Toronto Baptist Seminary

& Bible College

THE CONCEPT OF UNITY IN CYPRIANS

DE ECCLESIAE CATHOLICAE UNITATE

A Paper

Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirement of the Course

Senior Seminar

by

Chisso Dinata

March 2015

Copyright 2015 by Chisso Dinata

All rights reserved

ii


Accepted:

Project Supervisor

Second Reader

iii


ABSTRACT

This paper for the Senior Seminar primarily examines the concept of unity in Cyprians De

Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate. After locating its date, provenance (his argument against

Novatian and his party in Rome), and the reasons for its two major textual traditions, the

Textus Receptus and the Primary Text, the paper engages in an overview of each of the

treatises chapters. This sets the stage for an analysis of the treatises main arguments for

unity, which are drawn from both Scripture and nature. Cyprians great contribution to

ecclesiology in this regard is recognized as his location of church unity in Christs

appointment in Matthew 16 of Peter as the origin of the church. In doing so, he unwittingly

undermined his conviction about the equality of all those bishops who traced their lineage

back to Peter, for he gave the bishops of Rome an argument that they would begin to use in

the fifth century and onwards to assert papal primacy.

iv


CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION1

Chapter

1. BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY OF CYPRIAN.3

2. CHURCH UNITY IN DE UNITATE..10

Background of the Treatise...10

Dating and the Intended Object of the Treatise...11

Manuscript Differences...13

Summary of the Chapters.15

The Unity in De Unitate...........................................................................28

The Structure of the Treatise...29

Cyprians Concept of Unity31

The Origin and Source of Unity..31

The Expansion of Unity from One Source..37

The Incorruptibility and Indivisibility of Church Unity..40

Those Who Are Outside of Unity Will Perish.42

CONCLUSION46

BIBLIOGRAPHY50

INTRODUCTION

This work will attempt to study the concept of Church Unity in the writings of

Cyprian of Carthage (d. A.D. 258). Specifically, it will examine his De Ecclesiae Catholicae

Unitate and investigate the concept of unity that is being proposed in this treatise.

Reading and evaluating patristic writings can be challenging. They stem from a time,

place, culture, and worldview that are far removed from our time. The study of patristic texts

requires one to wade through difficult out-of-date nuances and phrases in their writings that

are different from the Reformation and Post-Reformation eras with which we are more

familiar. As Christianity began to spread through the Mediterranean world, the formulation

of orthodox belief was still fluid. Although there were many groups who claimed to be

Christian, not all of them held the same doctrinal understanding. Controversies arose over

matters such as the canon, the divinity of Christ, ecclesiology, soteriology, and the like.

These led to the creation of polemical writings and apologetical letters that appealed to

Scripture to challenge the heretical beliefs.

Now Protestants, for the most part, have a hard time relating to the Early Church

Fathers. Whereas Catholics regularly utilize them in their theology and see evidence in them

of their identification with early Christianity, most Protestants stop short at the Reformation.

One of the purposes of this study is to reassert our Protestant identity in these writings.

Christianity did not begin with the Reformation era. We do not have merely five hundred

years of history that hinges only on the Reformers. On the contrary, our historic faith

1
 2

includes that of the patristic era as we trace it all the way back to the Apostles. The Early

Church Fathers are part of our heritage, and we have the right to claim them as part of our

past as much as the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox communities.

CHAPTER ONE

BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY OF CYPRIAN

The earliest narratives of Cyprians life are found in two sources.1 The first is the

Acta Cypriani, written anonymously, which tells of the martyrdom of Cyprian. The second is

the Vita Cypriani, a biographical account of Cyprians life, written by his deacon, Pontius.

There is also a semi-autobiographical Ad Donatus that Cyprian himself wrote; however, the

content is reflective without much narrative or other solid information offered about his life.

Nothing much is known regarding the date of Cyprians birth and his early life prior to his

conversion. The date of his birth is unknown. This led to much speculation about his age by

various historians. Like most scholars, Michael Sage dated Cyprians birth year to 200 A.D.2

However, in a much more recent academic work on Cyprian by Allen Brent, the later dating

of 212 A.D. was given.3 The variation for the birth year is inconsequential. He was

presumably baptized in 246 A.D. It is safe to speculate that by the time of his ordination to

the office of bishop, he was a man in his late thirties or early to mid-forties.

1
For the details of Cyprians life, I am especially indebted to: Allen Brent, Cyprian and Roman
Carthage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010); J. Patout Burns Jr., Cyprian the Bishop (London:
Routledge, 2002); Peter Hinchliff, Cyprian of Carthage and The Unity of the Christian Church (London:
Geoffrey Chapman, 1974); Geoffrey D. Dunn, Cyprian and the Bishops of Rome: Questions of Papal Primacy
in the Early Church, ECS 11 (Strathfield, Australia: St. Pauls, 2007); Michael M. Sage, Cyprian (Cambridge:
Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1975); G. S. M. Walker, The Churchmanship of St. Cyprian, ESIH 9
(Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1969).
2
Sage, Cyprian, 103.
3
Brent, Cyprian, 25.

3
 4

His full name was Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus. He adopted the name Caecillius

in honour of an old presbyter who was vital to his conversion. Jerome (347-420), in his

De Viris Illustribus, mentions that Cyprian had a career as a well-known teacher of rhetoric.4

To be trained as a rhetor at that time, one must either be supported by a patron, or have the

financial means to support ones education. Cyprian seems to fall under the latter category.

It is not unreasonable to draw the conclusion that his family was part of the senatorial or

equestrian class in the Roman society, and one that was highly influential. This clue gives a

hint of Cyprians upbringing. As part of an elite family, he might have observed how society

was run from an early age. His training as a rhetor also means that he was familiar with the

classics at an early age. His career as a teacher of rhetoric made him knowledgeable with

Roman pagan culture, its various philosophies and politics, and its religious perspectives.

Based on the facts that Cyprian was born to a wealthy family and received training in

rhetoric, one can safely assume that he was a man that was immersed in the social and culture

of pagan Roman society. Allen Brent has noted:

Cyprian was in denial regarding his pagan past, and maintains overtly a deafening
silence over his life before his conversion that his biographer also faithfully observes.
Yet such strategies of denial have never successfully concealed the historical and
cultural influences that form ones present attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors5

There is much to be appreciated in Brents assessment of Cyprian. His picture of

Cyprian is that of a man who was, more or less, influenced by his secular formation, even

when he was in denial of it. According to Brent, Cyprian had practiced the patterns of

governance of his church with the concepts he inherited from his pagan Roman upbringing.6

4
Jerome, De Viris Illustribus, 67.1
5
Brent, Cyprian, 23-24.
6
Ibid., 74-75.

Considering Cyprians upbringing as the son of a wealthy elite family, along with his heavy

immersion in secular education, one can see that Cyprians understanding of unity may have

a secular root, despite his abandonment of the Roman pagan culture.

After his conversion, he gave much of his wealth and revenue away to the poor. This

generosity, combined with his eloquence of speech, propelled him to be elected as the Bishop

of Carthage in 248 or 249. Considering that he had just recently been baptized for a couple

of years, his election was rigorously objected to by some of the Christian leaders in Carthage.

During this time, the Roman Empire had entered into what is now known as The

Crisis of the Third Century. Externally, the borders were under a constant threat of foreign

invasion. Internally, the Empire was exhausted after having gone through continuous civil

wars. The economy was in a state of collapse. The whole empire was in danger of

collapsing. The Pax Romana was a thing of the past. Under these dire circumstances,

Decius (c. 201-251), an ex-senator and general who had the support of the Roman Senate,

became the Emperor on October of 249. As Emperor, he dreamt of bringing the Pax back

to the empire in his own time. With this as his motivation, he instituted programs that he

thought would help him to unite the hearts and minds of the people for this cause. In January

of 250, he declared an empire-wide edict that required every Roman citizen to perform a

sacrifice to the Roman gods for the sake of the well-being of the State and the Emperor. This

edict carried grievous repercussions for the Christians at the time.

Prior to the edict, the church had gone through thirty-eight years without any real

persecution. However, the long period of peace had its own unique problems. The church

was rife with corruption and spiritual decline. When the Decian edict was proclaimed,

Christians suddenly found themselves being tested severely over their faith. Christians had to

choose, then, between obeying the Emperor or God. They were given a choice between

preserving their life or their faith. Empire-wide persecution suddenly broke out against

Christians who were seen as unwilling to make their contribution to the Roman Pax. Their

refusal to pay tribute to the Roman gods was perceived as being lacking in patriotic devotion

to their country. Therefore, Christian non-participation led them to be tortured and

persecuted. A number of bishops were put to death, among them Fabian, the Bishop of

Rome, who met his demise soon after the edict. However, Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage,

chose to go into hiding.

While he was in hiding, numerous Christians in Carthage had to face the possibility

of torture and martyrdom. Some of them died under torture. Some of them recanted their

faith and gave in to performing sacrifices to the Roman gods. Some sought escape through

means of bribery by purchasing a certificate that said they had performed the sacrifice. The

Carthaginian Church quickly took action against those who bought their way out through

such underhanded means as well as those who had denied the faith and then recanted. They

were considered as having fallen away from the Church and were urged to repent. This

situation presented several challenges for the Bishop of Carthage.

Among the fallen, either those who performed the sacrifice or who purchased a

certificate, there were many who expressed their desire to be readmitted back into the

Church. The disciplinary actions prescribed were as follows: they would be barred from

partaking communion and the process for their readmission would be delayed until the

persecution had passed and a council of bishops could be convened in order to decide on the

matter. However, these implementations were not uniformly carried out.

A controversy arose in which some Christians, who had stood firm and were martyred

during the persecution, proclaimed that they would intercede with God on behalf of the

lapsed upon their death. They claimed that by the virtue of their virtuous death, those who

lapsed would be granted pardon and readmission back into the Church. An influential

presbyter, Novatus, along with other presbyters, adopted this position. They began to issue

letters of peace, based on the martyrs name, to the lapsed who carried these letters and

requested to be readmitted back to the Church. As bishop, Cyprian declared the letters of

peace to be invalid. However, because of his absentee position, many presbyters disregarded

his instruction and received back some of the lapsed based on these letters.

