EPISTLE LXXII.(5)

          TO JUBAIANUS, CONCERNING THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS.

ARGUMENT.--CYPRIAN  REFUTES A LETTER ENCLOSED TO HIM BY JUBAIANUS, AND
WITH  THE GREATEST CARE COLLECTS WHATEVER HE THINKS WILL AVAIL FOR THE
DEFENCE  OF  HIS  CAUSE.  MOREOVER,  HE  SENDS JUBAIANUS A COPY OF THE
LETTER  TO  THE NUMIDIANS AND TO QUINTUS, AND PROBABLY THE DECREES OF
THE LAST SYNOD.(6)

1. Cyprian to Jubaianus his brother, greeting. You have written to me,
dearest  brother,  wishing  that  the  impression of my mind should be
signified  to  you,  as  to  what  I  think  concerning the baptism of
heretics;  who,  placed  without, and established outside the Church,
arrogate  to  themselves a matter neither within their right nor their
power.  This  baptism we cannot consider as valid or legitimate, since
it  is  manifestly  unlawful  among  them;  and  since we have already
expressed in our letters what we thought on this matter, I have, as a
compendious  method,  sent  you  a  copy  of the same letters, what we
decided  in  council  when  very  many  of  us were present, and what,
moreover, I subsequently wrote back to Quintus, our colleague, when he
asked  about  the same thing. And now also, when we had met together,
bishops as well of the province of Africa as of Numidia, to the number
of  seventy-one,  we  established this same matter once more(7) by our
judgment,  deciding  that  there  is one baptism which is appointed in
the  Catholic  Church; and that by this those are not re-baptized, but
baptized  by  us,  who  at  any  time  come  from  the  adulterous and
unhallowed  water   to  be  washed  and sanctified by the truth of the
saving water.

2.  Nor  does  what  you  have  described  in your letters disturb us,
dearest  brother, that the Novatians re-baptize those whom they entice
from  us,  since it does not in any wise matter to us what the enemies
of the Church do, so long as we ourselves hold a regard for our power,
and  the  stedfastness  of  reason  and truth. For Novatian, after the
manner  of  apes--which,  although they are not men, yet imitate human
doings--wishes  to  claim  to  himself  the authority and truth of the
Catholic  Church,  while  he  himself  is  not  in  the Church; nay,
moreover,  has  stood  forth hitherto as a rebel and enemy against the
Church.  For,  knowing  that  there  is  one  baptism, he arrogates to
himself  this one, so that he may say that the Church is with him, and
make  us  heretics.  But  we  who hold the head and root(1) of the one
Church  know,  and  trust  for  certain,  that nothing is lawful there
outside  the Church, and that the baptism which is one(2) is among us,
where  he  himself also was formerly baptized, when he maintained both
the w isdom and truth of the divine unity. But if Novatian thinks that
those  who  have  been  baptized  in  the Church are to be re-baptized
outside--without  the  Church--he  ought  to begin by himself, that he
might  first be re-baptized with an extraneous and heretic al baptism,
since  he  thinks  that  after  the  Church,  yea, and contrary to the
Church, people are to be baptized without. But what sort of a thing is
this,  that,  because Novatian dares to do this thing, we are to think
that  we  must not do it! What then? Bec ause Novatian also usurps the
honour  of  the  priestly  throne,  ought we therefore to renounce our
throne?  Or  because Novatian endeavours wrongfully to set up an altar
and to offer sacrifices, does it behove us to cease from our altar and
sacrifices,  lest w e should appear to be celebrating the same or like
things with him? Utterly vain and foolish is it, that because Novatian
arrogates  to  himself  outside  the Church the image of the truth, we
should forsake the truth of the Church.

3.  But  among  us  it  is no new or sudden thing for us to judge that
those  are  to  be  baptized  who  come  to  the Church from among the
heretics,  since it is now many years and a long time ago, that, under
Agrippinus--a  man  of  worthy  memory--very  many bish ops assembling
together  have  decided  this;(3)  and thenceforward until the present
day,  so  many  thousands  of  heretics  in  our  provinces  have been
converted  to  the Church, and have neither despised nor delayed, nay,
they  have  both  reasonably  and gladly embr aced, the opportunity to
attain  the  grace of the life-giving layer and of saving baptism. For
it  is not difficult for a teacher to insinuate true and lawful things
into his mind, who, having condemned heretical pravity, and discovered
the  truth  of the C hurch, comes for this purpose, that he may learn,
and  learns for the purpose that he may live. We ought not to increase
the  stolidity  of heretics by the patronage of our consent, when they
gladly and readily obey the truth.

4.  Certainly,  since  I  found  in  the  letter the copy of which you
transmitted  to  me, that it was written, "That it should not be asked
who baptized, since he who is baptized might receive remission of sins
according  to  what he believed," I thought that this topic was not to
be  passed  by,  especially  since I observed in the same epistle that
mention  was  also  made of Marcion, saying that "even those that came
from him did not need to be baptized, because they seemed to have been
already  baptized in the n ame of Jesus Christ." Therefore we ought to
consider  their  faith  who believe without, whether in respect of the
same  faith they can obtain any grace. For if we and heretics have one
faith,  we may also have one grace. If the Patripassians, Anthropians,
Va lentinians, Apelletians, Ophites, Marcionites, and other pests, and
swords,  and  poisons of heretics for subverting the truth,(4) confess
the  same  Father,  the same Son, the same Holy Ghost, the same Church
with us, they may also have one baptism if they h ave also one faith.

5. And lest it should be wearisome to go through all the heresies, and
to  enumerate  either  the  follies  or  the  madness of each of them,
because  it is no pleasure to speak of that which one either dreads or
is  ashamed  to  know,  let  us examine in the mea ntime about Marcion
alone,  the mention of whom has been made in the letter transmitted by
you to us, whether the ground of his baptism can be made good. For the
Lord  after  His  resurrection,  sending His disciples, instructed and
taught  them  in what manner they ought to baptize, saying, "All power
is  given  unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost."(5) He suggests the Trinity, in whose sacrament
the  nations  were  to  be  baptized.  Does  Marcion then maintain the
Trinity?  Does  he then assert the same Father, the Creator, as we do?
Does  he know the same Son, Christ born of the Virgin Mary, who as the
Word was made flesh, who bare our sins, who conquer ed death by dying,
who  by Himself first of all originated the resurrection of the flesh,
and  showed  to  His  disciples that He had risen in the   same flesh?
Widely  different  is  the faith with Marcion, and, moreover, with the
other  heretics  nay,  with  them  there  is  nothing but perfidy, and
blasphemy, and contention, which is hostile to holiness and truth. How
then  can  one  who  is  baptized  among  them  seem  to have obtained
mission of sins, and the grace of the divine mercy, by his faith, when
he has not the truth of the faith itself? For if, as some suppose, one
could  receive  anything  abroad  out  of  the Church according to his
faith, certainly he has received what he believ ed; but if he believes
what  is  false,  he could not receive what is true; but rather he has
received things adulterous and profane, according to what he believed.

6.  This matter of profane and adulterous baptism Jeremiah the prophet
plainly rebukes, saying, "Why do they who afflict me prevail? My wound
is  hard; whence shall I be healed? while it has indeed become unto me
as  deceitful  water  which  has no faithfu lness."(1) The Holy Spirit
makes  mention  by  the  prophet  of  deceitful  water  which  has  no
faithfulness.  What  is  this deceitful and faithless water? Certainly
that  which falsely assumes the resemblance of baptism, and frustrates
the  grace  of  faith  by  a shad owy pretence. But if, according to a
perverted  faith,  one could be baptized without, and obtain remission
of  sins,  according  to  the same faith he could also attain the Holy
Spirit;  and there is no need that hands should be laid on him when he
comes,  that  he might obtain the Holy Ghost, and be sealed. Either he
could  obtain both privileges without by his faith, or he who has been
without has received neither.

7.  But  it  is  manifest  where  and by whom remission of sins can be
given;  to  wit,  that which is given in baptism. For first of all the
Lord  gave  that  power  to  Peter, upon whom He built the Church, and
whence  He  appointed  and  showed  the  source  of unity- -the power,
namely, that whatsoever he loosed on earth should be loosed in heaven.
And  after  the resurrection, also, He speaks to the apostles, saying,
"As  the Father hath sent me, even so I send you. And when He had said
this,  He breathed on them, and s aith, unto them, Receive ye the Holy
Ghost:  whosesoever  sins  ye  remit, they are remitted unto them; and
whosesoever  sins ye retain, they are retained."(2) Whence we perceive
that  only  they  who  are  set over the Church and established in the
Gospel  law, an d in the ordinance of the Lord, are allowed to baptize
and to give remission of sins; but that without, nothing can either be
bound  or  loosed,  where  there  is none who can either bind or loose
anything.

8.  Nor  do we propose this, dearest brother, without the authority of
divine  Scripture,  when we say that all things are arranged by divine
direction by a certain law and by special ordinance, and that none can
usurp  to himself, in opposition to the bi shops and priests, anything
which is not of his own right and power. For Korah, Dathan, and Abiram
endeavoured to usurp, in opposition to Moses and Aaron the priest, the
power of sacrificing; and they did not do without punishment what they
unlawfully  da  red.  The  sons of Aaron also, who placed strange fire
upon  the  altar, were at once consumed in the sight of an angry Lord;
which  punishment  remains  to  those who introduce strange water by a
false  baptism,  that  the  divine  vengeance  may avenge and chastise
when  heretics  do  that in opposition to the Church, which the Church
alone is allowed to do.

9.  But  in  respect of the assertion of some concerning those who had
been  baptized in Samaria, that when the Apostles Peter and John came,
only  hands  were  imposed  on  them, that they might receive the Holy
Ghost, yet that they were not re-baptized; we see that that place does
not,  dearest  brother,  touch  the  present  case.  For  they who had
believed in Samaria had believed with a true faith; and within, in the
Church  which  is  one, and to which alone it is granted to bestow the
grace  of  baptism and to rem it sins, had been baptized by Philip the
deacon,  whom  the same apostles had sent. And therefore, because they
had  obtained  a  legitimate  and ecclesiastical baptism, there was no
need  that  they  should be baptized any more, but only that which was
needed  wa s performed by Peter and John; viz., that prayer being made
for  them,  and hands being imposed, the Holy Spirit should be invoked
and poured out upon them, which now too is done among us, so that they
who  are  baptized  in  the Church are brought to the prel ates of the
Church,  and  by our prayers and by the imposition of hands obtain the
Holy Spirit, and are perfected with the Lord's seal.

