| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
 Bad Advertisement? Are you a Christian? Online Store: |
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
(On the unity of the Church, p. 421.) The epistles have already been elucidated as the best exposition of this treatise. Little need be added. But, to illustrate the bearings of this treatise upon the history of Christian unity, we need only refer to the manner in which the subject was treated as soon as the papacy was created by Nicholas I. Thus, he astounded the Greeks by his consummate audacity (a.d. 860) in the matter of the disputed succession in Constantinople.4637
Obviously, therefore, had Cyprian entertained such ideas, his treatise could never have been written; for it is a masterly exposition of a curious point, viz., the fact that (1) the Apostle Peter received the first grant alone, and yet (2) all the apostles received precisely the same; while (1) Peter had thus a primacy of honour, but (2) in no respect any power or authority over his brethren. On these admitted facts he constructs his theory of unity, expounding by it the actual state of the Church’s constitution. Peter’s memory he honours, but without any less reverence for all the apostolic Sees, which over and over again he maintains to be of equal authority and sanctity. That the Church was founded on Stephen any more than on the Bishop of Carthage, he never imagines; for it is one thing to allow that a bishop has succeeded an apostle at the place of his last labours, and quite another to assume that therefore such a bishop is virtually the apostle himself. Yet this assumption is the ground of all Roman doctrine on this point.4638
Had such been Cyprian’s idea, his Treatise on Unity must have proceeded thus: (1) “Our Lord said to Peter only, I will give unto thee the keys; (2) to the rest of the apostles He gave only an inferior and subject authority; (3) to the successor of Peter, therefore, at Rome, all other bishops and churches must be subject; for (4) in this subjection the law of unity consists; and (5) if even all the other apostles were alive to this day, they would be subject to Stephen, as Prince of the Apostles, or would be rebels against Christ.” Compare this treatise of Cyprian, then, with any authorized treatise on the subject proceeding from modern Rome, and it will be seen that the two systems are irreconcilable. Thus, in few words, says the Confession4639
(Falsifying of the text, p. 422.) Cyprian is often innocently quoted by Romanist controvertists against the very principles of Cyprian himself, of his life and his writings. This is due to the fact that they have in their hands vitiated and interpolated copies. Thus, take a famous passage as follows:— Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum, Ego tibi dico Tu es Petrus, etc.(a) Super unum(b) ædificat ecclesiam. Hoc erant utique et cæteri apostoli quot fuit Petrus, qui consortio præditi et honoris et potestatis, sed exordium ab unitate proficisitur,(c) ut(d) Christi ecclesia(e) una monstretur.(f) Qui Ecclesiæ resistitur et resistit,(g) in ecclesia se esse confidit? (a) Et iterum eidem, post ressurectionem suam dicit, Pasce oves meas. (b) Super illum unum…et illi pascendas mandat oves suas. (f) Et pastores sunt omnes et grex unus ostenditur, qui ab apostolis omnibus, unanimi consensione pascatur, etc. (g) Qui cathedram Petri, super quem fundata est ecclesia deserit, etc. This is but a specimen of the way in which Cyprian has been “doctored,” in order to bring him into a shape capable of being misinterpreted. But you will say where is the proof of such interpolations? The greatly celebrated Benedictine edition reads as the interpolated column does, and who would not credit Baluzius? Now note, Baluzius rejected these interpolations and others; but, dying (a.d. 1718) with his work unfinished, the completion of the task was assigned to a nameless monk, who confesses that he corrupted the work of Baluzius, or rather glories in the exploit.4640