At the core of this disciplinary controversy was the question of the validity of the

martyrs authority versus the authority of Cyprians bishopric. By the spring of 251, with the

death of Emperor Decius, the persecution was waning and Cyprian returned officially to his

office. He called for a general assembly of the North African bishops in order to decide on

the matter of the lapsed. It was in this meeting that he presented his work De Lapsis and

argued for the final authority of the bishop. In this meeting, the African council decided on

the disciplinary matter. They distinguished the lapsed between the sacrificer and the

certified. Those who bought the certificate might be readmitted to the Church upon

observable proof of repentance. For those who had sacrificed, they were placed under

penitential strictures and would only be readmitted upon their imminent death. Although the

Roman council supported this decision later, there were many presbyters in Africa who

opposed this and formed their own faction (the laxist). They ordained their own bishop,

Fortunatus, and established their own rival communion that brought the African Christians

into division. While all this was going on, trouble was brewing in Rome.

After the death of Fabian in A.D. 250, Rome was without a bishop during the Decian

persecution. In the March of 251, a presbyter by the name of Cornelius (d. 253) was voted

into the office. However, this did not sit well with a prominent presbyter named Novatianus

(d. 258) (not to be confused with Novatus of Carthage) who ordained himself as the bishop

and organized a dissenting church. At the core of their difference was their approach toward

the lapsed. Whereas Cornelius was in line with Cyprian in his disciplinary measures,

Novatianus was a rigorist, which meant that he was less lenient towards the lapsed. However,

it is not very clear that this was the sole reason for Novatianus dissension. As Cornelius and

Novatianus asserted their own claims to the office, they attacked each other through letters.

Both of these men sought the support of the bishop of Carthage and sent emissaries to

North Africa. Cyprian thoroughly investigated the matter. It was during this time in 251 that

Cyprian presented De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate, which was written within a few months

after De Lapsis. Within it, he argued against schism and lent his support for Cornelius. The

Novatianist faction attempted to gain control in Africa by installing an opposing bishop by

the name of Maximus. Thus during this time, Cyprian had to face two opposing factions in

regard to the lapsis.

In 252, the Roman Church leadership was still under a constant danger. Under a

Roman crackdown, Cornelius was exiled and later died. Lucius (d. 254) succeeded him in

253. He had a good relationship with Cyprian; however, he died a year later. His subsequent

successor, Stephen (d. 257) who was elected in 254, would have a much more contentious

relationship with Cyprian.

Cyprian argued against Stephen in the matter of the validity of the baptism

administered by the schismatic faction. To Cyprian, the baptism administered by the

Novatianist faction, which he considered as heretical, was invalid. Those who came out from

them and desired to re-enter into the Church would be required to be re-baptized. The

Carthaginian and Asian church supported Cyprian in this matter. Bishop Stephen, however,

argued that re-baptism was unnecessary. He demanded that Cyprian obey the primacy of the

Roman bishopric. Over time, their disagreement would grow increasingly sharp. The

relationship between Carthage and Rome would have continued to disintegrate if it was not

for the death of Stephen on August of 257, during the reign of Emperor Valerian the Elder

(reign 253-260 AD). Under Valerian, a renewed persecution took place from 257. Christian

leaders were specifically targeted and put to death. Many Christian converts had their

property confiscated. This time Cyprian chose to face persecution head on. He was

imprisoned and later beheaded on September 14, 258.

CHAPTER TWO

CHURCH UNITY IN DE UNITATE

This chapter will examine the concept of unity that Cyprian proposed in the treatise

De Unitate. To understand Cyprians concept of unity within the treatise, there are four steps

that need to be taken. The first step will be looking at the background and purpose of the

treatise. This will look at the historical development and circumstances surrounding the

writing of it. The second step will be to summarize, chapter-by-chapter, the flow of the

argument in the treatise. Having understood the flow of the argument in the treatise. The

third step is analyzing the treatise. This will involve looking at various figures, metaphors,

and bible passages employed by Cyprian to describe unity and draw conclusions out of them.

Background of the Treatise

De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate is probably the most well known of Cyprians work.

However, it is also one of the most controversial of his works. At the core of this

controversy is the confusion over the issues of the precise dating of the treatise, the intended

object against whom it was written, and various manuscript differences.

10
 11

Dating and the Intended Object of the Treatise

Both De Lapsis and De Unitate can be traced to A.D. 251 when the persecution was

winding down and Cyprian emerged from hiding. What makes dating the treatise difficult is

that there are no specific names mentioned within it, so it is unsure whom the treatise was

written against. There are two likely suspects. The first is Felicissimus, a deacon who

opposed Cyprian and aligned himself with the laxist party. The second is Novatianus, the

Roman presbyter who attempted to usurp the seat of the bishop of Rome. The former had to

do with a schism within the North African church. The latter involved the power struggle in

Rome.

E. W. Benson argues that De Unitate was presented to the African Council in the

spring of 251 against Novatianus.1 However, this view is problematic. Unless he had prior

knowledge, Cyprian was only made aware of the Roman situation by the arrival of two

separate letters from Rome before the meeting started.2 One notified him of the election of

Cornelius, while the other one was from the opposing Novatian party. He needed time to

inquire into the validity of Cornelius election by sending emissaries to Rome. If Cyprian

intended De Unitate to be a treatise to support Cornelius against Novatianus, it is unlikely

that the treatise was presented during the first council meeting in the spring of 251 unless the

confirmation from Rome arrived much sooner than expected. If the purpose of the treatise

was to address the power struggle in Rome, Cyprian would have to compose it at later date

when he had more knowledge of the situation in Rome.

1
E. W. Benson, Cyprian: His Life, his Times, his Work (London: Macmillan 1897), 180.
2
Cyprian, Epistle 45.

 12

If one insists that De Unitate was presented to the African Council in the spring of

251, then the only possibility is that it was written exclusively to address the schism in

Carthage and was specifically against Felicissimus. Michael M. Sage argued that this was

Cyprians intent when he presented it.3 Although this argument stems from the insistence that

the treatise had to be the one presented at the spring council meeting, it is not without its

merit. However, there are certain phrases in the treatise that make it doubtful that

Felicissimus was the intended object of the treatise. The most plausible solution is that the

treatise was written at a later date to address the issue of Novatianus power struggle in

Rome. In support of this position, Maurice Bvenot also argues for a later date, about a few

months after the composition of De Lapsis.4 However, the most convincing argument for this

position can be found in the treatise itself.

Although the treatise mentions no specific name, it does make a reference to the

absurdity of a self-professing pseudo-bishop (in chapter ten).5 Therefore, it seems that the

treatise was not intended to be against Felicissimus. Although he was an influential deacon,

there is no recorded attempt of him ordaining himself as bishop. There is only one other

person who fits the criteria of attempting to usurp the position of bishop. That person is

Novatianus. In his analysis, G. S. M. Walker wrote:

No passage, except possibly the conclusion of the third chapter, need refer to
Felicissimus, but at least two, as Koch had noted, must be directed against Novatian;

3
Michael M. Sage, Cyprian, Patristic Monograph Series 1 (Cambridge, Mass: The Philadelphia
Patristic Foundation, 1975), 241-242.
4
Maurice Bvenot, trans., St. Cyprian: The Lapsed. The Unity of the Catholic Church, Ancient
Christian Writers Vol. 25 (New York: Newman, 1956), 5.
5
Cyprian, De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate, 10.

 13

the treatise was therefore written about the middle of 251, and cannot have been read
to the council of bishops which assembled in the spring.6

Therefore, judging from the content of the treatise and the later knowledge of the

Roman controversy, one has to agree with Bvenot that the treatise was written a few months

after the council of African bishops in the spring 251, to support Cornelius against

Novatianus.

Manuscript Differences

Aside from the lack of clarity in both the dating and the intended object, there is

another problem that further complicates the study of this treatise. There are two versions of

the treatise extant.7 The first version is the edition that has been transmitted as the Textus

Receptus or the Received Text. However, in 1563, an edition of De Unitate was published

containing what is now called as the Primacy Text. The appearance of the Primacy Text

generated a lot of controversy because of the substantial differences in some of the content.

The main difference between the Primacy Text and Textus Receptus lies in the

content of chapter four. The Primacy Text contains references to the primatus that was given

to Peter. Upon cursory examination, it seems that the Primacy Text gives credence to the

papal office. This has caused some Protestant scholars to challenge the genuineness of the

Primacy Text, relegating it to a later interpolation for the purpose of supporting the Roman

Catholic Church. However, in recent times, scholars (including Catholics) have come to an

6
G. S. M. Walker, The Churchmanship of St. Cyprian, Ecumenical Studies in History 9 (London:
Lutterworth, 1968), 21.
7
There are actually three versions; however, the third version is a mixture between the Primacy Text
and Textus Receptus. See Maurice Bvenot, trans., Cyprian: De Lapsis and De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate
(London: Oxford, 1971), p.xii, and Sage, Cyprian, 399.

 14

agreement that although the Primacy Text was the first version that was written by Cyprian,

it was not meant to support the argument for the papal authority.

Maurice Bvenot is a contemporary scholar who undertook an extensive scholarly

work on the study of Cyprians manuscript and its transmission.8 His work in this matter has

become generally accepted. He came to a conclusion that the Primacy Text was the original

text written in 251, and that the Textus Receptus was a reformulation written in 255-256 to

argue against the bishopric of Stephen in Rome.9 His argument is based on the fact that the

Scripture verses that occur in chapter four of the treatise also occur in Cyprians later epistles

that address the rebaptism controversy that was the subject of contention with Stephen. But

this explanation is not without its problems. Why would Cyprian not formulate a new

treatise, but rather rewrite a previous one? Why would he attempt to change from what he

previously written re-publish it as if it never happens? Even if he did so, would not Stephen

also possess an unedited copy? It would seem simpler to write a new treatise that specifically

addresses the situation with Stephen. Therefore, the later date is unlikely.

Another scholar, Stuart G. Hall, attempted to improve upon Bvenots conclusion by

giving the Textus Receptus an earlier date of May 252 as a treatise that was meant to be read

to the African council.10 This argument is the most convincing and seemingly the most

plausible explanation for the revisions. This is due to the analysis of the internal text that

8
Maurice Bvenot, The Tradition of Manuscript: A Study in the Transmission of St. Cyprians
Treatises (London: Oxford University Press, 1961).
9
Maurice Bvenot, St. Cyprians De Lapsis and De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate. Text and Tanslation
(London: Oxford University Press, 1971), xii.
10
Stuart G. Hall, The Versions of Cyprian, De Unitate, 4-5 Bvenots Dating Revisited, Journal of
Theological Studies, 55 (2004): 138-146.