10.  There is no ground, therefore, dearest brother, for thinking that
we  should  give way to heretics so far as to contemplate the betrayal
to  them  of  that  baptism, which is only granted to the one and only
Church. It is a good soldier's duty to defen d the camp of his general
against rebels and enemies. It is the duty of an illustrious leader to
keep  the  standards entrusted to him.(3) It is written, "The Lord thy
God is a jealous God."(4) We who have received the Spirit of God ought
to have a jealous y for the divine faith; with such a jealousy as that
wherewith  Phineas  both pleased God and justly allayed His wrath when
He  was  angry,  and  the  people were perishing. Why do we receive as
allowed  an  adulterous  and  alien church, a foe to the divine unity,
when  we  know only one Christ and His one Church? The Church, setting
forth   the   likeness   of   paradise,   includes  within  her  walls
fruit-bearing  trees,  whereof  that  which  does not bring forth good
fruit  is  cut  off  and is cast into the fire. These trees she waters
with  four  rivers,  that  is,  with the four Gospels, wherewith, by a
celestial inundation, she bestows the grace of saving baptism. Can any
one  water  from  the Church's fountains who is not within the Church?
Can  one impart those wholesome and saving draughts of paradise to any
one if he is perverted, and of himself condemned, and banished outside
the  fountains  of  paradise,  and  has  dried  up and failed with the
dryness of an eternal thi rst?

11.  The  Lord  cries  aloud,  that "whosoever thirsts should come and
drink  of  the  rivers  of  i  living  water  that  flowed  out of His
bosom."(1)  Whither  is  he  to come who thirsts? Shall he come to the
heretics, where there is no fountain and river of living water at all;
or  to  the  Church  which  is  one,  and  is founded upon one who has
received  the  keys of it by the Lord's voice? It is she who holds and
possesses  alone  all  the  power  of  her  spouse and Lord. In her we
preside;  for her honour and unity we fight; her grace, as well as her
glory,  we  defend  with  faithful  devotedness.(2)  We  by the divine
permission  water the thirsting people of God; we guard the boundaries
of  the  living  fountains.  If,  therefore,  we hold the right of our
possession,  if  we acknowledg e the sacrament of unity, wherefore are
we  esteemed  prevaricators  against  truth?  Wherefore  are we judged
betrayers  of  unity?  The faithful, and saving, and holy water of the
Church cannot be corrupted and adulterated, as the Church herself also
is  uncorru  pted,  and chaste, and modest. If heretics are devoted to
the  Church  and  established  in  the  Church,  they may use both her
baptism  and  her  other  saving  benefits. But if they are not in the
Church,  nay  more,  if they act against the Church, how can they bapt
ize with the Church's baptism?

12.  For it is no small and insignificant matter, which is conceded to
heretics, when their baptism is recognised by us; since thence springs
the  whole  origin  of faith and the saving access to the hope of life
eternal, and the divine condescension for purifying and quickening the
servants  of  God.  For  if  any one could be baptized among heretics,
certainly  he  could  also  obtain  remission  of sins. If he attained
remission  of  sins,  he was also sanctified. If he was sanctified, he
also  was  made  the  temple  of  God.  I  ask, of what God? If of the
Creator;  he  could  not be, because he has not believed in Him. If of
Christ; he could not become His temple, since he denies that Christ is
God.  If of the Holy Spirit; since the three are one, how can the Holy
Spirit  be  at peace with him who is the enemy either of the Son or of
the Father?

13. Hence it is in vain that some who are overcome by reason oppose to
us custom, as if custom were greater than truth;(3) or as if that were
not to be sought after in spiritual matters which has been revealed as
the  better by the Holy Spirit. For on e who errs by simplicity may be
pardoned, as the blessed Apostle Paul says of himself, "I who at first
was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious; yet obtained mercy,
because  I did it ignorantly."(4) But after inspiration and revelation
made  to  hi  m, he who intelligently and knowingly perseveres in that
course  in  which he had erred, sins without pardon for his ignorance.
For  he  resists  with a certain presumption and obstinacy, when he is
overcome  by  reason.  Nor  let any one say, "We follow that whi ch we
have received from the apostles," when the apostles only delivered one
Church,  and  one  baptism,  which  is not ordained except in the same
Church.  And we cannot find that any one, when he had been baptized by
heretics,  was  received  by  the  apostles  in  the same baptism, and
communicated  in such a way as that the apostles should appear to have
approved the baptism of heretics.

14.  For as to what some say, as if it tended to favour heretics, that
the  Apostle Paul declared, "Only every way, whether in pretence or in
truth,  let  Christ  be preached,"(5) we find that this also can avail
nothing  to  their benefit who support and applaud heretics. For Paul,
in his epistle, was not speaking of heretics, nor of their baptism, so
that  anything  can  be  shown to have been alleged which pertained to
this   matter.  He  was  speaking  of  brethren,  whether  as  walking
disorderly  anti  against  the discipline of the Church, or as keeping
the truth of the Gospel with the fear of God. And he said that certain
of  them  spoke  the  word of God with constancy and courage, but some
acted  in  envy  and  dissension;  that  some maintained towards him a
benevolent  love,  but  that  some  indulged  a  malevolent  spirit of
dissension;  but  yet  that  he  bore  all patiently, so long only as,
whether  in  truth  or  in  pretence,  the  name  of Christ which Paul
preached  might  come  to the knowledge of many; and the sowing of the
word,  which as yet had been new and irregular, might increase through
the preaching of the  speakers. Besides, it is one thing for those who
are  within  the  Church to speak concerning the name of Christ; it is
another  for  those  who  are  without,  and  act in opposition to the
Church, to baptize in the name of Christ. Wherefore, let not those who
fa  vour heretics put forward what Paul spoke concerning brethren, but
let  them  show  if  he  thought  anything  was  to be conceded to the
heretic,  or  if  he  approved  of  their  faith  or baptism, or if he
appointed   that   perfidious  and  blasphemous  men  could  receive r
emission of their sins outside the Church.

15.  But  if  we consider what the apostles thought about heretics, we
shall  find  that  they, in all their epistles, execrated and detested
the sacrilegious wickedness of heretics. For when they say that "their
word  creeps  as a canker,"(1) how is such a word as that able to give
remission  of  sins,  which  creeps  like  a canker to the ears of the
hearers?  And  when  they  say that there can be no fellowship between
righteousness  and  un-righteousness,  no  communion between light and
darkness,(2)  how  can either d arkness illuminate, or unrighteousness
justify?  And  when they say that "they are not of God, but are of the
spirit  of  Antichrist,"(3) how can they transact spiritual and divine
matters,  who  are  the enemies of God, and whose hearts the spirit of
Antichris  t  has possessed? Wherefore, if, laying aside the errors of
human  dispute,  we  return  with a sincere and religious faith to the
evangelical  authority  and  to  the  apostolical  tradition, we shall
perceive  that  they  may  do  nothing  towards  conferring the eccles
iastical and saving grace, who, scattering and attacking the Church of
Christ, are called adversaries by Christ Himself, but by His apostles,
Antichrists.

16.  Again,  there  is no ground for any one, for the circumvention of
Christian  truth,  opposing to us the name of Christ, and saying, "All
who  are  baptized everywhere, and in any manner, in the name of Jesus
Christ,  have  obtained  the  grace of baptism," --when Christ Himself
speaks, and says, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall
enter  into  the  kingdom  of heaven."(4), And again, He forewarns and
instructs, that no one should be easily deceived by false prophets and
false  Christs  in His na me. "Many," He says, "shall come in my name,
saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many." And afterwards He added:
"But  take ye heed; behold, I have foretold you all things."(5) Whence
it  appears  that all things are not at once to be received and assume
d  which  are  boasted of in the name of Christ, but only those things
which are done in the truth of Christ.

17.  For  whereas in the Gospels, and in the epistles of the apostles,
the  name of Christ is alleged for the remission of sins; it is not in
such  a  way as that the Son alone, without the Father, or against the
Father, can be of advantage to anybody; bu t that it might be shown to
the  Jews,  who boasted as to their having the Father, that the Father
would profit them nothing, unless they believed on the Son whom He had
sent. For they who know God the Father the Creator, ought also to know
Christ  the Son, lest they should flatter and applaud themselves about
the  Father  alone,  without  the  acknowledgment of His Son, who also
said,  "No  man  cometh to the Father but by me."(6) But He, the same,
sets  forth,  that it is the knowledge of the two which saves, when He
says,  "And  this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only
true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."(7) Since, therefore,
from  the  preaching  and  testimony of Christ Himself, the Father who
sent  must  be first known, then afterwards C hrist, who was sent, and
there  cannot  be  a  hope  of  salvation  except  by  knowing the two
together;  how,  when  God  the  Father  is  not  known,  nay, is even
blasphemed, can they who among the heretics are said to be baptized in
the name of Christ, be judged to h ave obtained the remission of sins?
For the case of the Jews under the apostles was one, but the condition
of  the  Gentiles  is  another.  The  former, because they had already
gained  the  most  ancient  baptism  of  the law and Moses, were to be
baptized  also  in  the  name of Jesus Christ, in conformity with what
Peter  tells them in the Acts of the Apostles, saying, "Repent, and be
baptized  every  one  of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for
the  remission  of  sins,  and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy G
host.  For  this promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all
that  are  afar  off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."(8)
Peter  makes  mention of Jesus Christ, not as though the Father should
be omitted, but that the Son also might be joine d to the Father.

