The Significance of the Lists of Roman Bishops in the Anti-Donatist Polemic

Author(s): Robert B. Eno

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Jun., 1993), pp. 158-169
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1584171 .
Accessed: 12/12/2012 08:03
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
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

Vigiliae Christianae 47 (1993), 158-169, E.J. Brill, Leiden

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LISTS OF ROMAN

BISHOPS IN THE ANTI-DONATIST POLEMIC
BY

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

THE LISTS OF ROMAN BISHOPS IN THE ANTI-DONATIST POLEMIC

159

masters,but to the Christiancommunitieshistoricallyfounded in the

first centuryby the Apostles. He stressedthat while therewere a good
number of such communities,especiallyin the east, for the sake of
brevity, he would give only the list of the bishops of the outstanding
community of apostolic foundation, Rome. The significanceof his
argumentas well as of the list itself havelong been debated.Apartfrom
the list, the meaningsof certainwords such as principalitashave been
the occasionfor muchresearch.In recentdecadesprincipalitashas been
widelyacceptedas linkedto the idea of "nobilityor prestigeof origin",
referring,of course,to the foundingof the Romanchurchby Peterand
Paul and not simplyan indicationof priority,historicalor hierarchical.'
Irenaeus'workin turnis usuallyconsideredto havebeenthe foremost
influenceon Tertullianas the latterformulatedhis attackagainstheresy
in the De praescriptionehaereticorum.Seekersafter truth, such as the
Gnosticsclaimedto be, are invitedto makebetteruse of theirtime and
curiosityby consultingtheirlocal see of apostolicorigin.Whilehe refers
to bishoplists as partof his argumentation,Tertullian,unlikeIrenaeus,
did not actuallygive any. He did, however,introducethe notion of the
"chair" of the Apostles, a term that will become more vital in the
writingsof Cyprian.Similarly,his use of principalitasin De praescriptione 31.1 may also be revelatoryof how Cyprianuses a relatedword
in his letter 59.14.2

As is well-known, in his Montanist period, Tertullianlimited the

Petrine privilegesto Peter personally,denyingthat such powers were
passedon to any successoror group of successorssuch as the bishops
of the institutionalChurch. The position against which Tertullianis
arguingseemsto be the belief on the partof some that Peterfunctioned
as the representativeof the Church.What he receivedfrom Christwas
meant for the Church,of which Peter was the symbol.3
Cyprian
The next greatAfrican authorafter Tertullianwas Cyprian.Today,
most scholarsagree with the conclusionsof MauriceBevenot4that in
chapterfour of the De unitateecclesiae,Peter, becausehe is temporally
the firstto receivethe authoritythat Christgivesto his Church,becomes
for Cyprianthe symbolof the unity of the Church.The Churchis and
must remainone becauseof the oneness of Peter at its origin. "...Ut
unitatemmanifestaret,unitatis eiusdem originemab uno incipientem

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

sua auctoritate disposuit." "...Unam tamen cathedram constituit et

unitatisoriginemadque rationemsua auctoritatedisposuit."5

There is nothing strangeabout this unity of the Church;unity is a
quality of God and thus should be characteristicof everything
associatedwith God. "Deus unus est et Christusunus et una ecclesiaet
cathedra una super Petrum Domini voce fundata." Throughout
Cyprian'swritings,certain key words are closely associatedwith this
reasoningabout the unity of the Church:origo, radix, matrix, caput,
ratio. But that the words are not confined solely to an ecclesiological
contextcan be seen from a remarkin his treatiseagainstDemetrianus:
"...Comites tibi pluresradicisadqueoriginistuae pullulationefecisti."6
In letter 48 to Cornelius,Cyprianmentionsthat he has urgedthose
travellingto Rome to be verycarefulabout whichpartyin the city they
approachfor fellowship. He exhortedthem "...ut ecclesiaecatholicae
matricemet radicemagnoscerentac tenerent." The matrixand radix
here do not refer to the Roman churchas such but the "womb and
root" are the CatholicChurch.Sincethereis a schismin the Christian
communityof Rome, it is vital for CarthaginianCatholicsto enterinto
communionwith the Catholiccommunitythere. This is the community
led by Cornelius,the bishop of the CatholicChurchin Rome, not that
of Novatian, the leaderof a schismaticgroup.7
Othertexts make it clearthat Peter in his singularityis, preciselyas
symbol, the exemplar and font of the Church's unity. "... Quando et