 15

seems to show that the content of chapter four of Textus Receptus is an expansion to more

clearly explain what Cyprian had written in the earlier Primacy Text.

This remainder of my paper will assume that Cyprian is the author of both versions,

with the Primacy Text written in 251 against Novatianus and the Textus Receptus in 252 for

the African council. The historical construction will go as follows: Cyprian learned about the

controversy regarding the election of Cornelius in Rome soon before the meeting of the

council in the spring of 251. He sent emissaries to Rome to find out about the fact. During

the meeting of the council, he addressed them with De Lapsis. A couple of months later,

upon finding out that Cornelius was the rightful bishop, he composed the Primacy Text and

sent it to Rome. During this time, losing the support of Cyprian, the Novatianist faction

attempted to gain control in North Africa. In the spring of 252, Cyprian addressed the

council with the Textus Receptus, to better explain what he meant in the earlier version, to

lend further support to Cornelius and to argue against the schismatic Novatian faction.

Summary of the Chapters

The text for De Ecclesiae that will be used for summary and analysis will be taken

from two of Maurice Bvenots works that complement each other. The first is De Lapsis

and De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate, which he wrote for Oxford University Press. The

second is The Lapsed, The Unity of the Catholic Church, which he wrote for the Ancient

Christian Writers series.

(1) Cyprian begins his treatise with combining a partial quote from Matt 5:13, You

are the salt of the earth, with an allusion to Matt 10:16 as a warning for his Christian hearers

to be on guard against the wiles of the enemy (Satan) in order to preserve their spiritual

 16

health. He then describes the nature of the enemy whose modus operandi is sneaky and

crafty. Many have fallen prey to him since the beginning of the world. However, when he

tried the same thing with Christ, he was beaten back through being detected and exposed.

Here, Cyprian asserts that because Christ was on his guard against Satans scheme, he was

able to expose Satan and beat him.

(2) Cyprian exhorts his hearers to follow the example of Christ in order to be

victorious and not stumble unto death. He emphasizes the need to follow the command of

Christ to preserve ones salvation and immortality, and not to falter. In this chapter, Cyprian

again emphasized the need to follow Christs command by being on guard against Satans

scheme.

(3) In this chapter, Cyprian continues to urge his hearers of the need to be on guard,

especially to the hidden schemes of the enemy, which might be hard to detect. He explains

that upon the believers turn towards Christ, the enemy intensifies and changes his method of

attack with a new type of deceit. This deceit masks itself as Christian doctrine. This leads to

people who think they are Christians, but are actually walking in darkness, because they have

been deceived by the Enemy. He explains that the reason for their falling away is because

they do not look at the origin of their church, they do not look at the source of how they

came to be, and they do not keep Gods teaching.

(4) Both the Primacy Text and Texus Receptus begin the same way. Continuing to

explain what the source and origin are from the previous chapter, Cyprian quotes from

Matt 16:18-19 as the compendio veritatis (or summed up in a matter of fact) of the proof of

faith.11 This quotation serves as Cyprians beginning discourse of what unity is. He uses the

11
Cyprian, in Epistle 33.1, gives a more in depth explanation regarding his understanding of this
passage. In the epistle he explains, From this source flows the appointment of bishops and the organization of

 17

terms oneness and unity to mean the same thing. In regard to compendio veritatis,

Bvenot wrote, It is not abstract truth or teaching that is meant, but Christs action with

regard to Peter.12 From this point, the two versions differ in their content.

(4.a. Primacy Text) The text continues to argue Christs appointment of Peter as the

authority by quoting from John 21:17, showing that Christ has entrusted Peter to feed his

sheep. While all the apostles have the same power, Peter was the one given authority. The

source and hallmark of the Churchs unity originated from the appointment of Peter. Cyprian

asserts that because primacy is given to Peter, thus there is one church and one chair.

Bvenot wrote that this phrase refers to Peter having been empowered first as a starting

point.13 A Catholic scholar named Russel Murray wrote an article that supports this view by

stating that Peters primacy was meant to be temporal, not ontological.14 Cyprian ended the

chapter by posing two parallel rhetorical questions to emphasize the same point: If a man

does not hold on to the oneness of Peter, how can he be in faith?; If a man deserted the

Chair of Peter how can he be in the church? The phrase oneness of Peter and Chair of

Peter both mean the same thing, the unity that originated from Peter by Christs initiative,

and was later passed down. These rhetorical questions serve as Cyprians indictment against

the schismatic faction, which refers to Novatianus and those who follow him. To Cyprian, it

is lineage that determines the genuineness of the church. The church was started with one

the Church, with bishop succeeding bishop down through the course of time, so that the Church is founded upon
bishop and every act of the Church is governed through these same appointed leaders.
12
Bvenot, The Lapsed, 102.
13
Ibid, 104.
14
Russel Murray, Assessing the Primacy: A Contemporary Contribution from the Writings of St.
Cyprian of Carthage, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 47 (2012): 50.

 18

congregation and one leader, Peter. Through that lineage, it descended and expanded into

multiple leaders and their congregations, but sharing one bond, that they all belong to the

same church. To start a rival church, regardless of doctrinal similarities, is to leave the

lineage that can be traced back to Peter.

(4.b. Textus Receptus) This text continues on to assert that Christ builds the church

on one man, alluding to Peter (who was mentioned at the beginning of the chapter). Cyprian

then quotes John 20:21-23 and refers to the equal distribution of the Holy Spirit to all

apostles as proof of their equal power. However, in order to discern the unity among them,

Christ established an authority, namely Peter, as a source of that unity. In a very clear

statement on the starting point of authority from Peter, Cyprian further explains that although

all apostles were equal, the start [of the authority] comes from him [Peter] alone, in order to

show that the church of Christ is unique. He supports this by quoting from the first portion

of Cant 6:9 to allegorize the young mans love for one specific woman as Gods love being

for one specific church. Cyprian then ended chapter four with the same type of rhetorical

questions as in the Primacy Text except the phrase oneness of Peter is now replaced with

oneness of the Church.

The rhetorical question that contains the phrase Chair of Peter in the Primacy Text

is now completely taken out and replaced by invoking the apostle Paul with the phrase

mystery of oneness that relates to Eph 4:4-6, which he quoted in full. If this text can be

safely assumed to have been written at a later date by Cyprian, it make sense that the longer

reading of the Textus Receptus functions as a further explanation of what was written in the

shorter Primacy Text.

 19

(5.a. Textus Receptus) Only this version has a supplemental beginning for chapter

five. Here Cyprian exhort his hearers, especially his fellow bishops, to insist on unity to

show that episcopal power is one and undivided. He warns against anyone misleading other

Christians with a lie that corrupts the true content of the faith (referring to the oneness of the

church).

(5) In what is the clearest sentence as to what Cyprian meant by unity he wrote, The

episcopate is one, of which each holds his part in its totality. Bvenot asserts that in this

sentence, Cyprian sees that the episcopal authority throughout the church is all derived from

Peter.15 Cyprian then compares the unity of the church with metaphors of sunlight, tree

branches, and a water spring. If these are cut off from the source, they will not survive. Even

though they are continuously expanding outward to the world, they share one source, just like

the church. He ended the chapter by adding a new image of a mother as the source, and her

offspring as those who are in the church.

(6) In this chapter, Cyprian modified the mother imagery. Now the church is also

described as the bride of Christ who is faithful and unwaveringly committed. She rescues

for God and seals, by confirmation, the sons she bore for the kingdom. He who separates

himself from the church, is a stranger, a worldling, and an enemy. He does not have God as

his Father if he does not have the church as his mother. Cyprian then likens the church to

Noahs ark and those perishing outside the ark as outside the church. He quotes Matt 12:30

as a warning by equating the schismatic faction was doing as scattering against Christ. Then,

quoting from John 10:30 and 1 John 5:8, Cyprian likens the unity of the Triune God as the

sustenance and model of the unity of the church. By not keeping the unity, one not keeping

the law of God has lost faith about the Father and Son, and lost his life and soul.

15
Bvenot, The Lapsed, 107.

 20

(7) Further explaining the mystery of oneness and its unbreakability, Cyprian utilizes

two Scripture verses to support his understanding of unity. First, the narrative in John 19:23

is used as a positive argument for the indivisibility of the church. He points out that because

the tunic of Christ was not divided, so also the people of Christ cannot be divided. He then

quotes and alludes from 1 Kgs 11:29-36. He contrasts the tunic of Christ with the prophet

Ahijahs torn garment. To Cyprian, the garment of Christ is a sacred symbol for the unity of

the church.

(8) As he continues to speak against those who attempt to divide the church (a hinted

reference to the Novatianist party), Cyprian continues to scripturally describe the unity of the

church by quoting from John 10:16 (one flock, one shepherd), 1 Cor 1:10 (knit together), and

Eph 4:2 (striving to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace).16 Using rhetorical

questions, he asserts that the betrayer, who leaves the church and sets up a new place and a

separate house for himself, will not survive. Using a play on the word house, he points

out three houses in the Old Testament as types of the church. He first quotes from Josh

2:18, when Rahab and her relatives survived by staying inside her house as commanded by

the Israelites. Then he quotes from Exod 12:46, when the Israelites were told to eat the

Passover lamb inside the house. This is a reference to the sacred meal, and that Christs flesh

and body cannot be eaten outside. Thus, it is impossible for the schismatic to have a true

Lords Supper. He then closes with Ps 68:6. His rendering of the passage is God who made

those who are of one mind to dwell in one house. However, this rendering is problematic.17

16
Ibid, 111.
17
The ESV rendering of the passage from Ps 68:6 is God settles the solitary in a home. The
solitary in the BHS is , in the LXX it is , and in the Vulgate is unius moris. However,
Cyprians Latin Bible renders it as unanimes which translate as who are of one mind. Cyprians version
closely relates to Douay-Rheims version, God who maketh men of one manner to dwell in a house (67:7).