18.  Finally,  when,  after the resurrection, the apostles are sent by
the  Lord to the heathens, they are bidden to baptize the Gentiles "in
the  name  of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." How,
then,  do  some  say,  that  a  Gentile  baptized without, outside the
Church,  yea,  and  in opposition to the Church, so that it be only in
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  everywhere, and in whatever manner, can
obtain  remission  of sin, when Christ Himself commands the heathen to
be  baptized  in  the  full  and un ited Trinity? Unless while one who
denies  Christ  is  denied  by  Christ,  he who denies His Father whom
Christ  Himself confessed is not denied; and he who blasphemes against
Him  whom  Christ  called His Lord and His God, is rewarded by Christ,
and  obtains remission of sins, and the sanctification of baptism! But
by what power can he who denies God the Creator, the Father of Christ,
obtain,  in baptism, the remission of sins, since Christ received that
very  power  by  which  we  are baptized and sanctified, from the same
Father,  whom  He called "greater" than Himself, by whom He desired to
be  glorified,  whose  will  He  ful filled even unto the obedience of
drinking  the cup, and of undergoing death? What else is it then, than
to  become  a  partaker with blaspheming heretics, to wish to maintain
and  assert,  that  one  who  blasphemes  and gravely sins against the
Father  and the Lo rd and God of Christ, can receive remission of sins
in  the  name  of Christ? What, moreover, is that, and of what kind is
it,  that  he who denies the Son of God has not the Father, and he who
denies  the  Father  should  be  thought to have the Son, although the
Son  Himself  testifies,  and says, "No man can come unto me except it
were  given  unto him of my Father?"(1) So that it is evident, that no
remission of sins can be received in baptism from the Son, which it is
not  plain  that the Father has granted. Especi ally, since He further
repeats,  and  says,  "Every  plant  which my heavenly Father hath not
planted shall be rooted up."(2)

19.  But if Christ's disciples are unwilling to learn from Christ what
veneration and honour is due to the name of the Father, still let them
learn  from  earthly  and  secular  examples, and know that Christ has
declared,  not  without  the  strongest  rebuke, "The children of this
world are wiser in their generation than the children of light."(3) In
this world of ours, if any one have offered an insult to the father of
any;  if  in injury and frowardness he have wounded his reputation and
his  honour  by  a  male  volent  tongue,  the  son  is indignant, and
wrathful,  and  with  what means he can, strives to avenge his injured
father's  wrong.  Think you that Christ grants impunity to the impious
and  profane, and the blasphemers of His Father, and that He puts away
their sins in baptism, who it is evident, when baptized, still heap up
evil  words  on  the  person of the Father, and sin with the unceasing
wickedness  of a blaspheming tongue? Can a Christian, can a servant of
God,  either conceive this in his mind, or believe it in faith, or put
it  forward  in discourse? And what will become of the precepts of the
divine  law,  which say, "Honour thy father and thy mother?"(4) If the
name  of father, which in man is commanded to be honoured, is violated
with  impunity  in  God, what w ill become of what Christ Himself lays
down  in  the Gospel, and says, "He that curseth father or mother, let
him  die  the  death;"(5)  if  He  who bids that those who curse their
parents after the flesh should be punished and slain, Himself quickens
those  who revile their heavenly and spiritual Father, and are hostile
to  the  Church,  their  Mother?  An execrable and detestable thing is
actually  asserted  by  some,  that  He  who  threatens  the  man  who
blasphemes  against  the  Holy Spirit, that he shall be guilty of eter
nal  sin,  Himself condescends to sanctify those who blaspheme against
God the Father with saving baptism. And now, those who think that they
must  communicate  with such as come to the Church without baptism, do
not  consider  that they are becoming partakers with other men's, yea,
with  eternal  sins, when they admit without baptism those who cannot,
except in baptism, put off the sins of their blasphemies.

20.  Besides,  how  vain  and  perverse  a  thing it is, that when the
heretics  themselves,  having repudiated and forsaken either the error
or  the  wickedness in which they had previously been, acknowledge the
truth  of  the Church, we should mutilate the righ ts and sacrament of
that same truth, and say to those who come to us and repent, that they
had  obtained  remission  of  sins  when  they  confess that they have
sinned, and are for that reason come to seek the pardon of the Church!
Wherefore, dearest brother, we ought both firmly to maintain the faith
and  truth  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  to  teach, and by all the
evangelical  and  apostolical  precepts  to set forth, the plan of the
divine dispensation and unity.

21.  Can  the  power  of  baptism  be  greater  or  of more avail than
confession,  than  suffering, when one confesses Christ before men and
is  baptized  in  his  own  blood?  And yet even this baptism does not
benefit  a heretic, although he has confessed Christ, a nd been put to
death outside the Church, unless the patrons and advocates of heretics
declare  that  the  heretics  who  are  slain in a false confession of
Christ  are  martyrs,  and  assign  to them the glory and the crown of
martyrdom  contrary to the testimony o f the apostle, who says that it
will profit them nothing although they were burnt and slain.(6) But if
not  even  the  baptism  of a public confession and blood can profit a
heretic  to  salvation,  because  there  is  no  salvation  out of the
Church,(7)  how  much  l  ess shall it be of advantage to him, if in a
hiding-place  and  a  cave  of  robbers, stained with the contagion of
adulterous  water,  he  has   not  only  not put off his old sins, but
rather  heaped  up  still  newer  and  greater ones! Wherefore baptism
cannot  be  common  to  us  and  to  heretics, to whom neither God the
Father, nor Christ the Son, nor the Holy Ghost, nor the faith, nor the
Church  itself,  is  common.  And  therefore  it  behoves  those to be
baptized  who  come  from  heresy  to the Church, that so they who are
prepared,  in  the  lawful,  and  true,  and  only baptism of the holy
Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God, may be born of
both sacraments, because it is written, "Except a man be born of water
and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."(1)

22.  On  which  place some, as if by human reasoning they were able to
make  void  the truth of the Gospel declaration, object to us the case
of  catechumens;  asking if any one of these, before he is baptized in
the Church, should be apprehended and slain on confession of the name,
whether  he  would  lose  the  hope  of  salvation  and  the reward of
confession,  because  he  had not previously been born again of water?
Let  men  of this kind, who are aiders and favourers of heretics, know
therefore,  first,  that  those  catechumens  hold the sound faith and
truth  of  the  Church,  and advance from the divine camp to do battle
with  the  devil,  with  a  full and sincere acknowledgment of God the
Father,  and  of  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  then, that they
certainly  are  not  dep  rived  of  the  sacrament of baptism who are
baptized  with  the  most  glorious  and  greatest  baptism  of blood,
concerning  which  the Lord also said, that He had "another baptism to
be  baptized  with."(2) But the same Lord declares in the Gospel, that
those  who  a  re  baptized  in  their  own  blood,  and sanctified by
suffering,  are perfected, and obtain the grace of the divine promise,
when  He  speaks  to  the  thief  believing and confessing in His very
passion,  and promises that he should be with Himself in paradise. Whe
refore  we  who  are set over the faith and truth ought not to deceive
and mislead those who come to the faith and truth, and repent, and beg
that  their sins should be remitted to them; but to instruct them when
corrected  by  us, and reformed for the kingdom of heaven by celestial
discipline.

23.  But some one says, "What, then, shall become of those who in past
times,  coming  from  heresy  to  the  Church,  were  received without
baptism?" The Lord is able by His mercy to give indulgence,(3) and not
to  separate from the gifts of His Church those who by simplicity were
admitted  into  the  Church,  and  in  the  Church have fallen asleep.
Nevertheless  it  does not follow that, because there was error at one
time,  there  must  always be error; since it is more fitting for wise
and  God-fearing men, gladly a nd without delay to obey the truth when
laid  open  and  perceived,  than  pertinaciously  and  obstinately to
struggle against brethren and fellow-priests on behalf of heretics.

24.  Nor  let any one think that, because baptism is proposed to them,
heretics  will  be kept back from coming to the Church, as if offended
at  the  name  of a second baptism; nay, but on this very account they
are rather driven to the necessity of coming by the testimony of truth
shown  and proved to them. For if they shall see that it is determined
and  decreed  by our judgment and sentence, that the baptism wherewith
they  are  there baptized is considered just and legitimate, they will
think  that  they  are  justly  and  legitimately in possession of the
Church  also, and the other gifts of the Church; nor will there be any
reason  for  their coming to us, when, as they have baptism, they seem
also  to have the rest. But further, when they know that there is no b
aptism without, and that no remission of sins can be given outside the
Church,  they  more  eagerly and readily hasten to us, and implore the
gifts  and benefits of the Church our Mother, assured that they can in
no  wise  attain to the true promise of divine grace unless they first
come  to  the  truth  of  the  Church.  Nor will heretics refuse to be
baptized among us with the lawful and true baptism of the Church, when
they  shall  have learnt from us that they also were baptized by Paul,
who already had been bapti zed with the baptism of John,(4) as we read
in the Acts of the Apostles.

25.  And  now  by certain of us the baptism of heretics is asserted to
occupy  the  (like)  ground,  and,  as  if  by  a  certain  dislike of
re-baptizing,  it  is counted unlawful to baptize after God's enemies.
And  this,  although  we  find  that they were baptized w hom John had
baptized: John, esteemed the greatest among the prophets; John, filled
with  divine  grace  even in his mother's womb; who was sustained with
the  spirit  and power of Elias; who was not an adversary of the Lord,
but  His  precursor  and  announcer; who not only foretold our Lord in
words, but even showed Him to the eyes; who baptized Christ Himself by
whom  others  are  baptized.  But  if  on that account a heretic could
obtain  the  right of baptism, because he first baptized, then baptism
will  not  belong  to  the  person that has it, but to the person that
seizes  it.  And  since  baptism  and  the  Church  can by no means be
separated  from one another, and divided, he who has   first been able
to  lay  hold on baptism has equally also laid hold on the Church; and
you  begin  to appear to him as a heretic, when you being anticipated,
have   begun  to  be  last,  and  by  yielding  and  giving  way  have
relinquished  the  right which you had rece ived. But how dangerous it
is  in  divine  matters, that any one should depart from his right and
power,  Holy Scripture declares when, in Genesis, Esau thence lost his
birthright,  nor  was able afterwards to regain that which he had once
given up.

26.  These  things,  dearest  brother,  I have briefly written to you,
according  to  my abilities, prescribing to none, and prejudging none,
so as to prevent any one of the bishops doing what he thinks well, and
having the free exercise of his judgment.(1) We, as far as in us lies,
do  not  contend  on  behalf  of  heretics  with  our  colleagues  and
fellow-bishops,  with  whom we maintain a divine concord and the peace
of  the  Lord;(1)  especially  since  the  apostle  says, "If any man,
however,  is  thought  to  be  content  ious,  we have no such custom,
neither  the  Church  of God."(2) Charity of spirit, the honour of our
college, the bond of faith, and priestly concord, are maintained by us
with  patience and gentleness. For this reason, moreover, we have with
the best of our poor abilities, with the permission and inspiration of
the  Lord,  written  a treatise(3) on the "Benefit of Patience," which
for the sake of our mutual love we have transmitted to you. I bid you,
dearest brother, ever heartily farewell.








EPISTLE LXXIII.(4)

TO POMPEY, AGAINST THE EPISTLE OF STEPHEN ABOUT THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS.