baptismaunum sit et SpiritusSanctusunus et una ecclesia a Christo

Domino nostro super Petrumorigineunitatiset rationefundata." To
Jubaianus,Cyprianinsists that he (and Catholic bishops everywhere)
hold the caput and radix of the Church.This is a certainty.Catholic
bishops hold the "rationisac veritatisfirmitatem."Later in the same
letter, he reiterates: "Nam Petro primum Dominus, super quem
aedificavitecclesiamet undeunitatisorigineminstituitet ostendit..." In
the Latin translationof his letter to Cyprian, Firmilianof Caesarea
spoke of the fundamentumunius ecclesiaelaid by Christon Peter.
The De unitatemakesuse of this same vocabulary.The Devil helps
to stir up dissensionin the Church"...dum ad veritatisoriginemnon
reditur, nec caput quaeritur..." This is stated at the end of chapter
three.He then proceedsat the beginningof the followingchapterto cite
theprobatiofacilis for this claim. The proof is none otherthan the text
Matt 16: 18-19.8
The text of letter 59.14 is of fundamentalimportancefor our ques-

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

THE LISTSOF ROMANBISHOPSIN THE ANTI-DONATIST

POLEMIC

161

tion. It is the one placewhereCyprianicspeculationabout the symbolic

significanceof Peter for unity seemsto touch the contemporarychurch
of Rome. Carthaginianschismatics,not content with the troublethey
havecausedin Africa,havenow set sail for Rome "...ad ecclesiamprincipalem unde unitas sacerdotalisexorta est..." I will not linger over
discussionsof the meaningof principalisand cognateformsbut, suffice
it to say that I use it as does G. Clarkewhen he translatesthe phrase
as "the primordialchurch". As mentionedearlier, such a translation
clearly is related to the now commonly accepted interpretationof
Irenaeus' use of principalitasin Adversus haereses III.3.2 when he
speaks of the Roman church's potior principalitas, referringto its
extraordinaryfoundationby the two leading apostles.
The churchof Rome is Peter's churchhistoricallyalthoughit is not
literallythe primordialchurch;only the churchin Jerusalemfulfillsthat
role in history. I believe that here Cyprianis invoking once again his
customaryreferenceto Peter as the person whose oneness is both the
symboland the sourceof the unity of the Church.Here in letter59.14
he extendsthe symbolicreferenceto incorporatePeter's churchas the
sourceof unitythus makingRome the symbolicprimordialchurch,the
Urkirche.As the remainderof section 14 of letter 59 indicates, such
symbolic reasoninghas no bearing on questions of possible Roman
authorityover the rest of the Church.9
We cannot leave Cyprianwithout insisting one final time on the
significance for him of Peter as the symbol of that essential
characteristicor markof the Church,its unity. I believethat Cyprian's
own statementin his letter 33 providesa key to his extensionof the
onenessof Peter-unityof the Churchsymbolismto includePeter'sown
Church. "Dominus noster...episcopi honorem et ecclesiae suae
rationemdisponensin evangelioloquituret dicit Petro...(Matt 16: 1819)...Inde per temporumet successionumvices episcoporumordinatio
et ecclesiae ratio decurritut ecclesia super episcopos constituaturet
omnis actus ecclesiaeper eosdem praepositosgubernetur."'0
Optatusof Milevis
Why does Optatusincludea list of the bishops of Rome in his antiDonatistpolemic?I maintainthat he does so becausehe is still operating
very much within the frameworkof Cyprian'secclesiology.The list is
not primarilyabout successionas suchbut it is includedbecauseit is the