 21

(9) Proceeding forward, Cyprian again invokes the image of a dove. He argues that it

was the form the Holy Spirit chose to assume because of the gentleness and tameness of the

animal. The church is then likened to the dove in its gentle temperament. It loves being

together, sharing with each other, and living in peace and harmony with each other. In

contrast, those who break away are comparable to fierce wolves, mad dogs, venomous

snakes, and wild beasts. Their breaking away is a blessing because they were never part of

the church and their influence poses a danger to the doves and sheep of Christ. Cyprian

quotes from 1 John 2:19 to affirm that because they went out, they were never a part of the

church.

(10) Having finished his discourse on unity, Cyprian now turns to the reason why

troubles such as heresies and schisms arise. He contends from 1 Cor 11:19 that God allows it

so that both those who are faithful and unfaithful may be manifested before the Day of

Judgment. In what is the clearest reference to Novatian, Cyprian describes certain people

who attempt to falsely take the title of bishop by their own authority. He refers to Ps 1:1 and

to the schismatic party as being sitting in the chair of pestilence.18 He ends this chapter by

denouncing them.

(11) Cyprian continues denouncing these betrayers by comparing them to the false

prophets in Jer 23:16, 21, and unfaithful Israel in Jer 2:13. He also denounces the baptism

that the Novatianist faction performs as useless for washing sins away.19 He asserts that their

18
ESV, seat of scoffers.
19
Cyprian seems to think that the baptism ritual has a sin-cleansing effect. He also mentions this in Ad
Donatum 4.

 22

baptism added to their sins and instead of a new birth unto God, they were born unto the

devil. Through their schism, they have broken the peace of the Lord.

(12) Cyprian then points out a passage from Matt 18:20, wherever two or three are

gatheredI am with them, that might be used by the schismatic faction to argue that God is

with them. He denounces their interpretation of it and then proceeds to exegete the passage

in its rightful context from verse 19, showing that the verses highlight that for those in the

church, their agreement with each other in prayer, even if they are few in number, will bring

the presence of God.

(13) Cyprian continues to point out that God is not at peace with someone when he

has strife against his brother in his heart. He does this by quoting from Mark 11:25. He poses

three interrelated rhetorical questions that state the foolishness of the dissenters to think they

have peace when they are outside the church.

(14) Even if the dissenters die under persecution as martyrs, Cyprian thinks that their

death and confession would not remove their guilt before God. Those who truly belong to

God have a certain characteristic that makes them long for unity. That characteristic is their

love for the brethren. Quoting from 1 Cor 13:2-5,7; John 15:12; and 1 John 4:16, Cyprian

asserts that those who abide in God love one another. He who refuses to be of one mind with

the church lacks this characteristic. Though he professes to be a Christian and suffers for the

name, he is deceiving himself.

(15) Cyprian continues with a quotation from Matt 7:22 to make the same point he

made in the previous chapter. One can deceive oneself that he or she is a Christian if one

does not obey Gods command. He then quotes Mark 12:29-31, and shows that Gods main

 23

command is a command for unity and love. Through a rhetorical question, he makes the

point that the dissenters do not possess unity and love because of their schismatic action.

(16) Turning to describe the nature of those who had fallen away, Cyprian argues

that the situation is the realization of what the Scripture has foretold in 2 Tim 3:1-9. He

equates the Novatianist faction with those who had fallen away.

(17) Since, according to Cyprian the schismatic situation has been forewarned in the

Scripture, he now encourages his hearers to not be troubled, but instead to be on guard

according to Scriptures exhortation in Mark 13:21. He then proceeds to implore his hearers

to stay away from the schismatic people by appealing to Sirach 28:28, and 1 Cor 15:33.20 He

implies that they are the blind men who lead the blind, as in Matt 15:14. Then he alludes to

the divisive man in Tit 3:11 as equally applicable to the man who separated himself from the

Church and acts in opposition to the bishops of Christ (a subtle allusion to Novatianus).

Cyprian condemns the divisive man as the enemy because he sets up a rival church and

traditions, and predicts his divine punishment by God.

(18) To further support his point, Cyprian draws a parallel between the divisive man

from the previous chapter with a number of figures who received Gods punishment in the

narrative accounts of the OT. They are: Core, Dathan, and Abiron against Moses in Numbers

16; King Uzziah against Azarias in 2 Chronicles 26; and Aarons children in Leviticus 10.

To Cyprian, these Old Testament figures serve as a warning that any attempt against

divinely-ordained authority is an insurrection attempt against God himself.

(19) The schismatic faction, by their strange doctrines and implementation of their

own authority, has followed and imitated the fallen Old Testament figures mentioned in the

20
Hedge in thy ears with thorns, hear not a wicked tongue (Douay-Rheims). Cyprian quoted this
verse also in Ad Quirinum 3.95 and in Epistle 59.20, 66:7.

 24

previous chapter. Now turning to the New Testament, Cyprian charges that they are also

committing the same act as the Pharisees did in Mark 7:9. To Cyprian, they have committed

a greater crime than that of the lapsed. He draws a distinction between the schismatic faction

and the lapsed. The lapseds sin, he insists, only hurt themselves, while the schismatic faction

hurt and drag others with them. The lapsed are also visibly repentant over their sin and can

be restored to the church via martyrdom, whereas the schismatic are proud of their schism

and their martyrdom will not grant them the reward of the church (salvation of the soul).

Here, the Primacy Text does not have the word lapsed, but uses instead the word

sacrificati. It also changes the demonstrative pronouns here and there so it would be

grammatically correct.21

(20) Cyprian now turns to address the issue of the existence of confessors among the

schismatic factions.22 He first tells his hearers that they should not be surprised to see

confessors among the schismatics. He then contends that confessors are susceptible to the

devils snare, temptation, and surprise attack. He then goes on to list a number of sins that

known confessors have fallen into. Then he uses Solomon as an example of someone who is

closer to God than the confessors to show that even Solomon lost Gods favour when he left

Gods ways. Cyprian affirms the need to hold fast (Rev 3:11) to retain the crown.

(21) Cyprian then explains what the nature of a true confessor of Christ looks like.

He insists that the act of confession in the midst of persecution is not an achievement, but

rather a beginning step towards walking in perseverance to the end (Matt 10:22; 24:13). Then

21
Bvenot, The Lapsed, 120.
22
Confessors were generally regarded highly by the Christian community in Cyprians time, due to
their refusal to sacrifice to pagan gods and steadfast confession of Christ during the persecution.

 25

he explains that the one who confessed is in a greater danger, because the Enemy has been

provoked by his confession. Subsequently, he lists three responsibilities for those who had

confessed. First, a confessor has to strive for a greater loyalty to the Gospel (and by

extension, to the church). Secondly, a confessor is to be humble and peaceful in his behavior.

Thirdly, a confessor is not to cause the name of Christ to be blasphemed through his speech

and conduct. If he causes dissension and breaking up the harmony by leaving the church, his

past confession would only increase that retribution awaits him.

(22) Closing the discourse on the false confessors, Cyprian shows that Judas is an

example of one who had left the Church. Then, quoting Rom 3:3, he tells his hearers that the

acts of faithlessness of some of the confessors do not taint the majority of them. The true

confessors, who are the majority of them, have refused to join the schismatic faction. They

stand stronger in faith and are more deserving of praise for their desire to maintain the unity

of Christ.

(23) Having made his case, Cyprian now turns to address those among his hearers

who are following the schismatic faction. He uses the image of mother as the church once

again and urges those who had followed the schismatic faction to return and stay in the

church to make the mother happy and not sad. He urges them to break away from their

schismatic leaders if they persist in their division. Cyprian continues to plead for them,

regardless how they were led astray, to come back to the church. He appeals to them by

quoting from 2 Thess 3:6 and Eph 5:6-7, to withdraw from the schismatic who is engaging in

sin and has left the true way. Then, he emphasizes again the unity of the church by stating

three facts. God is one, a reference to the unity of the Triune God. Christ is one,

perhaps a reference to Rom 12:5 and 1 Cor 12:12. The Church is one. He explains: one

 26

is the faith and one the people cemented together by harmony into the strong unity of a body.

He states again that this unity is impossible to be divided.

(24) Turning to Scripture, Cyprian quotes Ps 34:12-14. He concentrates on the last

sentence, seek peace and pursue it and builds upon the application with a backing of

numerous of Scripture verses concerning peace. The Christian, as a son of peace must

seek and pursue peace. Alluding to 1 Pet 3:10, he states that a son of peace must restrain

his tongue from evil dissension. He then partially quotes John 14:27, Peace I commit to you,

my peace I give you. He explains that the passage means that through the maintenance of

peace, the believer can be assured of the promise of Gods gifts and rewards. He then gives

two conditional statements. The protasis is Cyprians understanding of Christians identity as

heirs of Christ and sons of God. The apodosis are the acts that need to be carried out if

the protasis is true. The term heir of Christ cannot be found in Scripture. Cyprian may

have mistakenly tried to allude to Rom 8:17 here, in which the term is fellow heirs with

Christ. Regardless, it is clear what Cyprian is addressing the believers. The apodosis for the

heir of Christ is to abide in the peace of Christ. This is a reference to Col 3:15. The next

conditional statement uses sons of God as the protasis and the lovers of peace as the

apodosis. This is a clear reference to Matt 5:9. He continues to lists qualities that sons of

God must posses to be lovers of peace. Those qualities are peacemaker, a gentle heart,

guileless of tongue, harmonious sentiment, and most importantly to Cyprian, sincerely

attached to one another by the bond of common mind.

(25) The last three chapters follow one another closely. There is a statement, a

contrastive evaluation of reality, and an appeal. Cyprian begins with a statement that the

qualities he had listed in the last chapter (desire to have a common mind among the

 27

believers), used to be prevalent at the time of the early church. In the past, they obeyed Gods

commands and maintained love for one another.23 He points to Acts 4:32 and 1:14 as proof.

He also states that their unity was the reason why their prayers were effective.