An edition of this treatise, with valuable annotations, appeared (a.d. 1852) from the press of Burlington, N.J., under the very creditable editorship of Professor Hyde, who was soon after called to depart this life. It exhibits the interpolations, and gives a useful catalogue of codices and of editions. Though its typographical execution is imperfect, I know not where so much condensed information on the subject is to be had at so little cost.4641 grateful for the real advantage I derived from it on its first appearance.(If ye do not forgive, etc., p. 454.) The Jewish liturgies contained the petitions of the Lord’s Prayer essentially; but our divine Lord framed this comprehensive and sublime compend, and gave it to His children for ever, with His own seal upon it in the exceptional petition which imparts to it the impress of His own cross and passion. In the Gospel of St. Matthew4642
From the criticism of a very able editorial hand,4643
“The petitions of the Lord’s Prayer, as is well known, are to be found for the most part in the Talmud and Jewish liturgies. In the latter we have frequently the phrases, ‘our Father, our King,’ ‘our Father, Father of mercies,’ and ‘our Father that art in heaven.’ The third petition in the Shemone esre is, ‘Let us hallow the Name in the world as it is hallowed in the high heaven. We will hallow Thee, and Thy praise, O God, shall not leave our mouth for ever and ever; since Thou, O God, art a great and holy King. Praised be Thou, O Lord, thou holy God. Thou art holy, and Thy name is holy, and holy men praise Thee everlastingly every day.’ The ineffable name of God represented all His attributes, and is consequently frequently substituted for Him. The end of the first petition in the Kaddish prayer runs thus: ‘May He extend His kingdom in your days, and in those of the whole house of Israel very soon.’ In Berakhoth (29 b) we have, ‘What is a short prayer? Rabbi Eliezer said, “Thy will be done in heaven, and peace of heart be unto those who fear Thee on earth.”’ The same tract gives another prayer: ‘The needs of Thy people Israel are many, but its discernment is small. Do Thou, O everlasting One, our God, give to each man what he needs for his support, and what his body wants; but do what seemeth Thee good.’ In the Mekhilta we read that Rabbi Eliezer of Modin, near Jerusalem, said: ‘Whosoever has enough for the day to eat, and says, What shall I eat to-morrow? is of little faith.’ This passage seems to illustrate the meaning of the Greek ἐπιούσιον. The third petition in the Shemone esre runs: ‘Forgive us, O our Father, for we have sinned; forgive us, O our King, for we have transgressed: since Thou art He that forgiveth and pardoneth.’ In reference to this the Midrash Shemoth (par. 31) states, ‘There is no creature who does not owe thanks to the Lord; but He is pitiful and long-suffering, and remitteth old debts.’ The daily morning prayer of the Jews contains this petition: ‘Lead us not into the power of sin, of transgression and crime, of temptation and shame. Let not passion have dominion over us, and keep us far from wicked men and evil company.’ In one of the prayers composed in Aramaic for the rabbis and leading men of the Jewish community, the passage occurs, ‘Defend and deliver them from all evil, and from all evil hap,’ which may be compared with the petition, ‘Deliver us from evil.’ The Doxology at the end of the Lord’s Prayer has equally Jewish parallels. Thus, one of the daily evening prayers concludes with the words, ‘For Thine is the kingdom;’ i.e., God alone is ruler of the world. The words ‘the power and the glory’ seem to come from 1 Chron. xxix. 11, which is quoted in the Talmud; and the Mishna Berakhoth (ix. 5) states, ‘In the temple all blessings did not end with “Amen,” but with the words “for ever and ever.”’ When the heretics multiplied, however, there was only one world; so the concluding formula became ‘from everlasting to everlasting.’” (Lift up your hearts, p. 455.) It is demonstrated by Sir William Palmer that the Sursum Corda is of a date to which no history runneth contrary, and is to be found in all the primitive liturgies of whatever family. For a very early example of its use, I must refer to the Alexandrian liturgy cited by Bunsen;4644
(To pray and give thanks, p. 457.) Here comes into view that reference of the apostle4645
(Its failing estate, p. 458.)