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

list of the bishopsof Peter's "primordialchurch"as in Cyprian'sletter

59.14. It shouldbe readas the extensionand updatingof the basiccontentionof Cyprianthat Peteris the symbolicpersonat the originsof the
Church,the person whose oneness grounds the unity of the Church
throughouthistory.
When Optatus wrote a centuryafter Cyprian,the situation of the
Church had changed in several ways. Obviouslythe position of the
Churchin relationto the empirehad alteredradically.The Christian
population had vastly increased. The ecclesiologicalargumentsformulatedby Cyprianin the face of local schismwereno longeradequate
for the new realityof the region-wideschism of the Donatists.
Nevertheless, the theological framework within which Optatus
thought and wrote was still largelyshapedby Cyprianicconceptsand
vocabulary.For example,thoughthe Donatistschismwas widespread,
the theological argumentsabout the dotes, a concept suggestedby
Parmenian,revolvedprincipallyaroundthe cathedraof one see, Carthage. While Optatusbegins his second book with an argumentconfrontingthe new realityof his own time, viz. an argumentfrom geographiccatholicityover against the Donatists' isolation and remnant
theology, still he speaksin Cyprianicterms of the "cathedraPetri vel
Cypriani".The wholeargumentationoverthe dotesrevolvesaroundthe
question of the cathedraand Optatus can claim: "...per cathedram
Petri, quae nostra est, per ipsam et ceterasdotes apud nos esse."'
From the point of view of vocabularyas well, Optatus'thoughtcan
be seen as still stronglyCyprianic.For examplethe use of radix. For
Optatusas for Cyprian,the root is the CatholicChurch.North African
Catholics,Optatusasserts,remainin radicewith the wholeworld. Conversely,the Donatistshave cut themselvesoff from the root. Severed
from the root of MotherChurch,the Donatist communityin the city
of Rome togetherwith their bishop is but a "ramus ... vestri erroris,
protentusde mendacio,non de radiceveritatis."'2
Cyprianhad arguedagainst Novatian that his cathedrawas of his
own creation,sinceCorneliusnow lawfullyoccupiedthe sole legitimate
cathedraof the Romanchurch.So, in a similarfashion,Optatusargued
that the chairof Parmenian'spredecessor,Maiorinus,had no sourceof
existence(origo) before he undertookto sit in it. The Donatistsare a
river without a source. The word origo is also appliedto the historic
beginningsof the schism. In Optatus, origo and caput connote not
simplya sense of temporalbeginningbut also the source, not just the

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

THE LISTS OF ROMAN BISHOPS IN THE ANTI-DONATIST POLEMIC

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

becauseit constitutesan extensionof Cyprian'sstatementaboutPeter's

see as the Urkirche.The list also contrastswith the much brieferlist of
the Donatistbishopsof Rome but its primaryfunctionis that it is the
list of the bishops of Peter's symbolicprimordialchurch.
Augustine
Movingforwardto the time of Augustine,we should take note that
the relevantmaterialfrom his pen comes from his earlierperiod, i.e.
c.400 and before. One may wonder whether, if the newly-baptized
Augustinehad been able to hold to his originalresolveand had never
becomea priestor bishop, we would have learnedfrom the writingsof
this intellectualmonk that there was a phenomenonin the North
African church at the time known as Donatism. As it happened,the
recentlyconvertedAugustineturnedpastor was forced to confrontthe
not very philosophicallyinclinedmovementof Donatism. It is not surprising that he quickly embracedand made much use of previously
existingmaterials,not only the works of Optatusbut also, no doubt,
of what was probably a long-standingbody of Catholic apologetic
against Donatism with standardargumentsand proof-textsas well as
documentationconcerningthe historicalaspects of the quarrel.
To this material,Augustinesoon contributedhis own Psalmuscontra
partemDonati (c.393-96).The relevantstanzabeginswith the thought
that to be able to live, one must cease being cut off from the vine and
returnto live in radice. Then at the very end of the stanza come the
words:
Numeratesacerdotes
vel ab ipsa Petri sede
et in ordineillo patrum
quis cui successitvidete:
ipsa est petraquam non vincunt
superbaeinferorumportae.'6

In his treatiseagainstthe fundamentalletterof Mani(397),Augustine

gave his reasons for rejectingthe invitationto accept the writingsof
Manias a sort of Scripture.The massiverealityof the CatholicChurch
is a decisivefactorin that rejection.Witha veryclearecho of Cyprian's
letters33.1 and 59.14, he says: "...tenet ab ipsa sede Petriapostoli, cui
Dominuscommendavit,usque
pascendasoves suas post resurrectionem
ad praesentem episcopatum successio sacerdotum..."

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

THE LISTS OF ROMAN BISHOPS IN THE ANTI-DONATIST POLEMIC

165

Returningto the debatewith the Donatists,in his letter43 (c.397-98)

