Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vigiliae Christianae.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.205 on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:03:32 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ROBERT B. ENO
Since the Reformation, the early history of the Roman primacy has
been a matter of emotional debate as well as of earnest study. Certain
texts have been the object of intense scrutiny in the process. Among
patristic works, the writings of Cyprian have remained a special locus
of contention. His view of the role of Peter and his use of the phrase
"the chair of Peter" in particular have fascinated generations of
scholars and polemicists alike. In this essay, I will argue that Cyprian's
view of Peter as the source and font of unity in the Church is still basic
to the ecclesiology of the fourth century African author, Optatus of
Milevis, and is still operative, albeit in a more vestigial fashion, in the
anti-Donatist polemic of Augustine. Their use of the list of Roman
bishops in such polemic derives ultimately from Cyprian's view of
Peter's role as symbol of unity in the Church and is less directly concerned with Roman primacy than most commentators have usually
presumed.
The lists of bishops found in certain early Christian documents have
been of interest for several reasons. Those investigating the origins of
the monarchical episcopate seek to determine if the names given are
historical. They try to clarify the functions of those called episkopoi at
the end of the first century. The idea of succession preoccupies others.
Succession lists furnished one of the cornerstones for Eusebius in constructing his Church History. It is clear that in the second century, the
monarchical episcopate, joined with the claim to apostolic foundation
for certain sees, became a key element in elaborating a defence against
Gnosticism.
Though Hegesippus spoke of making a diadoche of the bishops of
Rome, when his text was cited by Eusebius, no list was given. It was left
to Irenaeus to pass on the earliest list still extant. He argued that someone seeking to know the teaching of Jesus should go, not to the Gnostic
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.205 on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:03:32 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
159
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.205 on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:03:32 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
160
ROBERT B. ENO
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.205 on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:03:32 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
161
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.205 on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:03:32 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
162
ROBERT B. ENO
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.205 on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:03:32 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
163
point where somethingstarts but also the font out of which all later
developmentsare drawn. Interestinglyenough, the same point can be
madeabout the wordprincepsand its cognateforms found in Optatus.
Peteris the Catholicprinceps.Principestui, on the other hand, are not
just the first Donatist leaders but the source and origin of all later
troubles. 3
For this essay, the key passagein Optatusis that found earlyin book
II wherethe list of Romanbishopsis given. Here, I believe,the essential
thoughtand base of argumentationremainthose of Cyprian,especially
as found in his letter 59.14. "...in urbe Roma Petro primo cathedram
episcopalemesse conlatam,in qua sederitomniumapostolorumcaput
Petrus, unde et Cephas est appellatus." Caput here means font and
sourceas muchas chief. The reasongivenby Optatusfor Christ'schoice
of Peter is exactly the same as Cyprian'sreasoningin De unitate 4:
"...in qua una cathedraunitasab omnibusservaretur,ne ceteriapostoli
singulassibi quisquedefenderent,ut iam scismaticuset peccatoresset,
qui contra singularem cathedram alteram conlocaret."'4 Then, in
Optatus'text, the list of Roman bishops follows.
Bringingforwardthe argumentfrom geographiccatholicity,Optatus
notes that North African Catholicsare in communionwith this see of
Rome. But then he challengesthe Donatists not to show first of all
whetherthey are in communionwith Rome, but to demonstratethe
originof theirchair. They do not have the dos of the cathedrabecause
their first bishop did not sit on the chair of Peter, i.e. the chair of
Cyprian.