(26) This chapter begins with the contrastive conjunction but. Cyprian explains

that the reality of their current action is far different from what the saints in the past had

practiced. This is due to their weakened unity of mind that has also caused the weakening of

their love for one another. The generosity that was demonstrated by the apostles in the past,

such as the selling of their properties and giving them away to the church for those in need

because of their trust of the heavenly realities, are not practiced anymore. Instead, in the

current situation, the believers do not even give a part of their inheritance as tithe. Not

following the examples of the early church, they accumulate instead of giving. This caused

them to have a withering faith that cannot persevere. Cyprian obviously sees a correlation

between the increase of ones desire of making oneself wealthy in this world with the

weakening of ones faith in Christ. He then quotes from Luke 18:8 to say that this situation

has been foretold by the Lord. Cyprian emphasizes the statement will he find faith on

earth? and states that this is a prediction that has become a reality before him. He then gives

a long list of implications because of the inexistence of faith: the lack of the motivation to

fear God, no sense of justice, not to love, not to do good works, disregard for the future

judgment, punishment by God for betraying him, and not fearing what a believing conscience

ought to fear. Cyprian ends this chapter by recalling the warning in the beginning of the

treatise with a conditional sentence as a proposal. If only they believed, they would be on

23
The word charity is used in the text instead of love. In the Cyprians Bible, both means the same
thing, being the translation of the Latin word caritas.

 28

guard. If they were on guard, then they would have escaped the consequence of future

judgment.

(27) This last chapter is Cyprians final appeal to his hearers. Using the first person

plural pronoun, he gives a series of cohortative statements to appeal to his hearers to take

actions together with him. First, he urges them to the breaking off the sleep of our past

inertia (what Cyprian had in mind here must be a change in attitude and action) and to pay

attention to Gods commands. Secondly, he bids them to observe the command from Luke

12: 35-37, which is to be on guard and to watch for the Lords coming. Thirdly, he calls for

them to let their light shine in good works. To Cyprian, good works is a light that leads the

believers from the darkness of the world into the eternal light, which is God. Let our light

shine in good works, so that it may lead us from the darkness of this world into the spendour

of eternal light. This phrase shows the motivation of Cyprians generosity and the disregard

of the pagan culture that he came out of. Lastly, he reemphasizes the appeal to alertly stand

on guard together and wait for the sudden coming the Lord. The treatise closes with two

conditional statements. If all these appeals were observed, then they will not be deceived by

the devil in their sleep. If they are watchful like a servant, they will reign as kings when

Christ comes.

The Unity in De Unitate

It is important to see how Cyprian composed De Unitate in order to understand his

concept of unity. This section will consist of two steps. First, it will examine the structure of

the treatise. Cyprians flow of arguments has to be identified in order to understand the usage

of words in its own context. This leads to the next step, which is to analyze the discourse

within the treatise. By looking into the context in which the sentences, metaphors, and Bible

 29

references that are used by Cyprian, we can draw conclusions regarding his understanding of

the concept of unity.

The Structure of the Treatise

The summary of the chapters shows that the treatise is divided into four different

sections. Each section contains its own emphasis that flows from one to the other and makes

up the whole discourse. The first section is from chapter 1-3. The second section is from

chapter 4-9. The third section begins at chapter 10-22. The fourth and final section

encompasses chapters 23-27. Here is the rationale behind these divisions.

Chapters one to three begin the treatise by talking about the nature of the Enemy and

those whom he beguiled. Cyprian starts by reminding his hearers of the need to be on guard

against the Enemys deception. The danger of the Enemys deception is the loss of salvation

and one needs to triumph against him by following the example of Christ by following Gods

commands. The Enemy will intensify his attack on new converts by masking his deceit as

Christian doctrine. Some have fallen prey to his deceit and presumptuously thought they are

still Christians. They fell prey to the deceit because they did not look at how they and their

church come about and keep Gods teaching.

Chapters four to nine form the next section of Cyprians thought. This is the major

section of his explanation of church unity in this treatise. He gets right to the issue by stating

that the origin and source of the reality of the church was founded upon Peter by quoting

Matt 16:18-19. Cyprian argues that the church begins with Peter as the first to be

empowered over the other apostles. To Cyprian, ones empowerment to office over others is

the sign of visible unity of the church. In the Textus Receptus, he quotes Cant 6:9 to

allegorically compare the young mans desire and delight for one woman to Gods love for

 30

one church. For Cyprian, the church is unique and there are no others. He goes further to

explain the visible unity formed by the authority of various bishops who represent their area

of authority. To Cyprian, this unity is indivisible. He compared its indivisibility to sunlight,

tree branches, and water springs. The unity came from a single starting point, a reference to

Peter, which spreads out. The source of unity is also compared to a mother, which he equates

to the bride of Christ. Separated from this source, one cannot survive on ones own, just

like those who were outside the Noahs Ark. The harmony within the unity is compared to

the harmony within the Trinity. That harmony and bond of the unity is unbreakable, just like

Christs tunic. He then starts to compare the nature and attitude of those who are in the

church with those who are in the schismatic faction. He presents the image of competing

houses. Those who are in the church are in the genuine house with the genuine sacred meal

that cannot be shared outside. They live in a harmonious spirit. The reason for harmony in

the unity is because of the influence of the Holy Spirit who has a gentle temperament like a

dove and he shapes the soul of true believers. Those who break away do not have this gentle

temperament because they are not saved and do not have the Spirit. Instead, they have a

violent temperament and were never really a part of the church.

The next section consists of chapters ten to twenty-two. This section deals with

Cyprians arguments about the nature and characters of the schismatic party who left and

oppose the church. He listed the reasoning behind the schism, their mishandling of Gods

word, and the foretelling of them in Scripture. In itself, this section breaks down into two

divisions. The first is from chapters ten to fifteen, which function as pointing out the reason

for the schismatic party following the heresy (that caused to the breakaway) is due to their

own disgruntled mind. This has been foretold in Scripture. Cyprian denounces them and

 31

points out their misuse of Matt 18:20 to justify their own gathering. Even if they had died in

persecution as martyrs, the lack of love for the gathering of the genuine church marked

them as being false Christians and spiritually outside of the church. The second division,

which encompasses chapters sixteen to twenty-two, contains Cyprians attempt to expand on

his earlier statement that the schism has been foretold in Scripture. He does this by pointing

to statements by Christ and the apostles and examples of various Old Testament and New

Testament figures who at one time followed Moses and Christ, but had fallen away. In the

same way, one should not be surprised if the confessors were among the schismatic faction.

The last section, consisting of chapters twenty-three to twenty-seven, is mainly

composed of Cyprians exhortations and appeals. In a gentle reconciliatory tone, those who

had dissented are urged to return by appealing to various Scripture verses. In the last three

chapters, he exhorts them to follow the examples of the early church in their desire for unity

and striving for peace with one another. By reminding them of how he began his treatise,

Cyprian proposes that if one were to be watchful, then they will not be deceived.

Cyprians Concept of Unity

This paper has established that Cyprian first published De Ecclesiae Catholicae

Unitate in 251 to address the power struggle in Rome. The structure of the treatise shows that

the discourse is divided into four sections:

1) The exhortation for obedience to Gods command (Ch. 1-3)

2) The concept of unity (Ch. 4-9)

3) The cause of disunity (Ch. 10-22)

4) The appeal for unity (Ch. 23-27).

 32

The analysis of Cyprians concept of unity in the remainder of this paper will be

centered mostly on the second section. Cyprian composed this section with four components

that made up his discourse on the concept of unity. The first component is the origin and

source of unity; the second is the expansion of unity from one source; the third looks at

the incorruptibility and indivisibility of church unity; and finally the fourth component is

focused on the fact that those who are outside of unity will perish.

The Origin and Source of Unity

The first component of his discourse on the concept of unity is focused on the

foundation of unity. Cyprian terms it as the origin and source of unity. He starts chapter

four by asserting the construct of his concept of unity with a quotation from Matt 16: 18-19,

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell

shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever

you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed

in heaven (ESV). With these verses, he begins to argue for the lineage of the true church as

it is traced back to its founding by Christ upon one man, Peter. Michael Fahey wrote: The

text, as Cyprian uses it, is not cited to argue a form of jurisdictional primacy for the Roman

bishop; rather it is cited to emphasize the oneness of the Church founded by Christ first upon

the person of Peter in order to provide an effective symbol of its oneness.24 This is further

affirmed in the Primacy Text by a quotation from John 21:17, Feed my sheep. To Cyprian,

the usage of this verse implies that Christ has entrusted his sheep to Peter to be fed. Cyprian

took Jesus charge to Peter as personal in nature, since he did not charge the other apostles

24
Michael Andrew Fahey, Cyprian and the Bible: a Study in Third- Century Exegesis (Tbingen: J. C.
B. Mohr, 1971), 309.

 33

with the same command. Thus, the charge to Peter to feed Christs sheep is seen by Cyprian

as his appointment to be a leader whose function is to feed the sheep.

To explain the importance of understanding unity in regard to Christs appointment of

Peter as leader, Cyprian uses the words source and hallmark. The word source is

mentioned at the end of chapter three. There, Cyprian argues that part of the reason why the

schismatic party (whom he labeled as false Christians) fall away, is their neglect of their

source. In chapter four of the Primacy Text, Cyprian explains what that source is: he

(Jesus) founded a single chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark

of oneness.25 The context of this source is that the church begins with an event, namely

Christs appointment of Peter as the first authority over believers, which is the hallmark of

the true church.

Cyprian uses the phrase primacy is given to Peter in the Primacy Text. Much ink

has been spilled in the discussion over the meaning of the word primacy, since the word

can be interpreted as the superiority of Peter over the other bishops. Cyprians use of this

verse has been wrongly used many times by the Roman Catholic Church as a proof verse for

papal supremacy. However, this is not supported by the recent scholarship. Bevnot wrote,

To translate primatus by the primacy is to contradict the context which speaks of all the

apostles being equal in power, equally shepherds.26 Walker also wrote, when Cyprian

ascribes a primatus to Peterhe means that Peter was the first of the apostles to be chosen;

his primacy is a priority in time and not a supreme jurisdiction.27 Cyprians usage of the

25
Cyprian, Unitate, 4.
26
Bvenot, The Lapsis, 103.
27
Walker, The Churchmanship, 26.

 34

word primacy has to be understood as having the effect of seniority limited to the lifetime

of Peter and with the scope of the particular people he was with. It is not an all-

encompassing office of papal supremacy that is being argued by, as proponent of Roman

Catholic Church would have it since that type of government did not exist during Cyprians

time. The church begins with the bequeathing of authority to Peter as the first leader over an

immediate body of believers. This appointment of Peter over the body of believers then

constitutes one church and one chair. This is meant to show the uniqueness of the church

and that there are no others. Using a hypothetical construct, Cyprian further argues that even

if all of the apostles function as shepherds (just in case his interpretation of John 21:17 is not

convincing) all of the believers still constitute one flock, which has all the leaders in

common agreement.