ARGUMENT.--THE  PURPORT  OF  THIS  EPISTLE IS GIVEN IN ST. AUGUSTINE'S
"CONTRA    DONATISTAS,"    LIB.   V.   CAP.   23.   HE   SAYS   THERE:
"CYPRIAN,MOREOVER,  WRITES  TO  POMPEY  ON  THE  SAME SUBJECT, WHEN HE
PLAINLY  SIGNIFIES  THAT  STEPHEN, WHO, AS WE LEARN, WAS THEN A BISHOP
OF  THE ROMAN CHURCH, NOT ONLY DID NOT AGREE WITH HIM ON THOSE POINTS,
BUT EVEN HAD WRITTEN AND CHARGED IN OPPOSITION TO HIM."(5)

1.  Cyprian  to  his brother Pompeius, greeting. Although I have fully
comprised what is to be said concerning the baptism of heretics in the
letters  of  which  I sent you copies, dearest brother, yet, since you
have  desired  that  what  Stephen  our  brother replied to my letters
should  be  brought  to  your knowledge, I have sent you a copy of his
reply;  on  the  reading  of which, you will more and more observe his
error  in  endeavouring  to  maintain  the  cause  of heretics against
Christians, and against the Church of God.(6) For among other matters,
which  were  either  haughtily  assumed, or were not pertaining to the
matter,  or  contradictory  to  his own view, which he unskilfully and
without  foresight  wrote, he moreover added this saying: "If any one,
therefore,  com  e  to  you  from  any heresy whatever, let nothing be
innovated (or done) which has not been handed down, to wit, that hands
be imposed on him for repentance;(7) since the heretics themselves, in
their  own proper character, do not baptize such as come to the m from
one another, but only admit them to communion."

2. He forbade one coming from any heresy to be baptized in the Church;
that  is, he judged the baptism of all heretics to be just and lawful.
And  although  special  heresies  have  special baptisms and different
sins,  he, holding communion with the baptis m of all, gathered up the
sins  of  all, heaped together into his own bosom. And he charged that
nothing should be innovated except what had been handed down; as if he
were  an  innovator, who, holding the unity, claims for the one Church
one  baptism;  and  no t manifestly he who, forgetful of unity, adopts
the  lies  and  the  contagions  of  a profane washing. Let nothing be
innovated,  says  he,  nothing maintained, except what has been handed
down.  Whence  is  that  tradition?  Whether  does it descend from the
authorit  y  of  the  Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the
commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which
are  written  must  be  done,  God witnesses and admonishes, saying to
Joshua  the son of Nun: "The book of this law shall not depa rt out of
thy  mouth;  but  thou  shalt  meditate in it day and night, that thou
mayest  observe  to  do  according to all that is written therein."(8)
Also  the Lord, sending His apostles, commands that the nations should
be baptized, and taught to  observe all things which He commanded. If,
therefore,  it is either prescribed in the Gospel, or contained in the
epistles  or Acts of the Apostles, that those who come from any heresy
should  not  be baptized, but only hands laid upon them to repentance,
le  t  this  divine  and holy tradition be observed. But if everywhere
heretics  are called nothing else than adversaries and antichrists, if
they  are  pronounced  to be people to be avoided, and to be perverted
and  condemned  of their own selves, wherefore is it t hat they should
not  be  thought  worthy of being condemned by us, since it is evident
from  the  apostolic  testimony(1)  that  they are of their own selves
condemned?  So that no one ought to defame the apostles as if they had
approved  of  the baptisms of hereti cs, or had communicated with them
without  the  Church's  baptism,  when  they, the apostles, wrote such
things  of the heretics. And this, too, while as yet the more terrible
plagues  of  heresy  had not broken forth; while Marcion of Pontus had
not  yet emerged from Pontus, whose master Cerdon came to Rome,--while
Hyginus was still bishop, who was the ninth bishop in that city,--whom
Marcion followed, and with greater impudence adding other enhancements
to  his crime, and more daringly set himself to blaspheme a gainst God
the  Father,  the  Creator,  and  armed  with  sacrilegious  arms  the
heretical  madness  that  rebelled  against  the  Church  with greater
wickedness and determination.

3.  But  if  it  is  evident  that  subsequently  heresies became more
numerous  and  worse;  and  if,  in  time  past,  it  was never at all
prescribed  nor  written that only hands should be laid upon a heretic
for  repentance,  and  that  so he might be communicated wit h; and if
there  is  only  one  baptism, which is with us, and is within, and is
granted  of  the  divine  condescension  to  the  Church  alone,  what
obstinacy  is  that, or what presumption, to prefer human tradition to
divine  ordinance,  and not to observe that God is indignant and angry
as often as human tradition relaxes and passes by the divine precepts,
as  He  cries  out,  and  says  by  Isaiah  the  prophet, "This people
honoureth  me  with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in
vain  do  they worship me, teac hing the doctrines and commandments of
men."(2)   Also  the  Lord  in  the  Gospel,  similarly  rebuking  and
reproving, utters and says, "Ye reject the commandment of God, that ye
may keep your own tradition."(3) Mindful of which precept, the blessed
Apostle  Paul  himself  also  warns and instructs, saying, "If any man
teach  otherwise,  and  consent not to the wholesome words of our Lord
Jesus  Christ, and to His doctrine, he is proud, knowing nothing: from
such  withdraw  thyself."(4)

4. Certainly an excellent and lawful tradition is set before us by the
teaching  of  our  brother  Stephen,  which  may  afford us a suitable
authority!  For  in  the  same  place  of his epistle he has added and
continued:  "Since  those  who  are  specially heretics do not baptize
those  who  come  to  them  from one another, but only receive them to
communion."  To this point of evil has the Church of God and spouse of
Christ been developed, that she follows the examples of heretics; that
for  the purpose of celebrating the celestial sacraments, light should
borrow  her  discipline  from  darkness, and Christians should do that
which antichrists do. But what is that blindness of soul, what is that
degradation  of faith, to refuse to recognise the unity(5) which comes
from  God th e Father, and from the tradition of Jesus Christ the Lord
and  our  God!  For  if  the  Church  is not with heretics, therefore,
because  it is one, and cannot be divided; and if thus the Holy Spirit
is not there, because He is one, and cannot be among profane p ersons,
and  those  who are without; certainly also baptism, which consists in
the  same  unity,  cannot be among heretics, because it can neither be
separated from the Church nor from the Holy Spirit.

5.  Or  if  they attribute the effect of baptism to the majesty of the
name,  so  that they who are baptized anywhere and anyhow, in the name
of  Jesus  Christ, are judged to be renewed and sanctified; wherefore,
in  the name of the same Christ, are not hand s laid upon the baptized
persons among them, for the reception of the Holy Spirit? Why does not
the  same  majesty  of the same name avail in the imposition of hands,
which,  they contend, availed in the sanctification of baptism? For if
any one born out of the Church can become God's temple, why cannot the
Holy  Spirit  also  be poured out upon the temple? For he who has been
sanctified,  his  sins  being  put  away  in  baptism,  and  has  been
spiritually  reformed  into a new man, has become fitted for receiving
the H oly Spirit; since the apostle says, "As many of you as have been
baptized  into  Christ  have  put  on  Christ."(6) He who, having been
baptized  among  the heretics, is able to put on Christ, may much more
receive  the  Holy  Spirit  whom Christ sent. Otherwise He who is sent
will  be  greater than Him who sends; so that one baptized without may
begin  indeed to put on Christ, but not to be able to receive the Holy
Spirit, as if Christ could either be put on without the Spirit, or the
Spirit  be   separated from Christ. Moreover, it is silly to say, that
although the second birth is spiritual, by which we are born in Christ
through  the  layer of regeneration, one may be born spiritually among
the  heretics,  where they say that the Spirit is not. For water alone
is  not  able  to  cleanse away sins, and to sanctify a man, unless he
have  also  the  Holy  Spirit.(1)  Wherefore it is necessary that they
should  grant the Holy Spirit to be there, where they say that baptism
is;  or else there is no baptism where the Holy Spirit is not, because
there cannot be baptism without the Spirit.

6. But what a thing it is, to assert and contend that they who are not
born  in  the  Church  can be the sons of God! For the blessed apostle
sets  forth  and  proves that baptism is that wherein the old man dies
and  the  new  man  is  born,  saying, "He saved u s by the washing of
regeneration."(2)  But  if regeneration is in the washing, that is, in
baptism,  how  can heresy, which is not the spouse of Christ, generate
sons to God by Christ? For it is the Church alone which, conjoined and
united with Christ, spiri tually bears sons; as the same apostle again
says, "Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might
sanctify it, cleansing it with the washing of water."(3) If, then, she
is  the  beloved  and spouse who alone is sanctified by Christ, and al
one  is  cleansed by His washing, it is manifest that heresy, which is
not  the  spouse  of Christ, nor can be cleansed nor sanctified by His
washing, cannot bear sons to God.(4)

7.  But  further,  one  is not born by the imposition of hands when he
receives  the Holy Ghost, but in baptism, that so, being already born,
he  may  receive the Holy Spirit, even as it happened in the first man
Adam.  For  first God formed him, and then bre athed into his nostrils
the  breath  of life. For the Spirit cannot be received, unless he who
receives first have an existence. But as the birth of Christians is in
baptism,  while  the generation and sanctification of baptism are with
the spouse of Christ alone, who is able spiritually to conceive and to
bear sons to God, where and of whom and to whom is he born, who is not
a  son  of  the  Church,  so as that he should have God as his Father,
before  he  has  had the Church for his Mother? But as no heresy at al
l,  and  equally no schism, being without, can have the sanctification
of saving baptism, why has the bitter obstinacy of our brother Stephen
broken  forth  to  such an extent, as to contend that sons are born to
God  from the baptism of Marcion; moreover, of Valentinus and Apelles,
and  of  others  who blaspheme against God the Father; and to say that
remission  of  sins  is  granted  in  the  name  of Jesus Christ where
blasphemy  is  uttered  against the Father and against Christ the Lord
God?