Finally, in 11.4comes the questionof the so-calledDonatist succession in Rome. Did Macrobiussit on the chair of Peter? Was he the
lawfulbishopof Rome?Did he sit in the placeof the realcontemporary
bishop of Rome? Obviously not. He sat only in the same place his
immediatepredecessorssat, going back to Victor of Garba, the first
immigrantAfricanleaderof the small Donatist communityin Rome.5
Though plainly a new element has entered the theological picture
because of the argumentfrom geographiccatholicity, the same basic
ecclesiology of Cyprian still prevails in Optatus. Communion with
Rome, the most important and sole apostolic see of the west, is
emphasizedin orderto highlightthe isolationof the Donatistsin North
Africa. In itself, being in communionwith Rome does not necessarily
makeany statementabout primacy.The list of Romanbishopsis introduced into the argumentand it is brought forwardto Optatus' day
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.205 on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:03:32 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
164
ROBERT B. ENO
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.205 on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:03:32 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
165
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.205 on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:03:32 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
166
ROBERT B. ENO
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.205 on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:03:32 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
167
Conclusion
Most scholars are in agreement that Cyprian's use of the symbols of
Peter and the Chair of Peter are not part of an argument in favor of
Roman primacy. Indeed, many would claim that his views are inimical
to such a development. In this essay, I have argued that the symbolic
use of Peter and of Peter's church, the ecclesia principalis, plays an
integral and foundational role in the African ecclesiology so heavily
influenced by Cyprian. Further, I see Optatus of Milevis as firmly in line
with Cyprian's ideas, so much so that when he introduces the list of
Roman bishops into his anti-Donatist work, he is presenting them as the
extension of Cyprian's Petrine symbolism, not primarily as a reference
to the contemporary see of Rome and its primacy in the Church. The
list fleshes out the thought of Cyprian expressed in letter 33. "(Matt
16:18-19)...Inde per temporum et successionum vices episcoporum
ordinatio. . .decurrit... "
In his early anti-Donatist polemic, Augustine makes use of traditional
material already to hand and, in one place, repeats the Roman bishop
list. I believe that he does this primarily because this is what Catholic
apologists before have done; it is the North African Catholic tradition.
He seems, however, to have lost the full sense of the significance the
symbolism once had for Cyprian.
In fine then, the lists are only indirectly a factor to be considered in
the study of the development of the Roman primacy. Their first relevance is to the study of the development of the North African
ecclesiology. As the remarks of the Donatist bishops show, the Africans
attributed ultimate importance to origins, both as beginning and source.
There is more continuity here than initially meets the eye.
NOTES
' Irenaeus Adversus haereses III.3.1-3. SC 211.30-39. Comments and bibliography, SC
210.228-236. The text of III.3.2: "...ad hanc enim Ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam..."
2
Tertullian De praescriptione haereticorum 36 CCSL 1.216. Principalitas veritatis vs.
Posteritas mendacitatis. 31 CCSL 1.212.
It has usually been taken for granted that Irenaeus' statements in Adv.haer. III.3.2
should be understood as extolling the Roman church as the exemplar for the entire Church
throughout the world. But others have recently argued that Irenaeus should be understood
in the light of Tertullian who makes use of Irenaeus' ideas and who clearly sees Rome as
the apostolic see of, and exemplar for, the Church in the west only. Cf. N. Brox, "Pro-
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.205 on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:03:32 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
168
ROBERT B. ENO
blemeeinerFruhdatierung
des romischenPrimats'Kairos18 (1976)81-99. At about the
same time as Brox, E. Lannepublishedan article:"L'eglisede Rome" in Irenikon49
(1976) 275-322. Toward the end of the article (318ff.), he writes that a fragmentof
Irenaeus'work datingvery close to the time of compositionhas been found in Egypt.
Lanneconcludesfromthis thatthe passagein question,Adv.haer.111.3,shouldbe understood in a universalratherthanin a merelylocal or westernsense. In my view, the fragmentof Irenaeusfound in Egyptsayssomethingaboutthe popularityof the workrather
than about the intentionof the author.
3 TertullianDe
pudicitia21 CCSL2.1328. Tertullian'sopponentsbelievethat because
of Matt 16:18,the powerof the keys has beengiven to the Church.In this context,the
muchdiscussedphraseoccurs:"i.e. ad omnemecclesiamPetripropinquam",p. 1327.In
the earlierScorpiace,10.8, Tertullianhimselfseemedto acceptthe view that the Church
receivedthe keys from God throughPeter. CCSL2.1088.
4 In additionto his criticaleditionof the
De unitatein CCSL,Bevenotwas the author
of manystudieson Cyprian.See, for example:"Episcopatet primautechez S. Cyprien"
EphThLov42 (1966)176-185.Bevenot'sviewshavebeenwidelyaccepted.See, for example, MichaelFahey, Cyprianand the Bible (Tubingen:J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck),
1971).(ConcerningCyprian'suse of Matt 16:18fp. 309) "The text as Cyprianuses it, is
not citedto arguea formof jurisdictionalprimacyfor the Romanbishop;ratherit is cited
to emphasizethe onenessof the Churchfoundedby Christfirstuponthe personof Peter
in orderto providean effectivesymbolof its oneness."
