CYPRIAN, bishop of CARTHAGE, saint. — In the history of the early Western Church he is one of the most prominent figures, certainly the first in common estimation until the rise of the great figures of the 4th century: Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine. The popularity of his works has no equal in the early centuries, as is evident from the number of manuscripts, surpassed only by those of the Latin Bible.
I. LIFE
Sources for the biography of C. are: 1) the Life written by the deacon Pontius, his companion in exile and an eyewitness of his martyrdom; a life which, though manifesting an intent to exalt and edify, is a historical document of full reliability; 2) the proconsular Acts, i.e., the record of the interrogations that took place before the proconsuls Paternus and Galerius Maximus, followed by the sentence of death, and finally, improperly placed under this title, the account of the martyrdom; the three documents were all drawn up by eyewitnesses immediately after the events; 3) the notice by Jerome (De viris illustribus, 67); 4) the works of C. himself, first and foremost his letters.Caecilius C., also called Thascius, was born in Africa at the beginning of the 3rd century to pagan parents who provided him with a careful literary education; in short, he studied rhetoric and allowed himself to be contaminated by the vices of paganism. Assisted by the Carthaginian presbyter Caecilianus, he converted to Christianity, beginning a new life in practice of continence and charity, to the point of distributing his goods to the poor. Shortly after his baptism he was ordained a presbyter and then, in 248 or 249, bishop of Carthage by popular acclamation. When the persecution of Decius broke out, C. considered it his duty to go into hiding so as not to deprive his Church of a leader more necessary than ever; and from his retreat, not far from Carthage, he governed it from the beginning of 250 to the spring of 251, maintaining an intense epistolary correspondence. He played a leading role lapsi (v.), and had to restrain the laxism advocated by that party of the clergy which had already opposed his election (among whom stood out the priest Novatus), and by a wealthy layman, Felicissimus, and maintain intact, even in the face of the confessors, the episcopal authority. In this he had the support of the Roman clergy (the see being vacant), and thus prepared the decisions of the Carthaginian Council of April 251, which distinguished between the sacrificati, admitting them to reconciliation only on the point of death, and the libellatici (v. ASI), to whom Communion could be given after a period of probation. The laxists, strangely enough, found support in the rigorist faction of the Roman clergy, led by Novatian, who succeeded in having himself elected antipope against Cornelius, provoking a schism that was to spread and last for a long time (v. NOVATIAN). In fact, the movement spread even to Africa, where C. fought it energetically, supporting the election of Cornelius. A new wave of persecution, under Gallus and Tribonian (251-53), was not long-lasting. Serious was the controversy over the baptism of heretics, in which C., supported by the bishops of Africa and some of Asia Minor, took a firm stand against Pope Stephen (254-57), who, along with others, maintained that the baptism administered by heretics should not be repeated. The death of Stephen (Aug. 2, 257), the intervention of St. Dionysius of Alexandria with Pope Stephen, and the persecution of Valerian put an end to the controversy, which threatened to provoke a schism. On Aug. 30, 257, C. was brought before the proconsul Paternus and, having confessed his faith, was exiled to Curubis.
At the order of the new proconsul, Galerius Maximus, to present himself at Utica, the residence of the magistrate, he refused and went into hiding, because he wished to die among his people: he returned to Carthage when the proconsul did, and on Sept. 13, 258, was condemned to death; the next day, before a crowd of Christians, he was beheaded.
II. WORKS
In the writings of C. is reflected his activity as a shepherd: no purely literary digression, no properly speculative intent; only the concerns of the bishop who wishes to enlighten, correct, reconcile, guide, and encourage. Already the manuscript tradition distinguishes them into two categories: 13 treatises (sermons, libelli), and 8 letters (litterae, epistolae). Two ancient precious documents give a list of them: chap. 7 of the aforementioned Life by Pontius, which alludes in rhetorical form to 11 treatises, in chronological order, correspondingCYPRIAN
(from M. Besson, *S. Pierre et les origines de la primauté romaine*, Geneva 1929, pp. 119, 122)
CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE, Saint – *De catholicae Ecclesiae unitate*, ch. 4, in two recensions composed by C. himself. From left to right: 1) Séguier ms. (seguierianus) of the 6th century, short recension – Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, ms. lat. 10592, f. 34; 2) Troyes ms. of the 7th–12th century, long recension – Troyes, Bibliothèque, ms. 581. As to which recension has priority, critics are not in agreement; some hold that the short recension precedes, others give precedence to the longer one, directed against the Novatian party at Rome (251).