8.  In which place, dearest brother, we must consider, for the sake of
the  faith  and  the  religion  of  the  sacerdotal  office  which  we
discharge,  whether  the  account  can  be  satisfactory in the day of
judgment  for  a  priest  of  God,  who  maintains, and appro ves, and
acquiesces in the baptism of blasphemers, when the Lord threatens, and
says,  "And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you: if ye will
not  hear,  and  if  ye will not lay it to heart to give glory unto my
name,  saith the Lord Almighty, I will even send a curse upon you, and
I  will  curse  your  blessings."(5)  Does  he  give glory to God, who
communicates  with  the baptism of Marcion? Does he give glory to God,
who judges that remission of sins is granted among those who blaspheme
against God? Does he give glory to God, who affirms that sons are born
to  God  without,  of an adulterer and a harlot? Does he give glory to
God,  who does not hold the unity and truth that arise from the divine
law, but maintains heresies against the Church? Does he give g lory to
God, who, a friend of heretics and an enemy to Christians, thinks that
the  priests  of God, who support the truth of Christ and the unity of
the  Church,  are  to  be excommunicated?(6) If glory is thus given to
God,  if  the  fear and the discipline of God is thus preserved by His
worshippers  and  His  priests, let us cast away our arms; let us give
ourselves  up to captivity; let us deliver to the devil the ordination
of  the Gospel, the appointment of Christ, the majesty of God; let the
sacraments  of  the divine warfare be loosed; let the standards of the
heavenly  camp  be  betrayed;  and let the Church succumb and yield to
heretics, light to darkness, faith to perfidy, hope to despair, reason
to  error,  immortality to death, love to hatred, truth to falseho od,
Christ  to  Antichrist!  Deservedly thus do heresies and schisms arise
day  by  day,  more  frequently  and more fruitfully grow up, and with
serpents'  locks  shoot  forth  and cast out against the Church of God
with greater force the poison of their venom; whi lst, by the advocacy
of  some,  both  authority and support are afforded them; whilst their
baptism  is  defended,  whilst  faith,  whilst  truth, is betrayed;(7)
whilst  that  which  is  done  without  against the Church is defended
within in the very Church itself.


9. But if there be among us, most beloved brother, the fear of God, if
the  maintenance  of  the  faith  prevail,  if we keep the precepts of
Christ,  if  we  guard  the  incorrupt  and  inviolate sanctity of His
spouse,  if  the  words of the Lord abide in our thou ghts and hearts,
when  he  says,  "Thinkest  thou, when the Son of man cometh, shall He
find  faith  on  the  earth"(1)  then,  because  we are God's faithful
soldiers,  who  war  for the faith and sincere religion of God, let us
keep  the camp entrusted to us by God w ith faithful valour. Nor ought
custom,  which  had  crept  in  among  some, to prevent the truth from
prevailing  and  conquering; for custom without truth is the antiquity
of error.(2) On which account, let us forsake the error and follow the
truth,  knowing  tha  t  in  Esdras  also the truth conquers, as it is
written:  "Truth  endureth and grows strong to eternity, and lives and
prevails  for ever and ever. With her there is no accepting of persons
or  distinctions; but what is just she does: nor in her judgments is t
here  unrighteousness,  but  the  strength,  and  the kingdom, and the
majesty,  and  the  power  of  all  ages.  Blessed  be the Lord God of
truth!"(3)  This truth Christ showed to us in His Gospel, and said, "I
am  the truth."(4) Wherefore, if we are in Christ, and ha ve Christ in
us,  if we abide in the truth, and the truth abides in us, let us keep
fast those things which are true.

10.  But  it  happens, by a love of presumption and of obstinacy, that
one  would rather maintain his own evil and false position, than agree
in  the  right  and  true which belongs to another. Looking forward to
which, the blessed Apostle Paul writes to Tim othy, and warns him that
a  bishop  must  not  be  "litigious,  nor contentious, but gentle and
teachable."(5)  Now  he  is  teachable  who  is meek and gentle to the
patience  of  learning. For it behoves a bishop not only to teach, but
also  to learn; because he also teaches better who daily increases and
advances  by  learning  better;  which  very thing, moreover, the same
Apostle  Paul teaches, when he admonishes, "that if anything better be
revealed  to  one sitting by, the first should hold his peace."(6) But
there  is a brief way for religious and simple minds, both to put away
error,  and  to find and to elicit truth. For if we return to the head
and  source  of  divine tradition, human error ceases; and having seen
the  reason  of the heavenly sacraments, whatever lay hid in obscurity
under the gloom and cloud of darkness, is opened into the light of the
truth. If a channel supplying water, which formerly flowed plentifully
and  freely,  suddenly  fail, do we not go to the fountain, that there
the reason of the failure may b e ascertained, whether from the drying
up  of  the  springs  the  water  has  failed  at the fountainhead, or
whether,  flowing  thence free and full, it has failed in the midst of
its  course;  that  so,  if  it  has  been  caused  by the fault of an
interrupted  or  leaky channel, that the constant stream does not flow
uninterruptedly  and continuously, then the channel being repaired and
strengthened,  the  water  collected  may  be supplied for the use and
drink of the city, with the same fertility and plenty with which it is
sues  from  the  spring?  And this it behoves the priests of God to do
now,  if  they  would keep the divine precepts, that if in any respect
the  truth  have  wavered  and  vacillated,  we  should  return to our
original  and Lord, and to the evangelical and apostolica l tradition;
and  thence  may arise the ground of our action, whence has taken rise
both our order and our origin.(7)

11.  For  it  has been delivered to us, that there is one God, and one
Christ,  and  one hope, and one faith, and one Church, and one baptism
ordained  only  in  the  one  Church,  from which unity whosoever will
depart  must  needs be found with heretics; and wh ile he upholds them
against  the Church, he impugns the sacrament of the divine tradition.
The  sacrament  of which unity we see expressed also in the Canticles,
in the person of Christ, who says, "A garden enclosed is my sister, my
spouse,  a fountain seale d, a well of living water, a garden with the
fruit  of  apples."(8)  But  if His Church is a garden enclosed, and a
fountain  sealed,  how  can he who is not in the Church enter into the
same  garden,  or  drink  from  its fountain? Moreover, Peter himself,
showing and vindicating the unity, has commanded and warned us that we
cannot be saved, except by the one only baptism of one Church. "In the
ark,"  says  he,  "of  Noah,  few, that is, eight souls, were saved by
water,  as  also  baptism  shall  in like manner save you." (9) In how
short and spiritual a summary has he set forth the sacrament of unity!
For as, in that baptism of the world in which its ancient iniquity was
purged  away,  he who was not in the ark of Noah could not be saved by
water,  so  neither  can  he appear to be saved by baptism who has not
been  baptized  in the Church which is established in the unity(10) of
the Lord according to the sacrament of the one ark.

12. Therefore, dearest brother, having explored and seen the truth; it
is observed and held by us, that all who are converted from any heresy
whatever to the Church must be baptized by the only and lawful baptism
of  the  Church,   with the exception of those who had previously been
baptized in the Church, and so had passed over to the heretics.(1) For
it behoves these, when they return, having repented, to be received by
the  imposition  of hands only, and to be restored by the shep herd to
the  sheep-fold  whence  they had strayed. I bid you, dearest brother,
ever heartily farewell.

EPISTLE LXXIV.(2)

FIRMILIAN,  BISHOP  OF CAESAREA IN CAPPADOCIA, TO CYPRIAN, AGAINST THE
LETTER OF STEPHEN. A.D. 256.

ARGUMENT.--THE  ARGUMENT OF THIS LETTER IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THAT OF
THE  PREVIOUS  ONE,  BUT  WRITTEN  WITH  A  LITTLE  MORE VEHEMENCE AND
ACERBITY  THAN  BECOMES A BISHOP,(3) CHIEFLY FOR THE REASON, AS MAY BE
SUSPECTED,   THAT   STEPHEN  HAD  ALSO  WRITTEN  ANOTHER  LET  TER  TO
FIRMILIANUS, HELENUS, AND OTHER BISHOPS OF THOSE PARTS.(4)

1.  Firmilianus to Cyprian, his brother in the Lord, greeting. We have
received by Rogatian, our beloved deacon, the letter sent by you which
you wrote to us, well-beloved brother; and we gave the greatest thanks
to  the  Lord, because it has happened t hat we who are separated from
one  another in body are thus united in spirit, as if we were not only
occupying  one  country, but inhabiting together one and the self-same
house.  Which  also it is becoming for us to say, because, indeed, the
spiritual  house of God is one. "For it shall come to pass in the last
days,"  saith  the  prophet,  "that  the mountain of the Lord shall be
manifest,  and  the  house of God above the tops of the mountains."(5)
Those  that  come  together  into this house are united with gladness,
according to what is asked from the Lord in the psalm, to dwell in the
house  of the Lord all the days of one's life. Whence in another place
also  it  is  made  manifest, that among the saints there is great and
desirous  love  for assembling together. "Behol d," he says, "how good
and  how  pleasant  a  thing  it  is for brethren to dwell together in
unity! "(6)

2.  For  unity  and peace and concord afford the greatest pleasure not
only  to  men  who  believe  and  know the truth, but also to heavenly
angels  themselves,  to whom the divine word says it is a joy when one
sinner  repents  and  returns to the bond of unity. But assuredly this
would  not  be  said  of  the  angels,  who have their conversation in
heaven,  unless they themselves also were united to us, who rejoice at
our  unity;  even  as,  on the other hand, they are assuredly saddened
when  they see the diverse minds a nd the divided wills of some, as if
not  only they do not together invoke one and the same God, but as if,
separated and divided from one another, they can neither have a common
conversation  nor discourse.(7) Except that we may in this matter give
thanks  to  Stephen,  that  it has now happened through his unkindness
that  we  receive  the proof of your faith and wisdom. But although we
have  received  the  favour  of  this  benefit  on account of Stephen,
certainly  Stephen  has  not  done  anything deserving of kindness and
thanks.  For  neither  can  Judas be thought worthy by his perfidy and
treachery  wherewith  he  wickedly  dealt  concerning  the Saviour, as
though  he  had  been the cause of such great advantages, that through
him  the  world  and  the people of the Gentiles were delivered by the
Lord's passion.