Lastly, in the final two sentences in chapter four of the Primacy Text, Cyprian uses

the phrase, oneness of Peter and Chair of Peter in two rhetorical questions. Oneness of

Peter is a phrase that looks back at the unity that has its origin in Peters appointment to

leadership by Christ. This meaning is supported by the previous sentences. But more

importantly, it is also supported by the accompanying rhetorical question that uses the phrase

Chair of Peter, because the phrase Chair of Peter is further qualified by the clause upon

whom the Church was built. The past tense of this clause signifies that the Chair of Peter

was an event that functions as an origin.28 This is why, for Cyprian, regardless of whether

the Novatianist faction holds to the same doctrinal confession as him, it is still not a true

church because it cannot trace the lineage of its founding to the appointment of Peter by

Christ.

28
As Bvenot rightly argue, the meaning of chair of Peter in the whole context of the sentence is
against the support of papal authority. See Bvenot, The Lapsis, 104.

 35

Cyprian may have sensed that chapter four of the Primacy Text might be too obscure,

or perhaps he saw the need to better explain what he meant earlier, so he modified the

Primacy Text into the Textus Receptus. Cyprian further explained what he means by

source in this version. His argument is constructed similarly with the earlier version.

However, it has further expansion for explanation and some unclear terms are replaced with

clearer ones.

The word source is used in a similar way. However, the word primacy is now

replaced with origin. He (Jesus) established by his own authority a source for that

oneness having its origin in one man alone. The use of origin better reflects Cyprians

mind that he meant primacy as an event. Cyprian also expands on what he meant by one

church and one chair in the Primacy Text by emphasizing the uniqueness of the church in

the Textus Receptus. No doubt the other apostles were all that Peter was, endowed with

equal dignity and power, but the start comes from him alone, in order to show that the church

of Christ is unique. He further emphasized the uniqueness by quoting from Cant 6:9, My

dove, my perfect one, is the only one, the only one of her mother, pure to her who bore her.

(ESV). He does this in order to compare Gods specific love for the church as unique, and

that the church uniquely belongs to him.

In chapter nine, Cyprian also uses the word dove in a discourse about unity.

Bvenot regards the image of dove as significant for both chapters four and nine.29

However, in chapter nine, its usage is limited to a biblical representation of the Holy Spirit

(Matt 3:16). The dove in chapter nine represents a god-like animal whose gentle

temperament is to be imitated by believers. On the other hand, the word dove in the Song

29
Bvenot, The Lapsis, 105, 112.

 36

of Solomon quotation of chapter four is specifically used only as an expression of

endearment.30 Moreover, the dove in this passage has a possessive first person singular

pronoun my before it. My dove is equated with the expressions my perfect one and

the only one. In this discourse for the concept of church unity, the emphasis is not on the

word dove. Rather, it is on the word one. Cyprians quotation of Cant 6:9 begins with

Una est columba mea which roughly translates to one is my dove. The Latin una

correspond to the BHS

and LXX . Bvenot rightly translates una in this instance as

unique and not one or united, which corresponds to the ESV rendering.31 Therefore,

the reason for Cyprians use of this verse is to emphasize the church as the unique, solitary

object of Gods affection. This uniqueness is due to its source in the event of Christs

appointment of Peter as its origin.

After explaining his understanding of the source and origin of unity, Cyprian

now emphasizes the need for believers to abide in that source and origin of unity by quoting

from Eph 4:4-6. Cyprian rightly understood that the context of these verses is the

implications of the apostle Pauls imperative in verses 1-3 when he calls for the Ephesians to

live in a certain manner in order to maintain the harmony in unity, which is why he uses it as

part of a rhetorical question for the purpose of demonstrating that those who left the church

have left the teaching of apostle Paul.

A good analogy to understand Cyprians concept of the source and origin of

church unity is by looking at Wendys restaurant franchise. The founder of Wendys, Dave

Thomas, started his first restaurant in Columbus, Ohio in 1969. He named the restaurant after

his fourth child, Melinda Wendy Thomas. Over time, the restaurant grew to have many

30
The word dove occurs in Cant 2:14, 5:2, 6:9.
31
Bvenot, The Lapsis, 105.

 37

franchises all over the world. They all bear the same name and trace their source to that one

restaurant in Columbus, Ohio, that was originated by one man. Now, in 2015, an overseas

student who has once worked part-time at a Wendys franchise may move back to China and

start a hamburger joint that uses the same type of ingredients. He may also put out a banner

carrying the name, Wendys. However, it is not authentic and cannot trace its source and

origin to the restaurant in Columbus, Ohio. In the same way, Cyprians view of church unity

has its source and origin in the event of Christs appointment of Peter as the hallmark of the

genuine church. The schismatic faction may start a rival church with the same doctrines. But

to Cyprian, they are not a part of the church since they cannot trace their source and origin

to Christs appointment of Peter. The appointment of Peter is a symbolic factor of unity. By

setting up a rival church, the schismatic party has abandoned their root in Peter, fallen into

unbelief, and lost their salvation. Thus, Cyprians concern is not that the Novatianist party is

breaking up the church, rather that they are leading others astray by their act of schism.

The Expansion of Unity from One Source

The second component of Cyprians concept of unity builds upon the first one. After

asserting that the unity of the church has its origin and source in the appointment of Peter,

Cyprian explains that out of this source, the church expands and spreads out. He now shifts

the discussion from the source of unity, which has its origin in Peters appointment of

authority, to the nature of the office of bishop. Cyprian is explaining that from their lineage

to Peter, the bishops share one common bond of unity. It is possible that here, he is covertly

trying to rally support for the validity of Cornelius bishopric among his hearers. Historically,

Cyprian confirmed Cornelius validity to the office of Roman bishopric and supported him.

 38

His support for Cornelius was not based on a preference, but rather what he saw as a

legitimate successor, which can be traced back to Peter via appointment through election.

The crux of what Cyprian is trying to argue for in this component is found in chapter

five, which Bvenot translates thus: The authority of the bishops forms a unity, of which

each holds his part in its totality. And the church forms a unity, however far she spreads and

multiplies by the progeny of her fecundity. There are two sentences here that begin with

clauses that correspond with one another. One pertains to episcopal power. The other

pertains to the church. To understand the first clause in the first sentence, one has to

understand that the believers in a particular area confer the authority of the bishops upon

an individual through an election.32 This election comes as the tradition of the passing of

power that traces it origin from Peters appointment by Christ. Upon being elected, each

individual bishop has his own area where he exercises his power of bishopric in totality.

Cyprian is stating that all rightly-ordained bishops form a collective. He further writes, the

church forms a unity, regardless of how far it spreads out through spiritual propagation.33

Cyprian is stating in this sentence that as the church grows in its members, it is still a single

collective. The implication of both sentences seems to assert that as their elected bishops are

32
Original text, Episcopatus unus est which literally means (The) Episcopate is one. Bvenot
translates episcopatus as authority of bishops. The word also occurs in the accusative singular sense,
epicospatum, in chapter five of the Textus Receptus and in chapter ten. In their respective context, both seem to
indicate the power of the bishopric in the singular and plural collective sense. In chapter ten, it is plainly stated
that this episcopatum is something that is conferred upon.
33
Original text, Ecclesia una est.. which literally means, (The) Church is one.

 39

also collectively united, regardless of the differing area of their governance, the church is

also united, regardless of distance and people.34

From here, Cyprian moves on from the topic of the unity of authority to the unity

of the church. To explain how the church remains united even as she spreads out

geographically and numerically, Cyprian uses the three images from nature that have a

source and expansion relationship: the sun as the source and its rays as the expansion, a tree

root as the source and its branches as the expansion, a water spring as the source and streams

as the expansion. He explains that all of these images have their unity because of their

starting point. He did not explain what that starting point is, but if the context were to be

followed, it should mean that all churches trace their starting point to one event, the

appointment of Peter by Christ over the rest.

This treatise was written to support Cornelius bishopric. Arguing universally rather

than specifically addressing the situation in Rome, Cyprian is trying to give legitimacy to the

succession of the office of bishop regardless of their geographical location. By implication,

Cornelius appointment through election is being justified and seen as a part of the unity of

authority or episcopatus. However, this argument is the weakest in Cyprians discourse on

unity in the Scriptural sense. Whereas in other places Cyprian quotes and alludes to

Scripture to support his point, he mentions not one text here. He has to revert to examples

from nature to prove his argument.

34
This maybe viewed as Cyprians justification for his support of Cornelius, who was rightfully
elected as the bishop of Rome, which made him a rightful part of the collective.

 40

The Incorruptibility and Indivisibility of Church Unity

The third major component to the discourse on the concept of unity concerns the

nature of its structural strength. To Cyprian, the unity of the church is indivisible. The reason

for its indivisibility is because it is incorruptible since it is woven together and sustained by

God. He affirms this in the beginning of chapter six by painting the church as the bride of

Christ, alluding to 2 Cor 11:2 and Eph 5:24, to show that it belongs only to Christ. He uses

this image to emphasize that the churchs commitment to God alone makes it impossible to

be corrupted since corruption would lead to division. Using the image of a faithful bride, he

portrays the church as one [that] cannot be defiled, inviolate and chaste, [who]

knows one home alone, in all modesty she keeps faithfully to only one couch. Having

affirmed that the churchs commitment to God is unbreakable, Cyprian then listed two of its

main functions. It rescues us for God and seals for the kingdom the sons whom she has

bore. What Cyprian is trying to do here is to paint the church as an entity that is not

affected by its members falling away. To Cyprian, the church, as the collective of bishops

and believers who are united together, cannot be corrupted. It is clear that Cyprian meant

that the churchs commitment is to God alone. However, the phrases knows one home alone

and keeps faithfully to only one couch could also indirectly point to her origin in the

appointment of Peter by Christ. If the appointment of Peter is seen as an event that marks the

beginning of the church and the episcopacy bears the lineage that traces back to him, then

Cyprians assertion of the incorruptible unity of the church can be interpreted as being Gods

initiative in Peters beginning leadership that passes down and expands over time and is

sustained by Gods power.