(Peter, upon whom, etc., p. 486.) Launoi, the eminent Gallican, found but seventeen of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church (among whom he reckons “Fathers” down to the twelfth century) who understand St. Peter to be “the rock,” and he cites forty of the contrary opinion.4652
(The Eucharist carried in it, p. 488.) The modern usage of the Latin churches is for the priest to put the wafer into the communicant’s mouth, an ordinance dating no farther back than a.d. 880. A new doctrine having been forged, and faith in the corporal presence of Christ being forced upon the conscience, a change of ceremonial followed, which indicates the novelty of the idea. Contrast the teaching of St. Cyril of Jerusalem,4655
“Approaching, therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers open; but make thy left hand a sort of cushion for thy right, which is about to receive the King. And having hollowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying after it, Amen.” “Not discerning the Lord’s body,” etc., is the language of Scripture; but, had the apostles taught transubstantiation, this could not be said, for everybody can discern the host when it is uplifted. The Lord’s Body is therefore discerned by faith, and so taken and received. (Which should be greatest, p. 493.) How differently our Lord must have settled this inquiry had He given the supremacy to one of the Apostles, or had He designed the supremacy of any single pastor to be perpetual in His Church! “Who should be greatest?” ask this question of any Romanist theologian, and he answers, in the words of the Creed of Pius IV., “the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Christ.” But why was no such answer given by our Lord? And why does St. Peter know nothing of it when he says, “The elders who are among you I exhort, who am also an elder…feed the flock of God, taking the oversight…not as being lords over God’s heritage,” etc. So also in the Council of Jerusalem, how humbly he sits under the presidency of James,4656
If I have forborne in these notes to refer frequently to the Treatise of Bishop Sage, who often elucidates our author in a very learned manner, it is because he is almost wholly a controvertist, and therefore not to my purpose in this work. For his Cyprian,4660
(From the slender twig, my son, thou hast ascended, p. 513.)
Here, then, we have the idea precisely equivalent to Jer. xlix. 19: “Ecce quasi leo ascendet de superbia Jordanis.” The lion is recumbent among the sprouting twigs (frutice, or foliage) of the Jordan’s banks in the springtime. The swelling of the river, which the melting of snows from Lebanon causes to overflow, rouses the reposing creature; and he goes up into the mountains. But Cyprian had in hand the old African,4663
(Third Book…religious teaching of our school, p. 528.) Quirinus, Cyprian’s “son” in the Gospel, seems to me to have been a catechumen of the competent class, i.e., preparing for baptism at Easter; or possibly of the higher sort, preparing for the first communion. Many tokens lead me to surmise that he may have been of Jewish birth; and, if so, he was probably baptized Quirinus after St. Luke ii. 2, as St. Paul borrowed his Roman name from Sergius Paulus.4665
Origen’s treatise Against Celsus shows how cunningly the adversaries of the Gospel could assume a Jewish position against it;4666
(Good works and mercy, p. 528.) Clement was able to remind the heathen, half a century before,4669
So here our author’s canons enforce (1) works of mercy; (2) almsdeeds; (3) brotherly love; (4) mutual support; (5) forgiveness of injuries; (6) the example of Christ’s holy living; (7) forbearance; (8) suppression of idle talk; (9) love of enemies; (10) abhorrence of usury, (11) and avarice, (12) and carnal impurity: also, (13) obedience to parents; (14) parental love; (15) consideration of servants; (16) respect for the aged; (17) moderation, even in use of things lawful; (18) control of the tongue; (19) abstinence from detraction; (20) to visit the sick; (21) care of widows and orphans; (22) not to flatter; (23) to practise the Golden Rule; and (24) to abstain from bloodshed. In short, we have here the outgrowth of the Sermon on the Mount, and of St. Paul’s epitome, “Whatsoever things are true,” etc.4671
(In the thirteenth Psalm, p. 546.) The note says that the Oxford edition gives it as the fourteenth, while in our English Bibles it is the fifteenth. As I find that some of the readers of these works are puzzled by such confusions, I note retrospectively, as well as for future reference, the origin of such apparent blunders. 1. Our English version follows the Hebrew numbering, which is reputed the most accurate. By that a psalm is cited in the New Testament as if the numbering itself were important, and the product of inspired wisdom.4672
2. But the Greek Psalter differs from the Hebrew;
3. The Vulgate Latin follows the LXX.; and our Ante-Nicene Fathers usually quote the Septuagint, or else the Old Latin, by which the Vulgate was probably governed. In the Vulgate, also, the Hebrew prefaces are often numbered as if they were verses, which is another source of confusion. 4. By the fusion of 5. But our text says “Psalms xiii.,” and for this it is not easy to account. The Oxford editors regard it as a mere corruption of the text, and change it accordingly.
 |