3.  But  let  these things which were done by Stephen be passed by for
the  present, lest, while we remember his audacity and pride, we bring
a  more  lasting  sadness  on  ourselves  from  the things that he has
wickedly  done.(8) And knowing, concerning you, t hat you have settled
this  matter,  concerning  which there is now a question, according to
the rule of truth and the wisdom of Christ; we have exulted with great
joy,  and  have given God thanks that we have found in brethren placed
at  such  a  distance such a unanimity of faith and truth with us. For
the  grace of God is mighty to associate and join together in the bond
of  charity  and unity even those things which seem to be divided by a
considerable space of earth, according to the way in which of old also
t  he  divine  power  associated  in the bond of unanimity Ezekiel and
Daniel,  though  later in their age, and separated from them by a long
space  of  time,  to  Job  and Noah, who were among the first; so that
although  they  were  separated  by  long  periods,  yet  by  di  vine
inspiration they felt the same truths. And this also we now observe in
you, that you who are separated from us by the most extensive regions,
approve  yourselves  to  be,  nevertheless, joined with us in mind and
spirit.  All  which arises from the divine unity. For even as the Lord
who  dwells in us is one and the same, He everywhere joins and couples
His  own  people in the bond of unity, whence their sound has gone out
into  the whole earth, who are sent by the Lord swiftly running in the
spirit  of  unity;  as,  on the other hand, it is of no advantage that
some  are  very near and joined together bodily, if in spirit and mind
they  differ,  since  souls  cannot  at  all  be  united  which divide
themselves  from  God's  unity. "For, lo," it says, "they that are far
from Thee shall perish."(1) But such shall undergo the judgment of God
according  to  their desert, as depart from His words who prays to the
Father  for  unity,  and  says, "Father, grant that, as Thou and I are
one, so they also may be one in us."(2)

4.  But we receive those things which you have written as if they were
our  own;  nor  do  we read them cursorily, but by frequent repetition
have  committed  them to memory. Nor does it hinder saving usefulness,
either  to  repeat the same things for th e confirmation of the truth,
or,  moreover,  to add some things for the sake of accumulating proof.
But  if anything has been added by us, it is not added as if there had
been  too little said by you; but since the divine discourse surpasses
human  nature,  an  d  the soul cannot conceive or grasp the whole and
perfect  word, therefore also the number of prophets is so great, that
the divine wisdom in its multiplicity may be distributed through many.
Whence also he who first speaks in prophecy is bidden to be sil ent if
a  revelation  be  made  to  a  second. For which reason it happens of
necessity  among  us,  that  year by year we, the elders and prelates,
assemble  together to arrange those matters which are committed to our
care,  so  that if any things are more serious they may be directed by
the  common  counsel.  Moreover,  we  do  this that some remedy may be
sought for by repentance for lapsed brethren, and for those wounded by
the  devil  after  the  saving  layer,  not  as  though  they obtained
remission  of  sins  from  us,  but  t  hat  by  our means they may be
converted  to the understanding of their sins, and may be compelled to
give fuller satisfaction to the Lord.

5. But since that messenger sent by you was in haste to return to you,
and  the  winter season was pressing, we replied what we could to your
letter.  And  indeed, as respects what Stephen has said, as though the
apostles  forbade  those  who  come  from  here sy to be baptized, and
delivered  this  also  to  be  observed  by their successors, you have
replied  most abundantly, that no one is so foolish as to believe that
the  apostles  delivered  this,  when it is even well known that these
heresies  themselves,  execrabl  e  and  detestable as they are, arose
subsequently; when even Marcion the disciple of Cerdo is found to have
introduced  his  sacrilegious  tradition  against  God  long after the
apostles,  and  after  long  lapse  of  time  from them. Apelles, also
consenting  to  his blasphemy, added many other new and more important
matters  hostile  to  faith and truth. But also the time of Valentinus
and  Basilides  is  manifest,  that  they too, after the apostles, and
after  a long period, rebelled against the Church of God with their wi
cked  lies.  It  is  plain  that  the other heretics, also, afterwards
introduced their evil sects and perverse inventions, even as every one
was led by error; all of whom, it is evident, were self-condemned, and
have declared against themselves an inevitable sentence before the day
of  judgment; and he who confirms the baptism of these, what else does
he  do  but  adjudge  himself  with  them, and condemn himself, making
himself a partaker with such?

6.  But  that  they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all
cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the
authority  of  the  apostles;(3)  any one may know also from the fact,
that  concerning the celebration of Easter, a nd concerning many other
sacraments  of  divine  matters,  he  may  see  that  there  are  some
diversities  among  them,  and  that all things are not observed among
them  alike,  which  are  observed  at Jerusalem, just as in very many
other provinces also many things ar e varied because of the difference
of  the  places  and  names.(4)  And  yet  on this account there is no
departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such
as  Stephen  has now dared to make;(5) breaking the peace against you,
which  his  prede cessors have always kept with you in mutual love and
honour,  even  herein defaming Peter and Paul the blessed apostles,(5)
as  if  the  very  men  delivered this who in their epistles execrated
heretics,  and  warned  us  to avoid them. Whence it appears that this
tradition  is  of  men which maintains heretics, and asserts that they
have baptism, which belongs to the Church alone.

7.  But, moreover, you have well answered that part where Stephen said
in his letter that heretics themselves also are of one mind in respect
of baptism; and that they do not baptize such as come to them from one
another,  but  only  communicate with the m; as if we also ought to do
this.  In  which  place,  although  you have already proved that it is
sufficiently ridiculous for any one to follow those that are in error,
yet we add this moreover, over and above, that it is not wonderful for
heretics  to  act  t  hus,  who,  although in some lesser matters they
differ,  yet  in  that  which  is  greatest they hold one and the same
agreement  to  blaspheme  the Creator, figuring for themselves certain
dreams  and  phantasms of  an unknown God. Assuredly it is but natural
that these should agree in having a baptism which is unreal,(1) in the
same  way  as  they agree in repudiating the truth of the divinity. Of
whom, since it is tedious to reply to their several statements, either
wicked  or  foolish, it is sufficient shortly to say in sum, that they
who  do not hold the true Lord the Father cannot hold the truth either
of the Son or of the Holy Spirit; according to which also they who are
called  Cataphrygians,  and  endeavour  to  claim  to  themselves  new
prophecies,  can  have  neither  the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy
Spirit,(2)  of  whom,  if  we ask what Christ they announce, they will
reply that they preach Him who sent the Spirit that speaks by Montanus
and  Prisca. And in these, when we observe that there has been not the
spirit  of  truth,  but of error, we know that they who maintain their
false  prophesying  against  the  faith  of Christ cannot have Christ.
Moreover,  all  other heretics, if they have separated themselves from
the  Church  of  God, can have nothing of power or of grace, since all
power  and  grace  are  established  in the Church where the elders(3)
preside, who possess the power both of baptizing, and of imposition of
hands, and of ordaining. For as a heretic may not lawfully o rdain nor
lay  on  hands,  so neither may he baptize, nor do any thing holily or
spiritually,  since  he  is  an  alien  from  spiritual  and  deifying
sanctity. All which we some time back confirmed in Iconium, which is a
place  in Phrygia, when we were assembled to gether with those who had
gathered  from  Galatia and Cilicia, and other neighbouring countries,
as  to  be held and firmly vindicated against heretics, when there was
some doubt in certain minds concerning that matter.(4)

8.  And  as  Stephen and those who agree with him contend that putting
away of sins and second birth may result from the baptism of heretics,
among  whom  they  themselves confess that the Holy Spirit is not; let
them  consider  and  understand that spiritual birth cannot be without
the  Spirit;  in  conformity  with which also the blessed Apostle Paul
baptized  anew  with  a  spiritual  baptism those who had already been
baptized by John before the Holy Spirit had been sent by the Lord, and
so  laid  hands  on  them tha t they might receive the Holy Ghost. But
what  kind  of a thing is it, that when we see that Paul, after John's
baptism,  baptized  his  disciples again, we are hesitating to baptize
those  who  come  to the Church from heresy after their unhallowed and
profane  dipping.  Unless, perchance, Paul was inferior to the bishops
of  these times, so that these indeed can by imposition of hands alone
give the Holy Spirit to those heretics who come (to the Church), while
Paul was not fitted to give the Holy Spirit by impos ition of hands to
those who had been baptized by John, unless he had first baptized them
also with the baptism of the Church.

9.  That,  moreover,  is  absurd,  that  they do not think it is to be
inquired  who was the person that baptized, for the reason that he who
has  been  baptized  may  have obtained grace by the invocation of the
Trinity,  of  the names of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost.  Then this will be the wisdom which Paul writes is in those who
are  perfected.  But  who  in  the  Church is perfect and wise who can
either  defend  or believe this, that this bare invocation of names is
sufficient  to  the  remission  o  f  sins  and  the sanctification of
baptism;  since  these things are only then of advantage, when both he
who  baptizes  has the Holy Spirit, and the baptism itself also is not
ordained  without  the  Spirit?  But,  say  they, he who in any manner
whatever  is baptiz ed without, may obtain the grace of baptism by his
disposition  and faith, which doubtless is ridiculous in itself, as if
either  a  wicked  disposition could attract to itself from heaven the
sanctification  of  the  righteous,  or  a false faith the truth of be
lievers.  But  that  not all who call on the name of Christ are heard,
and  that  their  invocation cannot obtain any grace, the Lord Himself
manifests,  saying,  "Many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ,
and  shall deceive many."(5) Because there is no d ifference between a
false prophet and a heretic. For as the former deceives in the name of
God  or  Christ,  so  the latter deceives in the sacrament of baptism.
Both strive by falsehood to deceive men's wills.