5
Bothcitationsare fromch. 4 of theDe unitate.(CCSL3.251)Thefirsttextcomesfrom
the TR or revisedtext in Bevenot'sreading;the secondfrom the PT or originalversion
of Bevenot'snow widelyacceptedview.
6
Cyprianep. 43.5 Bud6ed. Bayardp. 107;Ad Demetrianum2 CCSL3A.36.
7
Cyprianep. 48.3 Bayardp. 118.Therearestill thosewho identifythe matrixandradix
withRomeas such.Forexample:A. Demoustier,"Episcopatet uniona Romeselonsaint
Cyprien"RechScRel52 (1964) 369; CharlesPietri, Roma ChristianaVol. 1, p. 306.
(Bibliothequedes Ecoles francaisesd'Atheneset de Rome. Fs. 224) (Paris: Boccard,
1976).
8
Cyprian,ep. 70.3 Bayardp. 255; ep. 73.2 p. 263; ep. 73.7 p. 266; ep. 75.16 p. 301.
De unitate3-4 CCSL3.251. It shouldbe noted that these remarksare madebeforethe
disputedsectionof chapter4.
9 Cyprianep. 59.14.
Bayardp. 183. G. ClarkeACW 46.82 with commentaryand
bibliographypp. 257-258(1986).U. Wickert,SacramentumUnitatis(Berlin:de Gruyter,
1971)commentson earlierliterature,especiallyin chapter7. The most noteworthyearlier
studies on the ecclesia principalisphrase are: H. Koch, CathedraPetri (1930); B.
Poschmann,Ecclesiaprincipalis
(1933)andP. Batiffol,CathedraPetri(1938),a compilation of earlieressays.
.' Cyprianep. 33.1 Bayardp. 84.
" OptatusContraParmenianum1.10 CSEL26.12; 11.9CSEL26.45 respectively.On
Optatus, see R. B. Eno, "The Work of Optatusas a Turning-pointin the African
Ecclesiology" The Thomist 37(1973) 668-685. The recent essay of Jane Merdinger,
"OptatusReconsidered"StPat 22.294-299,a papergiven at the 1987Oxford Patristic
conference,seemsto me to exaggeratethe degreeto whichOptatushas been considered
a championof papal primacy.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.205 on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:03:32 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
169
12
Optatus11.4CSEL26.37. Cf. also 1.15,28CCSL 26.18,31;III.9 CSEL26.93; 1.11
CSEL26.14.
13 ThechairofMaiorinus:I.10 CSEL26.12; "Riverwithouta source"11.9CSEL26.45;
"Principesvestri" VI.3 CSEL 26.147; "Peter, Catholicprinceps" 11.4 CSEL 26.39;
Donatistprincipes,passim, especially:1.21 CSEL26.22.
14 Optatus11.2-3CSEL26.36-37;cf. also VII.3 CSEL26.170-171,173.
15 Optatus11.3-4CSEL26.37-39.
16 The introductionby Congar to the first volume of the anti-Donatistworks of
Augustinein the BibliothequeAugustinienne(BA)is a treatisein itself. BA 29.9-133.Cf.
his note on the use of Matt 16:18-19on pp. 716-717.Psalmus contrapartemDonati
vss.238-240.BA 28.184.
17 AugustineContraepistulamfundamentiIV.5 BA 17.396;ep. 43.7 CSEL34.90; ep.
53.2,3 CSEL34.153-154.K. Baus' conclusionabout the text of ep. 53 is debatable.See
K. Baus, "Wesenund Funktionder apostolischenSukzessionin der Sicht des heiligen
Augustinus"Ekklesia: Festschriftfur Bischof Dr. Matthias Wehr. (Trier: Paulinus
Verlag, 1962)pp. 137-148,esp. pp. 140-141.
18 AugustineContralitterasPetiliani II.V.10 BA 30.226 (The words are Petilian's.);
a.411 221 SC 224.1162(Ed. S. Lancel, 1975);Contra
GestaconlationisCarthaginiensis
litteras Petiliani II.51.118 BA 30.382-384;Sermo 46.30 CCSL 41.555. On Peter as
"Tu es Petrus.La p6ricope'Matof the Church,see A. M. LaBonnardiere,
representative
thieu 16,13-23'dans l'oeuvrede saint Augustin"Irdnikon34(1961)451-499,especially
489-496;R. B. Eno "FormaPetri-Petrus,FiguraEcclesiae:The Uses of Peter"Augustiniana (Melangesvan Bavel)41(1991)659-676.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.205 on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:03:32 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions