APPENDIX G. 557 On the nameless Epistle Ad Novatianum and the attribution of it to Xystus (p. 476). SINCE the chapters on Xystus were in print, Dr Adolf Harnack has published an essay on ‘A hitherto unrecognised Writing of Pope Sixtus II. of the years 257-81.' Whether his view is accepted or not, the treatment and the by-learning of the essay are full of interest and suggestiveness. If true his view is so important, that I select those main points which touch our history, and must add the lights in which they appear to me. His Excursus (pp. 54-64), comparing the Versions of Scripture used in Cyprian and in this author, will not come within our scope, but it is of capital interest and value. The 'writing' is the well-known Ad Novatianum, taken hitherto to be (as described by Hartel) 'The work of a bishop who was on 'Cyprian's side as against Stephen (see H. Appendix, p. 55, 4), and 'against the schism of Felicissimus (54, 12), shortly after the Decian 'persecution (57, 25).' Stephen is not mentioned in it, but the comparison of the Church to the one saving Ark (as Hartel) and the 'domus una id est Christi ecclesia' (ad Novat. c. 13, H. 63, 8), are no doubt references to this controversy, and the whole tenor of the tractate is clear. But the reference to Felicissimus is in the supposed pun 'quid ad ista respondeant...inFelicissimi pauci,' and is in my judgment impossible 3. 1 V. Gebhardt and Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, XIII. Band, Heft 1, Leipzig, 1895. 'Eine bisher nicht erkannte Schrift des Papstes Sixtus II. vom Jahre 257-8...von Adolf Harnack.' 2 Hartel's Cyprian, vol. III., Pars iii. Appendix, Opera Spuria, &c., p. 52. The Ad Novatianum first appeared not in Erasmus' ed. 1519, as Hartel's note there, but, as he corrects it (Præfatio, pp. lx, lxi), in the Editio Daventriensis, 1477. Hartel had corrected previous texts by Ms. K, and at the latter page adds the readings of Ed. Dav. It was first marked as not Cyprian's in Erasmus' ed. 1520. Cf. Pamel. Cyp. 1568, Antv. pp. 434-5. 3 There is no other reference to the action or tenets of Felicissimites, Ap. 54, 12. Ed. Dav. has 'infelicissime,' which certainly cannot be (as Harnack, p. 23 n.) a vocative case. Harnack. I. The author of 'ad Nova tianum '? I. I shall try to represent accurately, but of course shortly, Harnack's argument. The Treatise opens thus: (H. p. 52, 9) 'Cogitanti mihi et intolerabiliter animo æstuanti quid'nam agere deberem de miserandis fratribus qui vulnerati non propria 'voluntate sed diaboli sævientis inruptione adhuc usque, hoc est per 'longam temporum seriem, agentes pœnas darent, ecce ex adverso 'obortus est alius hostis et ipsius paternæ pietatis adversarius hæreticus 'Novatianus.' Ad Novat. 1. This language is appropriate from a highly responsible Bishop who was anxious to restore such Lapsed persons as had remained Penitents a very long time, but who found himself confronted by sudden action on Novatian's part. The words vulnerati ff. shew that he took a more compassionate view of their temptation than was possible earlier. That he took Cyprian's view of the Church itself as the one Ark of Salvation appears in the words (H. p. 55, 3) 'Quæ arca sola cum his quæ secum fuerant liberata est in aqua, at cæteri qui in ea inventi non sunt diluvio perierunt.' Ad Novat. 2, and as the only valid authorized baptizer in (H. p. 55, 23) ‘...sacramentum baptismatis, quod in salutem generis humani provisum et soli ecclesiæ cælesti ratione celebrare permissum' (permissum add. H.). Ad Novat. 3. The limits of date are fixed from the following: (H. p. 56, 18) Cataclysmus... ille qui sub Noe factus est figuram persecutionis quæ per totum orbem nunc nuper supereffusa ostendit.' Ad Novat. 5. (H. p. 57, 24) ‘Duplex ergo illa emissio [columbæ ex arca] duplicem 'nobis persecutionis temptationem ostendit : prima in qua qui lapsi sunt 'victi ceciderunt, secunda in qua hi ipsi qui ceciderunt victores extiterunt. 'Nulli enim nostrum dubium vel incertum est, fratres dilectissimi, illos 'qui prima acie id est Deciana persecutione vulnerati fuerunt, hos postea 'id est secundo prœlio ita fortiter perseverasse, ut contemnentes edicta 'sæcularium principum hoc invictum haberent, quod et non metuerunt 'exemplo boni pastoris animam suam tradere, sanguinem fundere nec 'ullam insanientis tyranni sævitiam recusare.' Ad Novat. 6. secundo prælio must mean the persecution of Gallus, which was not over before Aug. 253, but was over when this treatise was written. It can be described by 'nunc nuper,' yet the Penitent Lapsed have been Penitents 'per longam temporum seriem',' which would be adequately met by allowing three years or even two since the persecution of Gallus. Even so, some would have been in that condition five years since the 1 Cyprian thought a triennium sufficient. Ep. 56. 2. beginning of the persecution of Decius. The persecution of Valerian is plainly not begun. It began Aug. 257, but not in earnest, and for Rome not at all till Aug. 258. We have then the limits fixed between Aug. 255 and Aug. (257 or) 258. The locality is interestingly fixed by considering who these Lapsi must have been. They fell in the persecution of Decius; many retrieved their honour in that of Gallus, but none have been restored. Now the Carthaginian penitents were restored by the Council of May 252, to arm them for the threatened persecution of Gallus. But there is no indication of any such restoration at Rome. Cyprian was pressed by a lax party who would have absorbed the penitents if these were kept out of the Church much longer. But Stephanus was pressed by the Puritan party of Novatianists, who would have absorbed many Catholics if his action had been indulgent. Stephanus had in the case of Marcian of Arles shewn himself unwilling to be hard on Novatianists, and was ready even to admit their Baptism. The Roman policy had been to keep penitents long waiting. There are strong touches of Roman colour also in the Christology which writes that Judas 'Deum prodidit' (H. 64, 22. Ad Novat. 14); and in the assumption implied in quoting the baptismal charge as given by Christ' Petro sed et ceteris discipulis'.' (H. 56, 1. Ad Novat. 3.) Our author then is a Bishop at Rome between Aug. 253 and Aug. 257 or 8, anxious to restore meritorious penitents of long standing, his efforts frustrated by Novatian's action. It being shewn that neither Stephanus nor Lucius could have written the treatise, it remains by process of exhaustion that the Bishop in question is Sixtus II., and he had opportunity to write, for it is almost certain that during his eleven months and six days' reign the Christians and he were unmolested at Rome: he and Roman presbyters were in fact peacefully corresponding all the time with Dionysius. Such is the outline of Harnack's argument, and we certainly are grateful to him for taking us on so interesting a quest. sequences II. The historic results which he deduces are still more remarkable. Historical Thus (1) There must have been in the time of Sixtus a new and conforceful outbreak of Novatianism, led by Novatian himself.-'ecce ex of Sixtus adverso obortus est alius hostis...Novatianus.' Ad Novat. 1. It was II. being sufficient to stem the charitable policy of the Church, or at least to compel it to parley on the question in argument with the 'hæreticus.' 1 The words of the charge itself are here compounded of Matth. xxviii. 19 and Mark xvi. 15. 2 Argument against the authorship of Stephanus was superfluous, and though the arguments adduced against the author. Difficulties (2) It becomes clear how the Baptismal Controversy ended at Rome --which, as Harnack says (p. 39), was not known to Augustine himself,namely by Sixtus' adopting the policy and even the formula1 of Cyprian. This further explains the remark of Dionysius2 to Sixtus that the Roman presbyters, Dionysius and Philemon, had formerly sided with Stephen (συμψήφοις πρότερον Στεφάνω γενομένοις). (3) Sixtus II. becomes much more than the 'bonus et pacificus sacerdos' of Pontius (Vit. 14) (an expression, we may remark, to which in his mouth it is possible to attach too much significance). (4) A comparison of passages (Harn. pp. 35 ff.) shews the closest dependence of the ad Novatianum on the de Unitate. Twenty places at least are distinct quotations. Besides this there is (pp. 50 ff.) a constant near resemblance to Cyprian's style and use of words. Sixtus II. was in fact a 'Scholar of the great African Bishop,' a 'slavish copyist' of his treatises on Unity' and 'on Work and Almsdeeds' and of some of his Epistles, and he adopted his policy in every particular. In fact in A.D. 257-8 Cyprian 'by his writings spiritually lorded it over the Roman See' (pp. 67 f.). The above are Harnack's principal historical inferences. III. This is beyond question a strikingly new aspect of Rome exhibited in accept to the eyes of the historical student, and it requires reflexion. Meantime ing Xystus certain difficulties present themselves. as the author. 1. If the Baptismal controversy ended in so round and simple a manner as by Xystus adopting entirely Cyprian's views and language, it is strange that Augustine did not know it, and that others should have given such wild accounts of the reversal. 2. It is strange that no trace of intercourse between Cyprian and Xystus, no mention of either by the other, should have survived or, so far as we know, have ever been known to exist. Cyprian had agents in Rome, and Xystus was corresponding with Dionysius in exile. 3. It is yet more strange, if Xystus thus adopted Cyprian's treatment of heretical baptism, that the treatment which prevailed and continued in the Western Church should have been not that of Cyprian and Xystus but that of Stephen. 4. The Roman inclination to appropriate to Peter language of our Lord which is addressed to others is traced by Harnack in the 'manda: Petro sed et ceteris discipulis' noticed above. But there is a much more extraordinary instance of that proclivity which for some reason he does not notice. In c. II the ad Novatianum quotes at length the conversation between our Lord and Simon the Pharisee over the penitent woman. Three times over our author in his quotation of S. Luke vii. vv. 40, 43, 47 substitutes the name of Peter for that of Simon, in the last verse 2 Euseb. vii. 5. 1 Harn. p. 66. inserts it. Can this be really Xystus the typical Doctor, he of the Chair, who either confuses Simon Peter with Simon the Pharisee, or thinks to honour the See of Rome by the change? tions of IV. But there are also other passages which, if this is a genuine letter Indicaof those times, might seem to fall in with an earlier year and person. earlier 1. The language about Novatian seems more appropriate to his date. first rise than to a recrudescence. While our author was considering how the Lapsed should be reconciled, 'ecce ex adverso obortus est alius hostis et ipsius paternæ pietatis adversarius hæreticus Novatianus,' c. 1, H. 52, 12. This is not the phraseology which would be used about one who had now for over six years been pursuing the same policy. 2. In c. 14 Novatian is scarcely addressed as if his sound teaching in the Church belonged to years ago; and the writer proceeds 'hodie retractas an debeant lapsorum curari vulnera,' H. 64, 10, as if his discussion of the question were new, not of such old standing as by Xystus' time it would have become. 3. In c. 1, H. 53, 12 his adherents are called 'suos quos colligit,' not as if they were a long-standing formidable congregation. In c. 2, H. 54, 12 they are 'vel nunc infelicissimi pauci,' just as Cornelius (Euseb. H. E. vi. 43) says that Novatian γεγυμνῶσθαι καὶ ἔρημον γεγονέναι, καταλιμπανόντων αὐτὸν καθ ̓ ἡμέραν ἑκάστην τῶν ἀδελφῶν. 4. Compare the already quoted 'ecce ex adverso obortus est alius hostis &c.' and the exclamation of surprise at the attitude of Novatian, 'mirum quot acerba, quot aspera, quot perversa sunt,' c. 1, H. 52, 13 with what Cornelius writes of him (Euseb. 7.c.), αἰφνίδιον ἐπίσκοπος ὥσπερ ἐκ μαγγάνου τινὸς εἰς τὸ μέσον ῥιφθεὶς ἀναφαίνεται and ἀμήχανον ὅσην....τροπὴν καὶ μεταβολὴν ἐν βραχεῖ καιρῷ ἐθεασάμεθα ἐπ ̓ αὐτοῦ γεγενημένην. 5. Compare c. I, H. 53, 9‘luporum more tenebrosam caliginem optare...ferina sua crudelitate oves...laniare' with Cornelius' rv ȧkowvwvnoíav αὐτοῦ καὶ λυκοφιλίαν. 6. Compare what is said c. 14 of his former position as a teacher, sound on this very subject of penitence, with Cornelius' sneer at him as ὁ δογματιστής, ὁ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἐπιστήμης ὑπερασπιστής. 7. Compare c. 8, H. 59, 1, on their intentional superseding of the name Christiani by Novatiani with what Cornelius relates of the personal pledges taken to Novatian in the Eucharist itself by his followers1. In all these passages the point of view is identical. The personal angles may be different, for c. 13 treats him as having been a tender pastor, which Cornelius does not. But the point of view is the same. It cannot be said that one describes the rise of an enemy, the other the revival of a heretic of several years' standing. 8. The passage 'Duplex ergo &c.' from c. 6, H. p. 57, 24 does No proof not require (as Harnack thinks) that the persecution of Gallus should be of date 1 Euseb. vi. 43. |