10.  But  I wish to relate to you some facts concerning a circumstance
which  occurred  among  us,  pertaining  to  this  very  matter. About
two-and-twenty  years  ago, in the tithes after the Emperor Alexander,
there  happened in these parts many struggles and difficulties, either
in  general  to  all  men, or privately to Christians. Moreover, there
were   many  and  frequent  earthquakes,  so  that  many  places  were
overthrown  throughout  Cappadocia  and  Pontus;  even certain cities,
dragged into the abyss, were swallowed up by the opening of the gaping
earth. So that from this also a severe persecution arose against us of
the  Christian name; and this after the long peace of the previous age
arose  suddenly, and with its unusual evils was made more terrible for
the  disturb  ance of our people. Se-renianus was then governor in our
province, a bitter and terrible persecutor. But the faithful being set
in this state of disturbance, and fleeing  hither and thither for fear
of  the  persecution,  and leaving their country and passing over into
other  regions--for  there was an opportunity of passing over, for the
reason  that  that  persecution  was not over the whole world, but was
local--there  arose  amo  ng  us on a sudden a certain woman, who in a
state  of  ecstasy  announced herself as a prophetess, and acted as if
filled with the Holy Ghost. And she was so moved by the impetus of the
principal  demons,  that for a long time she made anxious and deceived
th  e  brotherhood,  accomplishing  certain  wonderful  and portentous
things,  and promised that she would cause the earth to be shaken. Not
that  the  power  of  the  demon was so great that he could prevail to
shake  the  earth,  or  to disturb the elements; but that so metimes a
wicked  spirit,  prescient,  and  perceiving  that  there  will  be an
earthquake,  pretends  that  he  will  do what he sees will happen. By
these  lies  and boastings he had so subdued the minds of individuals,
that they obeyed him and followed whithersoeve r he commanded and led.
He  would  also make that woman walk in the keen winter with bare feet
over frozen snow, and not to be troubled or hurt in any degree by that
walking. Moreover, she would say that she was hurrying to Judea and to
Jerusalem,  feigning as if she had come thence. Here also she deceived
one  of  the  presbyters, a countryman, and another, a deacon, so that
they   had  intercourse  with  that  same  woman,  which  was  shortly
afterwards  detected.  For  on a sudden there appeared unto her one of
the  ex  orcists,  a  man  approved and always of good conversation in
respect  of  religious  discipline; who, stimulated by the exhortation
also of very many brethren who were themselves strong and praiseworthy
in  the  faith,  raised  himself  up  against  that  wicked spir it to
overcome  it;  which  moreover,  by its subtile fallacy, had predicted
this  a  little  while  before, that a certain adverse and unbelieving
tempter  would  come.  Yet  that  exorcist,  inspired  by God's grace,
bravely resisted, and showed that that which was b efore thought holy,
was  indeed  a  most  wicked spirit. But that woman, who previously by
wiles  and  deceitfulness  of the demon was attempting many things for
the  deceiving  of  the  faithful, among other things by which she had
deceived  many,  also had frequent ly dared this; to pretend that with
an invocation not to be contemned she sanctified bread and celebrated,
the  Eucharist,  and  to  offer sacrifice to the Lord, not without the
sacrament  of  the  accustomed  utterance;  and  also to baptize many,
making  use  of  t  he  usual  and lawful words of interrogation, that
nothing might seem to be different from the ecclesiastical rule.

11. What, then, shall we say about the baptism of this woman, by which
a  most wicked demon baptized through means of a woman? Do Stephen and
they  who  agree with him approve of this also especially when neither
the  symbol  of  the  Trinity  nor  the  legitimate and ecclesiastical
interrogatory  were  wanting  to  her?  Can it be believed that either
remission  of  sins was given, or the regeneration of the saving layer
duly  completed,  when  all things, although after the image of truth,
yet  were  done  by  a  demon? Unles s, perchance, they who defend the
baptism of heretics contend that the demon also conferred the grace of
baptism  in  the  name  of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit.  Among them, no doubt, there is the same error--it is the very
deceitfulnes  s  of devils, since among them the Holy Spirit is not at
all.

12.  Moreover, what is the meaning of that which Stephen would assert,
that  the  presence  and  holiness  of  Christ  is  with those who are
baptized  among  heretics?  For  if the apostle does not speak falsely
when he says, "As many of you as are baptized into Christ, have put on
Christ,"(2) certainly he who has been baptized among them into Christ,
has  put on Christ. But if he has put on Christ, he might also receive
the Holy Ghost, who was sent by Christ, and hands are vainly laid upon
him who comes to us f or the reception of the Spirit; unless, perhaps,
he has not put on the Spirit from Christ, so that Christ indeed may be
with heretics, but the Holy Spirit not be with them.

13.  But let us briefly run through the other matters also, which were
spoken  of by you abundantly and most fully, especially as Rogatianus,
our  well-beloved deacon, is hurrying to you. For it follows that they
must be asked by us, when they defend he retics, whether their baptism
is carnal or spiritual. For if it is carnal, they differ in no respect
from  the baptism of the Jews, which they use in such a manner that in
it,  as if in a common and vulgar laver, only external filth is washed
away. But if it is spiritual, how can baptism be spiritual among those
among  whom there is no Holy Spirit? And thus the water wherewith they
are  washed  is  to  them  only  a  carnal washing, not a sacrament of
baptism.

14.  But  if  the baptism of heretics can have the regeneration of the
second  birth,  those  who are baptized among them must be counted not
heretics,  but  children of God. For the second birth, which occurs in
baptism,  begets  sons  of  God.  But if the spous e of Christ is one,
which  is  the Catholic Church, it is she herself who alone bears sons
of  God.  For  there are not many spouses of Christ, since the apostle
says,  "I  have  espoused  you,  that  I  may  present you as a chaste
virgin  to  Christ;"(1)  and,  "Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and
incline  thine  ear;  forget  also thine own people, for the King hath
greatly  desired  thy  beauty;"(2) and, "Come with me, my spouse, from
Lebanon;  thou  shalt come, and shalt pass over from the source of thy
faith;  "(3) and, "I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse."(4)
We  see  that  one  person is everywhere set forward, because also the
spouse  is  one.  But  the  synagogue  of heretics is not one with us,
because the spouse is not an adult eress and a harlot. Whence also she
cannot  bear  children  of  God; unless, as appears to Stephen, heresy
indeed brings them forth and exposes them, while the Church takes them
up  when  exposed,  and  nourishes  those for her own whom she has not
born,  although  she  cannot  be  the  mother of strange children. And
therefore  Christ  our Lord, setting forth that His spouse is one, and
declaring the sacrament of His unity, says, "He that is not with me is
against  me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth."(5) F or if
Christ  is  with  us,  but the heretics are not with us, certainly the
heretics  are  in  opposition to Christ; and if we gather with Christ,
but the heretics do not gather with us, doubtless they scatter.

15.  But  neither must we pass over what has been necessarily remarked
by  you,  that the Church, according to the Song of Songs, is a garden
enclosed,  and  a  fountain  sealed,  a  paradise  with  the  fruit of
apples.(6) They who have never entered into this g arden, and have not
seen  the  paradise planted by God the Creator, how shall they be able
to  afford  to  another  the  bring  water of the saving lava from the
fountain  which is enclosed within, and sealed with a divine seal? And
as  the  ark of Noah was nothing else than the sacrament of the Church
of  Christ,  which  then,  when all without were perishing, kept those
only  safe  who  were  within the ark, we are manifestly instructed to
look  to  the unity of the Church. Even as also the Apostle Peter laid
down,  sayi  ng,  "Thus  also  shall  baptism  in like manner make you
safe;"(7)  showing  that as they who were not in the ark with Noah not
only  were not purged and saved by water, but at once perished in that
deluge;  so  now also, whoever are not in the Church with Chri st will
perish outside, unless they are converted by penitence to the only and
saving lava of the Church.

16.  But what is the greatness of his error, and what the depth of his
blindness,  who  says  that  remission  of  sins can be granted in the
synagogues  of  heretics,  and does not abide on the foundation of the
one  Church  which  was  once  based  by  Christ upon the rock, may be
perceived from this, that Christ said to Peter alone, "Whatsoever thou
shall  bind  on  earth  shall  be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou
shall  loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."(8) And again, in the
Gospel,  when Christ breathed o n the apostles alone, saying, "Receive
ye  the  Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted unto
them, and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained."(9) Therefore
the  power  of  remitting  sins  was given to the apostles, and to the
churches  which  they, sent by Christ, established, and to the bishops
who  succeeded to them by vicarious ordination.(10) But the enemies of
the one Catholic Church in which we are, and the adversaries of us who
have  succeeded the apostles, asserting for themselves , in opposition
to  us, unlawful priesthoods, and setting up profane altars, what else
are  they  than  Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram,  profane  with  a  like
wickedness,  and  about to suffer the same punishments which they did,
as  well  as  those  who  agree  with them, just as their partners and
abettors perished with a like death to theirs?

17.  And  in  this  respect  I am justly indignant at this so open and
manifest  folly  of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his
episcopate,  and contends that he holds the succession from Peter," on
whom  the  foundations  of the Church were laid, should introduce many
other  rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining
that  there  is  baptism  in  them  by his authority. For they who are
baptized,  doubtless,  fill  up  the  number of the Church. But he who
approves  their baptism maintai ns, of those baptized, that the Church
is  also  with  them.  Nor  does  he  understand that the truth of the
Christian  Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him
when  he  thus betrays and deserts unity.(12) The apostle acknowledges
that  the  Jew  s,  although  blinded  by  ignorance, and bound by the
grossest  wickedness,  have yet a zeal for God. Stephen, who announces
that  he  holds  by succession the throne of Peter, is stirred with no
zeal  against  heretics,  when  he concedes to them, not a moderate, b
ut the very greatest power of grace: so far as to say and assert that,
by  the  sacrament of baptism, the filth of the old man is washed away
by them, that they pardon the former mortal  sins, that they make sons
of  God  by  heavenly  regeneration,  and renew to eternal life by the
sanctification  of  the  divine layer. He who concedes and gives up to
heretics  in this way the great and heavenly gifts of the Church, what
else  does  he do but comm unicate with them for whom he maintains and
claims so much grace? And now he hesitates in vain to consent to them,
and to be a partaker with them in other matters also, to meet together
with  them,  and equally with them to mingle their prayers, and appoin
t a common altar and sacrifice.

18.  But,  says he, "the name of Christ is of great advantage to faith
and  the  sanctification  of  baptism;  so  that whosoever is anywhere
so-ever  baptized in the name of Christ, immediately obtains the grace
of  Christ:  "although this position may be brie fly met and answered,
that  if  baptism  without  in  the  name  of  Christ  availed for the
cleansing  of  man;  in the name of the same Christ, the imposition of
hands  might  avail also for the reception of the Holy Spirit; and the
other  things  also  which  are done among heretics will begin to seem
just  and lawful when they are done in the name of Christ; as you have
maintained in your letter that the name of Christ could be of no avail
except  in  the  Church  alone, to which alone Christ has conceded the
power of hea venly grace.