According to the manuscript tradition, and perhaps to Epistle 76 and the catalogue discovered by Mommsen in the library of Philip of Cheltenham, dating from an archetype of 359, in which twelve treatises and a good number of letters are listed.
The treatises are as follows:
1) *Ad Donatum* (246), a short work partly autobiographical and partly polemical, with a strongly rhetorical colouring, in which the author, recently converted, extols the benefits that Christianity brings to man by regenerating him to a new life, contrasted with the corruption of the pagan world.
2) *De habitu virginum* (249), addressed in the first place to consecrated virgins, reminds them of their duty to please only the Lord and to show detachment from earthly affections even in outward conduct, renouncing luxury, adornment and profane amusements.
3) *De lapsis* (251), addressed to confessors of the faith, praises their fortitude, deplores the fall of many during the persecution, distinguishing between those who apostatised under torture and those who shrank from the struggle. Caution must be exercised in admitting apostates to reconciliation. The *libellatici* must also do penance, as must those who fell only in their inmost hearts.
4) *De catholicae Ecclesiae unitate* is a pastoral letter occasioned by the schism of Novatian (251). Heresies are deplored as attacks upon the unity of the Church willed by Christ, who built His Church upon Peter, prefigured in the Old Testament and announced by St Paul. It is absolutely necessary to remain united to the Church; outside it even martyrdom avails nothing for salvation (on ch. 4, V. below).
5) *De dominica oratione* (251–52): after an introduction on the excellence of this prayer and on prayer in general, C. comments on the individual petitions of the Pater noster. Further considerations follow on this prayer as a whole and on the need to pray with devotion, to add fasting and alms to prayer, and to pray assiduously.
6) *Ad Demetrianum* (252), addressed to a pagan, refutes in tones of strong invective the accusation that the calamities afflicting the world are punishments sent by the gods because Christians have abandoned them. Instead, he replies, this arises from the fact that the world is now old, and, turning the accusation back, he affirms that the cause of such disasters is the unbelief and vices of the pagans and especially the persecutions against Christians. The gods are nothing but demons. Even if Christians share in common adversities, for them, who look to the future reward, these are not an evil. Let pagans therefore convert to the true God.
7) *De mortalitate* (252–53), a consolatory pastoral addressed to the people of Carthage and the empire afflicted by the plague. The Christian must not fear death since it is a gain. Nor should the common sharing of suffering between Christians and pagans scandalise: the Christian must be ready to endure every pain. Again, motives of consolation in the face of death and sickness are recalled, and the sufferers are urged to look with longing to Paradise, our true homeland.
8) *De opere et eleemosynis* (252–53): almsgiving and charity are a means of blotting out sins, comparable to Baptism, as Scripture inculcates. There is no need to fear that almsgiving will impoverish or deprive the donor’s children of necessities. Whoever gives alms performs before God a marvellous spectacle, which stands in contrast to the spectacles of the world, works of the devil. Bearing in mind the sentence of the final judgment and recalling the example of the early Christians, one must apply oneself with zeal to the practice of these holy works.
9) *De bono patientiae* (256): in this short work, written during the baptismal controversy, C. illustrates, drawing on concepts from Tertullian, the difference between true Christian patience and that of the philosophers, showing in God and in Christ the exemplar of this virtue. He then argues for the necessity of patience from the condition of man and of the Christian, extols its merits and exhorts to practise it even in persecutions.
10) *De zelo et livore* (256–57),
It occasioned by the controversy over the baptism of heretics, demonstrates, with examples and biblical sayings, the malice of envy and its sad consequences, inculcating the duty of charity. 11) *Ad Fortunatum de exhortatione martyrii* (257): as the persecution of Valerian raged, C. sends to Fortunatus, who had expressed a desire for it, a collection of biblical passages arranged to demonstrate certain theses and commented upon, warning that he does not wish to compose a treatise but to provide material to prepare Christ’s soldiers for combat. The fundamental arguments are the vanity of idols, divine threats against their worshippers, faith in Christ, and the purpose of persecutions; he concludes by extolling the beauty of martyrdom. 12) *Ad Quirinum* (*Testimoniorum libri III*), also a collection of scriptural passages, directed in the first two books against the Jews (ca. 248). In Book I, 24 theses are proposed, each grouped around biblical texts that demonstrate the wrongs and errors of the Jews; in Book II, the 30 theses with their accompanying texts expound the divinity of Christ and his mission; Book III, added later, presents in 120 theses, demonstrated by biblical passages, the moral duties of the Christian. 13) *Quod idola di non sint* (ca. 246), of contested authenticity due to the silence of the catalogues of Ponzio and Mommsen, the scant manuscript tradition, and the lack of originality, being entirely a plagiarism from Minucius Felix and Tertullian’s *Apologeticum*. It first refutes polytheism, then demonstrates the unity of God, and finally treats of Christ.
The Epistolary comprises 81 letters, of which 16 are by correspondents, generally arranged in chronological order. With Schanz, one may distinguish, besides 4 letters undatable on various ecclesiastical questions, the following groups: 1) Letters from the period of retreat, in which he justifies his flight and treats especially of the question of the *lapsi* and then of the schism of Felicissimus. A group of 13 letters was sent to the Church of Carthage, 12 to the clergy of Rome or to individual members of it, 11, prior to the schism, to various recipients; 3 concern the aforementioned schism of Felicissimus. 2) 20 letters exchanged with the Roman bishops Cornelius and Lucius, still on the question of the *lapsi*, then on the schism of Novatian and the persecution of Decius. 3) 9 letters from the time of Pope Stephen, with the Pope and others, almost all on the baptism of heretics. 4) 5 letters from the final exile. At least 11 letters are lost. The epistolary of C. is of extraordinary importance for the historical information it provides on leading events in the life of the Church, for the richness of its dogmatic and disciplinary content, and for the prominence it gives to the personality of the writer. The style is always careful and suited to the subject. Among those of the correspondents there are 5 in Vulgar Latin, with frequent errors of morphology and syntax.
The manuscripts have transmitted under C.’s name a series of opuscules of uncertain authorship, some of which were composed in his age and milieu, others much later. Each is mentioned in its place, under its respective title.
III. Thought
C., far more a pastor than a theologian, does not present particular speculative developments of the various dogmas, which he simply reports according to tradition; only from practical necessity was he led to deepen two points of doctrine: the Sacraments (in particular Baptism) and the Church. Since conversions from the numerous heresies were frequent, the problem arose whether the baptism received in heresy should be considered valid or not, and whether converts should therefore be rebaptized. C., following the tradition prevalent in the African Churches, maintains that such baptism is invalid. Besides appealing to tradition, he adduces two arguments: first, the minister of the sacrament cannot confer grace which he himself does not possess: “But how can he who is himself unclean and has not the Holy Spirit within him cleanse and sanctify the water, when the Lord says in Numbers: And whatsoever an unclean person toucheth shall be unclean (Num. 19:22)? How can he who baptizes give others the remission of sins, he who cannot, outside the Church, free himself from his sins?” (Ep., 70, 1). The second argument is the unity of baptism deriving from the unity of the Church: “We do not pronounce our judgment as new, but share that which was already established by our predecessors and observed in full agreement by us and you: we think, that is, and hold as certain that none can be baptized outside the Church, there being one Baptism established in the holy Church” (ibid.). “For which reason, since only the Church has the water of life and the power to baptize and to cleanse man, let him who says that anyone can be baptized or sanctified with Novatian first demonstrate and teach that Novatian is in the Church or at the head of the Church” (Ep., 69, 3; PL 4, Ep. 76).The doctrine of the unity of the Church, which truly stands at the centre of C.’s teaching and practical activity, is expounded at length in the opuscule *De catholica Ecclesiae unitate* and recurs often in the letters. In the opuscule, C. affirms that the snare to the unity of the Church is more to be feared than persecution (chaps. 1-3). It is an illusion to believe one can preserve the faith and not preserve the unity of the Church (chap. 4). The Church, remaining one, extends to embrace a multitude of men, as a single light gives many rays, a single tree many branches, a single fountain many streams (chap. 5); it is the spotless spouse of Christ and our mother. “Can he have God for Father who has not the Church for mother? He who does not keep this unity does not keep the law of God, does not keep the faith of the Father and the Son, does not keep life and salvation” (chap. 6). The symbol of this unity is the seamless tunic of Christ (chap. 7). Not even martyrdom avails for him who is not in the Church (chap. 14). “There is one God and one Christ, one is his Church, one his faith, one the people, held together in the firm unity of the body by the cement of concord. The unity cannot be split nor can one body be separated by tearing its members apart, be made into pieces by rending its bowels” (chap. 23).