 41

The sustenance of unity by Gods power is emphasized in two places. First, at the

end of chapter six, Cyprian points to the examples of the divine relationship between Christ

and the Father (John 10:30), and the Trinity (1 John 5:8). Cyprian states that the divine

relationship is where the unity is derived from and welded together. The stability of God

or de divina firmitate venientem (literally strength that comes from God) is where the unity

derives from. The celestial pattern or sacramentis caelestibus cohaerentem (literally

sacred heavenly uniting) is how it is welded together.35 To Cyprian, the plurality of the

persons of God and their heavenly union are the pattern and model for church unity.

Second, Cyprian states in chapter seven that this unity is portrayed by Christs tunic, a

reference to John 19:23. Cyprian uses allegorical interpretation of Christs tunic in the

gospel narrative by describing it as this holy mystery of oneness, this unbreakable bond of

close-knit harmony. He sees casting lots for Christs whole tunic as a typology for the unity

of the church, in that it is indivisible since it was acquired in whole. He then fully quoted the

verse and claims, the oneness with which He was clothed came from the upper part, that is,

from His Father in heaven, and could in no way be divided by any who came to acquire it: it

retained its well-knit wholeness indivisibility.

There are a few observations here for the tunic in chapter seven. First, to Cyprian, the

tunic is a symbolic representation of church unity. Second, the tunic was woven from the

upper part which should be understood that the unity of the church is as an initiative from

God. Third, since it is an initiative of God, it is indivisible. Fourth, the those in the phrase

35
The translations of both de divina firmimtate venientem and sacramentis caelestibus cohaerentem
are hard to understand in the literal sense. Though this paper will follow Bvenots dynamic translation, other
translation rendered them as: immutability of God and coheres in heavenly mysteries in Early Latin
Theology: Selections from Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Jerome, ed. S. L. Greenslade, The Library of
Christian Classics (1956; repr., Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006): 128; divine strength and divine
sacrament in Saint Cyprian: Treatises, trans. and ed., Roy J. Deferrari, The Father of The Church 36 (New
York: Fathers of The Church, 1958): 101.

 42

his coat, woven compactly as it was throughout, is not divided by those who acquire it may

be an allusion to the bishops. Thus, it is impossible for the bishops to break the unity of the

church. If this is true, then the contrast with the torn garment of the prophet Ahijah in 1 Kgs

11:29-36, in which the divided parts can be acquired and worn separately, would make sense.

Those who break away were never a part of Christs tunic to begin with. They are part of

something else with their pseudo-bishop who is leading a pseudo-congregation in a different

type of union. On the other hand, the bishops (since Cyprian uses the first person plural) are

those who have put on Christ, [and] form a people knit together in harmony.36

Those Who Are Outside of Unity Will Perish

The last component of Cyprians discourse on the concept of unity is his assertion

that those who exist outside of this unity will perish. One exists outside of unity by the act of

breaking oneself away from the unity. There is a clear reference to the Novatianist party and

their schismatic action in chapter eight. The act of breaking oneself away carries the

consequence of perishing, which means the loss of salvation. The proclamation that those

who are outside of the church unity will perish is scattered all throughout the whole discourse

on the concept of unity.

It has been determined that the origin and source of unity is the event of Peters

appointment to be the leader of the apostles. Towards the end of chapter four of the Primacy

Text, two rhetorical questions are posed in which two points were made. The ones who let

go of the oneness of Peter are not holding on to faith. The ones who desert the Chair of

Peter are not in the church. The corresponding rhetorical questions in the Textus Receptus

give the consequences, except that the oneness of Peter is changed to the oneness of the

36
Cyprian, De Unitate, 7.

 43

church and Chair of Peter to resist and withstand the church. For Cyprian, the

schismatic party is not holding on to faith and is more a part of the church.

In explaining the expansion of the church unity from a single source in chapter five,

Cyprian makes three comparisons with nature: sun rays, a water spring, and tree branches.

Cut off the suns rays and it will become darkness. Cut off the spring of water and it will dry

up. Cut off the tree-branch and the branch will die. The image portrayed is one of death or

perishing. Therefore, Cyprian is pointing out that by breaking themselves apart from the

church that was founded on Peter, the Novatianist party is perishing.

To show the depth of the criminality of the act of secession in chapter six, Cyprian

likens the atrociousness of the act to adultery, which carried greater significance in Cyprians

time. By committing it, one has become cut off from the goodness that God will give to the

church. Thus, Cyprian states that one who breaks away is a stranger, a worldly being, and an

enemy to the church. This is why to Cyprian, regardless of whether the schismatic party

claims that they are still worshipping God, they are doing it in vain if they do not hold union

with those who are in the church. They are not a part of it and they will receive none of its

benefits. Cyprian wrote in this chapter, You cannot have God for your Father if you have

not the church for your mother. The separation from the church is likened to being outside.

Being on the outside of the unity of the church is equal to being outside the Noahs ark

during the flood. Those who were not inside the ark perished.

Cyprian also feels the need to assert that regardless of the attempted acts of corruption

and division, the church is impossible to be violated, corrupted and divided. This is because

God sustains the strength of its unity. This unity is likened to Christs tunic that is indivisible

 44

since it is woven and held by God. If it is indivisible, then those who break away were never

a part of Christs tunic from beginning.

All these assertions lead to chapter eight where Cyprian sheds more light on the

characters of those who break away. The most important hint he gives us in regard to the

nature of schism is found in this phrase after he has quoted John 10:16, And does anyone

think that in any one place there can be more than one shepherd or more than one flock?.

The image of shepherd and flock shows that the schismatics were planning to erect a

rival church and rival bishop. This is a direct denunciation of Novatianus and his allies in

Rome. Cyprian accuses them of not keeping the apostle Pauls command in 1 Cor 1:10 and

Eph 4:2. He asserts again that those who are outside of the unity will perish. Do you think

a man can hold his own or survive, when he leaves the church and sets up a new place and a

separate house for himself? The imagery of separate house is now being used as the

representation of separate congregation. Since the Novatianist party is in a separate house,

by implication, they will perish because they are not in a house where safety is (Cyprian

quotes a reference to Rahab in Josh 2:18), and the true sacred meal is eaten (he makes a

reference to the Passover meal being eaten inside the house in Ex 12:46), and dwelling with

one mind (a reference to Ps 68:6).37 Lastly, in chapter nine, Cyprian describes the true nature

of those who break away. Cyprian charges that they dont have the Holy Spirit since they

seemingly live without the Spirits gentle influence upon them to live in harmony with other

believers. He asserts that their parting will lead them to the curse and the rod.

Therefore, throughout the discourse on the concept of church unity, Cyprian

continuously states that those who are outside of the unity will eventually perish. He does

this to give his support to Cornelius and strength to reprimand to Novatianus and his allies.

37
See above p.19.

 45

The construct that he uses for the concept of unity is Matt 16:18-19, which he quoted at the

beginning of chapter four. Within that text, aside from Peters appointment by Christ, there

is also the authority given to Peter of binding and loosing. Cyprian interprets the act of

binding and loosing rightly as church discipline. From the beginning of the treatise in

section one, he made a charge that the schismatic party have followed Satans deception. In

section two, as he gives the construct of the concept of unity, he also lists what they are

guilty of. By their dissension from Cornelius, they had abandoned the true authority that can

be traced to Peter. Inspired by Matthew 16, Cyprian moves to discipline them by putting

them outside the church. This is done by the use of this component within the discourse in

this section as well as throughout the whole treatise.

CONCLUSION

Cyprian is an early church figure who is unique. He does not fit into any mold of

other early church figures. It is hard to find someone who is like him throughout church

history. He was highly revered by Augustine and John Calvin. His theological treatises do

not carry as much significance when compared to other early church fathers, yet his works

lays the foundation as one of the earliest writing on ecclesiastical matters.

So what is the church according to Cyprian? A couple of years after the writing of

De Ecclesiae, in an epistle that Cyprian wrote to Florentius he says, the church consists of

the people who remain united with their bishop.1 To him, the office of bishop carries a great

significance. The crux of his concept on church unity is based on Matt 16:18-19, in which

the event of Christs appointment of Peter is seen as the foundation for the church. For him,

the only true bishops are those who are elected by their flock and can trace their succession

all the way back to Peter. The church is composed of people who follow their bishops who

came to office through this means. However, this begs the question: Why is it that Cyprian

argues for Matt 16:18-19 as his foundation for unity when there are many other verses in

Scripture that seem more appropriate?

To answer that question, let us examine some facts about his life. Cyprian was

baptized at a much later age in life. He entered the Christian life as an older and mature man.

According to Michael Sage, Cyprians Ad Donatum portrays his conversion as the result of a

1
Cyprian, Epistle 66.8.3

46
 47

long and arduous disillusionment with the world of paganism.2 He had training as a rhetor.

This shows that he is a man who was accustomed to deep thinking. His generosity at the

sacrifice of his wealth demonstrates that he desired to pay all costs necessary to follow Jesus

Christ. Perhaps due to the display of his generosity and ability as a deep thinker, he was

quickly brought to a position of presbyter and later bishop within the span of a couple of

years after his baptism. This was sure to be unpopular among the older established

presbyters and churchgoers. This background helps in discerning his mentality as he took the

office of the bishop of Carthage.

When the Decian persecution broke out in 251, he was still a novice bishop. Although

he was rightly elected, he was opposed by some of the older establishment. His decision to

go into hiding during this persecution provided ammunition for his detractors to attack his

legitimacy. He withstood both the external persecution and internal opposition. Suddenly, he

had to face a church disciplinary problem with regards to the lapsed. This is also where he

shined. His treatise, De Lapsis, shows him to be a bishop who is capable of handling

Scripture well. However, opposition still continued. Whatever he did or said, his legitimacy

was constantly challenged. In Epistle 66, one can find a lot of information regarding the

struggles he went through to maintain the legitimacy of his office. Those who attacked and

attempted to derail him were mostly older churchgoers who had been in the church longer

than him, who felt that they were above him.

During the Novatianist controversy, after determining the legitimacy of Cornelius

bishopric, Cyprian was presented with an opportunity. In Cornelius, Cyprian saw someone

whom he found sympathetically similar to him, someone whose legitimate position of

2
Michael M. Sage, Cyprian, Patristic Monograph Series. 1 (Cambridge, MA: The Philadelphia
Patristic Foundation, 1975): 120.

 48

bishopric was being challenged. He had to present a case for the legitimacy of Cornelius

bishopric that also lent credit to his as well.

The nature of the major contention between Cyprian and his opponents is similar to

Cornelius. The contention was not over doctrinal issues, but the practice of a local

congregation. These were really adiaphora matters, not primary issues. This schism is

different from past schisms where the contentions were mostly centered on heretical issues.

This presented a challenge. Cyprian could have just argued from the typical practices and

exhortation on the matter of unity found in Scripture, such as 1 Cor 1:10, Eph 4, Tit 3, 1 Pet

3:8. However, they are mostly prose in nature and located in the epistles. They were

insufficient because the oppositions could also counter by arguing the same thing. Cyprian

has to appeal to somewhere in Scripture where the legitimacy of Cornelius office, and his

also, can be properly recognized, verses that allows for both his and Cornelius legitimacy

and allow them the power to exercise their office. He has to find a landmark, an event that

marks the beginning of the church that can be connected to his and Cornelius authority. He

found it in Matt 16:18-19.

This paper shows that the study of this treatise yields four components in Cyprians

discourse on the concept of unity. Cyprian first has to assert that the church is composed of

those who had been properly appointed with authority and those who follow them. With

Matt 16:18-19 as the base, Cyprian argues that the event of the appointment of Peter over the

others by Christ serves as the foundation of the church. The succession of episcopal

authorities, after the church has been founded, has to continue from this event. This is why

he used the term source and origin. Then, Cyprian attempts to connect the source with

its outflow. He tries to argue that the multiplicity of churches and bishops connects back to

 49

this source that flows outward. However, he failed to find a Scriptural passage that can

help him to argue for this point. He has to revert to images from nature to help him.

Regardless, his opponent would not be able to object to his reasoning anyway, since their

position would also be compromised if they were to argue otherwise. This source and its

expansion would not be able to be divided since the strength of its bond comes from God.

Therefore, Cyprian can charge that the schismatic faction, who established for themselves a

rival church, were in actuality spiritually outside of the church. Using the foundation of Matt

16:18-19, the bishop has the power to discipline the schismatic by placing them outside the

church. Being on the ouside, they are now proclaimed as Gods enemy and will one day

perish under his hand. This is the discourse on unity that Cyprian composed for his treatise,

De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate.

Unity is important for Cyprian, because he was a man who has left the secular world

and desired none of it. However, upon entering into the church, he discovered that within the

church the secular also existed. Therefore, he sought to purify it. The unity that Cyprian

proposes is not a concept of ecumenicalism; rather, it is a call for recognition of the properly

elected legitimate office of Christian leaders.

Unwittingly, by appealing to the importance of Peter in the origin of the Church,

Cyprian was undermining his conviction about the equality of the bishops. For the bishop of

Rome in the fifth century and onward would appeal to Matt 16:18-19 to support their

conviction of Petrine primacy of the bishop of Rome.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amidon, Philip R. The Procedure of St. Cyprians Synods. Vigiliae Christianae 37 (1983):
328-339.

Bakker, Hens, and Paul van Geest, Hans van Loon, eds. Cyprian of Carthage: Studies in His
lLife, Language, and Thought. LAHR 3. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2010.

Benson, E. W. Cyprian Thascius Caecilius. In A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography,

ed. Henry Wace and William C. Piercy, 217-233. 1911. Reprint, Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1999.

Bvenot, Maurice. The Tradition of Manuscripts: A Study in The Transmission of St.

Cyprians Treatises. London: Oxford University Press, 1961.

________. Cyprian: De Lapsis and De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate. Text and translation.
London: Oxford University Press, 1971

________. The Lapsed, The Unity of the Catholic Church. Translated and Annotated. ACW
25. New York: Newman, 1956.

Brent, Allen. Cyprian and The Roman Carthage. New York: Cambridge University Press,
2010.

Burns, J. Patout Jr. Cyprian The Bishop. Routledge Early Church Monographs. London:
Routledge, 2002.

Butler, Rex. Sacramentum: Baptismal Practice and Theology of Tertullian and Cyprian.
Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry 6 (2009): 8-24.

50
 51

Blowers, Paul M. Envys Narrative Scripts: Cyprian, Basil, and the Monastic Sages on the
Anatomy and Cure of the Invidious Emotions. Modern Theology 25 (2009): 21-43.

Barry M. Craig, Potency, Not Preciousness: Cyprians Cup and a Modern Controversy.
Worship 81 (2007): 290-313.

Clarke, G. W. The Letters of St. Cyprian: Volume 1. Translated and Annotated. ACW 43.
New York: Newman, 1984.

________. The Letters of St. Cyprian: Volume 2. Translated and Annotated. ACW 44. New
York: Newman, 1984.

________. The Letters of St. Cyprian: Volume 3. Translated and Annotated. ACW 46. New
York: Newman, 1986.

________. The Letters of St. Cyprian: Volume 4. Translated and Annotated. ACW 47. New
York: Newman, 1989.

Cyprian. Saint Cyprian: Letters (1-81). Translated by Rose Bernard Donna. TFOTC 51.
Washington, D. C.: Catholic University of America, 1964.

________. Saint Cyprian: Treatises. Translated by Roy J. Deferrari. TFOTC 36. New York:
Fathers of The Church, 1958.

Downs, David J. Prosopological Exegesis in Cyprians De opere et eleemosynis. Journal

of Theological Interpretation 6 (2012): 279-294

Dunn, Geoffrey D. Cyprian and the Bishops of Rome: Question of Papal Primacy in the
Early Church. ECS 11. Strathfield, Australia: St. Pauls, 2007.

________. The Carthaginian Synod of 251: Cyprians Model of Pastoral Ministry. Studia
Ephemeridis Augustinianum 78 (2001): 235-257.

________. Cyprians Rival Bishops and Their Communities. Augustinianum 45 (2005):

61-93.

 52

________. Heresy and Schism According to Cyprian of Carthage. Journal of Theological

Studies 55 (2004): 551-574.

________. Sententiam nostrum non nouam promimus: Cyprian and the Episcopal Synod of
255. Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 35 (2003): 211-221.

________. Validity of Baptism and Ordination in the African Response to the Rebaptism
Crisis: Cyprian of Carthages Synod of Spring 256. Theological Studies 67 (2006):
258-274.

Engberg, Jakob. The Education and (Self-)Affirmation of (Recent or Potential) Converts:

The Case of Cyprian and Ad Donatum. Zeitschrift fr antikes Christentum 16
(2012): 129-144.

Fahey, Michael Andrew. Cyprian and the Bible: a Study in Third- Century Exegesis.
Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1971.

Fitzgerald, Paul J. A Model For Dialogue: Cyprian of Carthage on Ecclesial Discernment.

Theological Studies 59 (1998): 236-253.

Garrett, James Leo, Jr. The Priesthood of All Christians: From Cyprian to John
Chrysostom. Southwestern Journal of Theology 30 (1988): 22-33.

Granfield, Patrick. Episcopal Election in Cyprian: Clerical and Lay Participation.

Theological Studies 1 (1976): 41-52.

Greenslade, S. L., ed. and trans. Early Latin Theology: Selections from Tertullian, Cyprian,
Ambrose, and Jerome. 1956. Reprint, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006.

Griggs, Roy L. Christs Seamless Robe: A Study of Cyprians Concept of the Unity of the
Church. Mid-Stream 16 (1977): 399-411.

Hall, Stuart G. The Versions of Cyprian, De Unitate, 4-5 Bvenots Dating Revisited.
Journal of Theological Studies 55 (2004): 138-146.

 53

Harris, Gordon D. Cyprian and his Role as the Faithful Bishop in Response to the Lapsed,
the Martyrs, and the Confessors Following the Decian Persecution. Eleutheria 1
(2011): 87-96.

Haykin, Michael A. G. The Holy Spirit in Cyprians To Donatus. Evangelical Quarterly 83

(2011): 321-329.

Hinchliff, Peter. Cyprian of Carthage and The Unity of The Christian Church. London:
Geoffrey Chapman, 1974.

Junkin, Edward Dixon. Commitment to the Fallen Brother: Cyprian and The Lapsi. Austin
Seminary Bulletin 87 (1972): 32-45.

Mayes, Robert J. H. The Lords Supper in the Theology of Cyprian of Carthage.

Concordia Theological Quarterly 74 (2010): 307-324.

Murray, Russel. Assessing the Primacy: A Contemporary Contribution from the Writings
of St. Cyprian of Carthage. Journal of Ecumenical Studies 47 (2012): 41-63.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition. TCT 1. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1971.

________. The Shape of Death. London: Macmillan, 1961

Ployd, Adam. Tres Unum Sunt: The Johannine Comma in Cyprian. Studia Patristica 65
(2013): 451-457.

Pontius. Life of St. Cyprian by Pontius. In Early Christian Biographies. Translated by

Mary Magdeleine Mller, FOTC 15: 3-24. New York: Father of The Church, 1952.

Roldanus, Johannes. No Easy Reconciliation: St. Cyprian on Conditions for Re-Integration

of the Lapsed. Journal of Theology For Southern Africa 92 (1995): 23-31.

Sage, Michael M. Cyprian. PMS 1. Cambridge, MA: The Philadelphia Patristic Foundation,
1975.

 54

Shuve, Karl. Cyprian of Carthages Writings from the Rebaptism Controversy: Two
Revisionary Proposals Reconsidered. The Journal of Theological Studies 61 (2010):
627-643.

Walker, G. S. M. The Churchmanship of St. Cyprian. Ecumenical Studies in History 9.

Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1969.

Watson, E. W. The Interpolations in St. Cyprians De Unitate Ecclesiae. The Journal of

Theological Studies 19 (1904): 432-436.

Wiles, M. F. The Theological Legacy of St. Cyprian. The Journal of Ecclesiastical History
14 (1963): 139-149.

Wilhite, David E. Cyprians Scriptural Hermeneutic of Identity: The Laxist Heresy.

Horizons in Biblical Theology 32 (2010): 58-98.