin’s book IV of the Institutes and had just been looking at Calvin’s defense of the Protestant movement against charges of it being schismatic in chapter 2. Ever since I ran into Dr. Anthony Lane at the Calvin Congress last August I’ve been intrigued by Calvin’s use of the Church Fathers. I had picked out Calvin’s quotation from Cyprian to share in the sermon on Sunday but did not get time to use it, so I thought I’d share it here (from Institutes 4.2.6):

Cyprian, also following Paul, derives the source of concord of the entire church from Christ’s episcopate alone. Afterward he adds:

The church is one, which is spread abroad far and wide into a multitude by an increase of fruitfulness. As there are many rays of the sun but one light, and many branches of a tree but one strong trunk grounded in its tenacious root, and since from one spring flow many streams, although a goodly number seem outpoured from their bounty and superabundance, still at the source unity abides. Take a ray from the body of the sun; its unity undergoes no division. Break a branch from a tree; the severed branch cannot sprout. Cut off a stream from its source; cut off, it dries up. So also the church, bathed in the light of the Lord, extends over the whole earth: yet there is one light diffused everywhere.

Nothing more fitting could be said to express this indivisible connection which all members of Christ have with one another.

JTR