The bond of the unity of the Church is above all the episcopate: “This unity we must hold firm and above all we bishops who govern the Church must vindicate, so as to show that the episcopate is one and undivided. One is the episcopate, of which each of us holds a share in solidum” (chap. 5). The Church is constituted upon the bishops and every act of the Church is regulated through them who are set over it (Ep., 33, 1; PL 4, Ep. 27). In turn, the episcopate has its centre of unity in the See of Peter. Decisive for the primacy of the pope is chap. 4 of *De cath. Eccl. unit.*, which in its first recension (long recension), made during the schism of Novatian (as Bévonot has shown, following Chapman, in his study of the manuscripts), reads thus: “And after his Resurrection he says to him: Feed my sheep (John 21:15-17). On him he builds the Church and entrusts to him the sheep to be pastured. And although to all the apostles he gives equal power, he established nevertheless one See and determined by his authority the origin and nature of the unity. Certainly, what Peter was, so also were the others, but the primacy is given to Peter and there is shown one Church and one See. All are shepherds; but there is shown one flock only which is to be pastured by all the apostles with unanimous consent. Who does not keep this unity [of the Church; the expression *unitatem* of Paul is due to a copyist’s blunder] believes he keeps the faith? Who abandons the See of Peter, upon which the Church is founded, presumes to be in the Church?” This clear profession of the primacy of Peter and his successors was later attenuated.
In the second redaction of the pamphlet, made by C. himself during the baptismal controversy, it is quite clear, though also from other passages: “God is one alone, and Christ is one alone, and one is the Church, and one is the Chair founded upon Peter by the voice of the Lord” (Ep., 43, 5; PL 4, Ep. 40). “They dare [the heretics] to cross the sea and bring to the Chair of Peter and to the principal Church (Ecclesiam principalem), from which the unity of the episcopate (unitas sacerdotalis) took its origin, letters of schismatics and of the profane. They do not reflect that these are the Romans, whose faith was openly praised by the Apostle, and to whom perfidy cannot gain access” (Ep., 59, 14; PL 4, Ep. 55).
Nevertheless, in the doctrine of C. there remain obscure points, due to the difficulty of reconciling such passages with others in which there emerges an episcopal conception according to which every bishop is independent and answerable only to God; above all, the difficulty remains of harmonizing those explicit admissions of primacy with the conduct observed by C. in the face of Pope Stephen in the baptismal controversy, in which he firmly opposed the Bishop of Rome and invoked the collective intervention of the episcopate to correct his decisions. Certainly, C. was not able to deduce from that truth the natural theoretical and practical consequences.
Studies: On the manuscripts, besides Hartel, cf. H. V. Soden, Die Cyprianische Briefsammlung (Texte und Untersuchungen, neue Serie, 10, 11), Leipzig 1904. On De unitate: D. Van Den Eynde, La double édition du «De unitate» de S. Cyprien, in Revue d'hist. ecclét., 29 (1933), pp. 5-24; M. Bévenot, St. Cyprian's De Unitate Chap. 4 in the light of the manuscripts (Analecta Gregoriana, 11), Rome 1938 (there further bibliography, especially the works of D. Chapman). In general: P. Monceaux, Histoire littéraire de l'Afrique chrétienne, II, Paris 1902; Barndenheer, II (1914), pp. 442-517; Moricca, I, pp. 367-556; Schanz-Krüger, III; A. d'Alès, La théologie de S. Cyprien, Paris 1922, pp. 333-392; H. Koch, Cyprianische Untersuchungen, in G. Bonn 1926; S. Colombo, S. C. di Cartagine, l'uomo e lo scrittore, in Didaskaleion, nuova serie, 6 (1928), pp. 1-80; P. Colombo, De Cypriani, in DTHC, III, cols. 2459-70; H. Koch, Cathedra Petri, Giessen 1930; R. Poschmann, Ecclesia principalis, in kritischer Beitrag zur Frage des Primats bei Cyprian, Breslau 1933; P. de Labriolle-G. Bardy, Histoire de la littérature latine chrétienne, 3rd ed., Paris 1947, pp. 196-247. On the language: L. Bayard, Le latin de S. Cyprien, Paris 1901; P. A. H. J. Merx, Zur Syntax der Kasus und Tempora in den Tractaten des Cyprian, Nijmegen 1930; I. Schrijnen-Chr. Mohrmann, Studien zur Syntax der Briefe des hl. Cyprian, 2 vols., ibid. 1936-37; M. J. Ball, Nature and the Vocabulary of Nature in the works of S. Cyprien (Catholic Univ. Patristic Studies, 75), Washington, Michèle Pellegrino 1946.