to severalCarthaginianDonatists, he speaks of the importanceof the
see of Carthageat the historicaloriginsof the controversy.It waslinked
to Rome "...in qua semperapostolicaecathedraeviguit principatus..."
The word principatusin this phrase has traditionallybeen translated
into English as "primacy"but within the context of the traditionof
Cyprian'secclesiologywhich, I maintain,is still alive in this earlyletter
of Augustine,the word might more aptly, if not more felicitously,be
translated as "primordiality". Augustine's phrase thus might be
rendered:the Roman church, "in which the primordialityof the
apostolic chair has always flourished..."
About two years later, in a letterto a Catholicof Cirtaharassedby
Donatists, Augustine ridicules Donatist claims (Letter 53, c.400).
Catholics in Africa are in communionwith the whole world so that
allegedmessagesfrom angelsdemandingconversionto Donatismare to
be ignored. The Donatist succession?What is that comparedto the
Catholic succession? "Si enim ordo episcoporumsibi succedentium
considerandusest, quanto certius et vere salubriterab ipso Petro
numeramus,cui totiusEcclesiaefiguramgerentiDominusait:..." There
follows the text of Matt 16:18f. and the list of the Rome bishopsup to
Anastasius.
Presumablyit would not have been difficult for Augustineto have
furnishedat least a partial list of the Catholic bishops of Cirta to
illustratehis argument.But he did not. Ratherthe by now traditional
list of Romanbishops, the bishops of Cyprian'sprimordialchurch,is
given. The list and the argumentwere taken by Augustine from the
African traditionas formedlargelyby Cyprian.But at this later date,
to whatextentcan we be surethat Augustinehimselfis still consciously
imbued with this traditionalecclesiology?It is difficult to be precise
becausewe cannot read his mind.
There are clear indications that he no longer appreciatedthe full
depth of the traditionhe had inherited.For example,two observations
are made by Augustinewhich go beyond the Cyprianicorigins of the
argumentand are adaptedto the need of his own day. He notes that no
Donatistis to be found in the list, a referencepresumablyto the worthless argumentderivedfrom a so-called Donatist successionin Rome.
Further,he says, no traditoris to be found there either, an allusion
perhapsto the accusationthat, duringthe persecutionof Diocletian,
one bishopof Rome was guilty of somethingworsethan traditioin the

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

African sense, actual apostasyand idolatry,of betrayalby sacrificing

to the traditionalgods of Rome.17
One reason why the Cyprianic tradition may be weakening in
Augustine is that it is still very strong among his opponents the
Donatists. To be sure, they put much more emphasison questionsof
originthanon the themeof unity. The wholevocabularyof origo, radix
and mater/paterin the older usages is increasinglythe propertyof the
schismatics,as the objectionsof Petilianshow. "Omnisres enimorigine
et radiceconsistit et, si caput non habet aliquid, nihil est..." On the
thirddayof the conferenceof Carthagein 411, Petilianis still badgering
Augustinewiththe question:Is Caecilianyourfather?In this mattertoo
the Donatistscouldcongratulatethemselveson theirliteral,perhapstoo
literal, fidelity to Cyprian. Augustine's answers go beyond the old
framework.Later in the Contra litterasPetiliani (400-02), Augustine
replies to his antagonist in terms of geographic catholicity. The
Donatistsare not in communionwith the chairof the Romanchurchin
whichPeter sat and in whichAnastasiusnow sits nor with the chairof
Jerusalemin which Jamesonce sat and in which John now sits. In this
passage,successionis an issue but not solelythat of Rome. In his argument from geographiccatholicity,Augustineconsistentlyappealsnot
only to the questionof communionwith Rome but also to communion
with those easternsees mentionedin the New Testament,in Paul's letters and in the Apocalypse.
So, whilethe elementsof the Cyprianicargumentare still in place in
the early theologicaldevelopmentof Augustine,the originalmeaning
seemsto have faded a greatdeal and what remainsis thereprimarilyas
a vestigewhichhe inherited.The olderAfricantraditionhas yieldedin
Augustineto the changedcircumstancesof the Donatist controversy.
Yet, interestinglyenough,even as Cyprian'spictureof Peteras the man
whose onenessembodiedthe foundationof the Church'sunity, faded,
Augustinewas himself developinghis own version of Peter's symbolic
significance,revertingin a way to the early Tertullian.
Very often for Augustine, Peter is the symbol of the Churchas a
whole, not just its unity, although certainlynot excluding it. Peter
speaks,unuspro omnibus.Peter receives;the Churchreceives."Immo
vero et in ipso Petro unitatemcommendavit."Alreadyin letter 53, he
noted that the words of Jesus in Matt. 16:18 had been addressedto
Peteras representingthe whole Church.Withoutgoing any furtherinto
this, one can safely say that this usageis found with great frequencyin
Augustine.'8

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

THE LISTS OF ROMAN BISHOPS IN THE ANTI-DONATIST POLEMIC

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

THE LISTS OF ROMAN BISHOPS IN THE ANTI-DONATIST POLEMIC

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.

401 Michigan Ave. N.E., Washington, DC, U.S.A. 20017

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