19.  But  with  respect to the refutation of custom which they seem to
oppose  to  the truth, who is so foolish as to prefer custom to truth,
or  when  he sees the light, not to forsake the darkness?--unless most
ancient  custom  in  any  respect  avail the Jews , upon the advent of
Christ,  that  is,  the  Truth,  in  remaining in their old usage, and
forsaking  the new way of truth. And this indeed you Africans are able
to  say  against Stephen, that when you knew the truth you forsook the
error  of  custom.  But  we  join  custom to truth, and to the Romans'
custom  we  oppose  custom,  but the custom of truth; holding from the
beginning  that which was delivered by Christ and the apostles.(1) Nor
do  we  remember  that  this  at any time began among us, since it has
always  been  obs erved here, that we knew none but one Church of God,
and  accounted  no  baptism  holy  except  that  of  the  holy Church.
Certainly, since some doubted about the baptism of those who, although
they  receive  the new prophets,(2) yet appear to recognise the same F
ather  and  Son  with  us; very many of us meeting together in Iconium
very  carefully examined the matter, and we decided that every baptism
was  altogether  to  be  rejected  which  is  arranged for without the
Church.(3)

20.  But  to  what they allege and say on behalf of the heretics, that
the  apostle  said,  "Whether  in  pretence  or  in  truth,  Christ is
preached,"(4) it is idle for us to reply; when it is manifest that the
apostle, in his epistle wherein he said this, mad e mention neither of
heretics  nor  of  baptism  of  heretics,  but spoke of brethren only,
whether  as  perfidiously  speaking  in  agreement with himself, or as
persevering  in  sincere faith; nor is it needful to discuss this in a
long  argument,  but it is sufficie nt to read the epistle itself, and
to gather from the apostle himself what the apostle said.

21.  What  then,  say  they, will become of those who, coming from the
heretics,  have  been  received  without the baptism of the Church? If
they have departed this life, they are reckoned in the number of those
who  have been catechumens indeed among us, bu t have died before they
were  baptized,--no trifling(5) advantage of truth and faith, to which
they  had  attained  by  forsaking error, although, being prevented by
death,  they had not gained the consummation of grace.(6) But they who
still  abide  in  life  sho  uld  be  baptized with the baptism of the
Church,   that  they  may  obtain  remission  of  sins,  lest  by  the
presumption  of others they remain in their old error, and die without
the  completion  of  grace. But what a crime is theirs on the one hand
who  receive,  or  on  the  other, theirs who are received, that their
foulness  not  being washed away by the layer of the Church, nor their
sins  put away, communion being rashly seized, they touch the body and
blood  of  the Lord, although it is written, "Whosoever shall eat t he
bread  or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the
body and blood of the Lord!"(7)

22.  We  have judged, that those also whom they, who had formerly been
bishops  in  the  Catholic  Church,  and  afterwards  had  assumed  to
themselves  the  power of clerical ordination, had baptized, are to be
regarded  as  not  baptized.  And  this  is  observed  amo ng us, that
whosoever dipped by them come to us are baptized among us as strangers
and  having  obtained  nothing,  with the only and true baptism of the
Catholic Church, and obtain the regeneration of the layer of life. And
yet  there  is  a  great  difference  b etween him who unwillingly and
constrained by the necessity of persecution has given way, and him who
with  a profane will boldly rebels against the Church, or with impious
voice  blasphemes against the Father and God of Christ and the Creator
of  the  whole  world. And Stephen is not ashamed to assert and to say
that  remission of sins can be granted by those who are themselves set
fast  in all kinds of sins, as if in the house of death there could be
the layer of salvation.

23.  What,  then,  is  to  be  made  of what is written, "Abstain from
strange  water, and drink not from a strange fountain,"(1) if, leaving
the  sealed fountain of the Church, you take up strange water for your
own,  and  pollute the Church with unhallowed fo untains? For when you
communicate  with  the  baptism  of heretics, what else do you do than
drink  from  their  slough  and mud; and while you yourself are purged
with the Church's sanctification, you become befouled with the contact
of  the  filth of others? And do you not fear the judgment of God when
you  are  giving  testimony  to  heretics in opposition to the Church,
although  it is written, "A false witness shall not be unpunished?"(2)
But  indeed you are worse than all heretics. For when many, as soon as
their error is known, come over to you from them that they may receive
the true light of the Church, you assist the errors of those who come,
and,  obscuring  the  light  of  ecclesiastical truth, you heap up the
darkness  of  the heretical night; and although they confess that they
are  in sins, and have no grace, and therefore come to the Church, you
take  away  from them remission of sins, which is given in baptism, by
saying  that  they are already baptized and have obtained the grace of
the  Church  outside  the  Churc h, and you do not perceive that their
souls  will  be  required at your hands when the day of judgment shall
come,  for having denied to the thirsting the drink of the Church, and
having  been  the  occasion  of  death to those that were desirious of
living. And, after all this, you are indignant!

24.  Consider  with  what want of judgment you dare to blame those who
strive  for  the truth against falsehood. For who ought more justly to
be  indignant  against  the  other?--whether  he  who  supports  God's
enemies,  or he who, in opposition to him who suppo rts God's enemies,
unites  with  us on behalf of the truth of the Church?--except that it
is  plain that the ignorant are also excited and angry, because by the
want of counsel and discourse they are easily turned to wrath; so that
of  none  more  than of you does divine Scripture say, "A wrathful man
stirreth  up  strifes, and a furious man heapeth up sins."(3) For what
strifes and dissensions have you stirred up throughout the churches of
the  whole  world!  Moreover,  how  great  sin  have you heaped up for
yoursel  f,  when  you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is
yourself  that  you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is
really  the  schismatic  who  has  made  himself  an apostate from the
communion  of  ecclesiastical  unity.(4) For while you think tha t all
may  be  excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone
from  all;  and  not even the precepts of an apostle have been able to
mould  you  to  the  rule  of truth and peace, although he warned, and
said, "I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk
worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and
meekness,   with  long-suffering,  forbearing  one  another  in  love;
endeavouring  to  keep  the  unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
There  is  one body and one S pirit, even as ye are called in one hope
of  your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father
of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all."(5)

25.  How  carefully  has Stephen fulfilled these salutary commands and
warnings  of the apostle, keeping in the first place lowliness of mind
and  meekness!  For  what is more lowly or meek than to have disagreed
with  so many bishops throughout the whole wo rld, breaking peace with
each  one of them in various kinds of discord:(6) at one time with the
eastern  churches,  as  we are sure you know; at another time with yon
who  are  in  the  south,  from whom he received bishops as messengers
sufficiently  patiently  an  d  meekly not to receive them even to the
speech  of  an  ordinary conference; and even more, so mindful of love
and  charity  as  to command the entire fraternity, that no one should
receive them into his house, so that not only peace and communion, but
also  a shelter and entertainment, were denied to them when they came!
This  is to have kept the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, to
cut  himself  off  from  the  unity  of love,(7) and to make himself a
stranger  in all respects from his brethren, and to rebe l against the
sacrament and the faith with the madness of contumacious discord! With
such  a  man  can  there be one Spirit and one body, in whom perchance
there  is  not even one mind, so slippery, and shifting, and uncertain
is it?

26.  But as far as he is concerned, let us leave him;(7) let us rather
deal  with  that concerning which there is the greatest question. They
who  contend  that  persons  baptized  among  the heretics ought to be
received as if they had obtained the grace of lawful baptism, say that
baptism  is  one  and  the  same  to them and to us, and differs in no
respect.  But  what  says  the Apostle Paul? "One Lord, one faith, one
baptism,  one  God."(8) If the baptism of heretics be one and the same
with  ours, without doubt their faith also is one; but if our faith is
one, assuredly also we have one Lord: if there is one Lord, it follows
that  we  say  that  He  is  one.(1) But if this unity which cannot be
separated  and  divided at all, is itself also amo ng heretics, why do
we  contend any more? Why do we call them heretics and not Christians?
Moreover,  since  we  and heretics have not one God, nor one Lord, nor
one  Church,  nor  one faith, nor even one Spirit, nor one body, it is
manifest  that  neither  can  ba  ptism be common to us with heretics,
since between us there is nothing at all in common. And yet Stephen is
not  ashamed  to afford patronage to such in opposition to the Church,
and for the sake of maintaining heretics to divide the brotherhood and
in add ition, to call Cyprian "a false Christ and a false apostle, and
a  deceitful  worker."(2)  And he, conscious that all these characters
are  in  himself,  has been in advance of you, by falsely objecting to
another those things which he himself ought deservedly to hear. We all
bid  you,  for  all our sakes, with all the bishops who are in Africa,
and   all  the  clergy,  and  all  the  brotherhood,  farewell;  that,
constantly  of  one mind, and thinking the same thing, we may find you
united with us even though afar off.(3)

EPISTLE LXXV.(4)
TO MAGNUS, ON BAPTIZING THE NOVATIANS, AND THOSE WHO OBTAIN GRACE ON A
SICK-BED.

ARGUMENT.--THE  FORMER  PART  OF THIS LETTER IS OF THE SAME TENOR WITH
THOSE THAT PRECEDE, EXCEPT THAT HE INCULCATES CONCERNING THE NOVATIANS
WHAT  HE  HAD  IN  SUBSTANCE  SAID  CONCERNING ALL HERETICS; MOREOVER,
INSINUATING BY THE WAY THAT THE LEGITIMATE SUCCE SSION OF CORNELIUS AT
ROME  IS  KNOWN, AS THE CHURCH MAY BE KNOWN. IN THE SECOND PART (WHICH
HITHERTO,  AS  THE  TITLE  SUFFICIENTLY  INDICATES,  HAS  BEEN WRONGLY
PUBLISHED AS A SEPARATE LETTER) HE TEACHES THAT THAT IS A TRUE BAPTISM
WHEREIN  ONE  IS  BAPTIZED BY S PRINKLING ON A SICK-BED, AS WELL AS BY
IMMERSION IN THE CHURCH.

1.  Cyprian  to  Magnus  his  son, greeting. With your usual religious
diligence, you have consulted my poor intelligence, dearest son, as to
whether, among other heretics, they also who come from Novatian ought,
after  his  profane  washing,  to  be  baptized, and sanctified in the
Catholic  Church,  with  the lawful, and true, and only baptism of the
Church.  Respecting  which matter, as much as the capacity of my faith
and the sanctity and truth of the divine Scriptures suggest, I answer,
that  no heretics and sc hismatics at all have any power or right. For
which  reason  Novatian  neither  ought  to  be  nor  can be expected,
inasmuch  as he also is without the Church and acting in opposition to
the peace and love of Christ, from being counted among adversaries and
anti  christs.  For  our  Lord  Jesus Christ, when He testified in His
Gospel  that those who were not with Him were His adversaries, did not
point  out  any  species of heresy, but showed that all whatsoever who
were  not  with Him, and who, not gathering with Him, we re scattering
His  flock,  were  His adversaries; saying, "He that is not with me is
against  me,  and  he  that  gathereth  not  with  me  scattereth."(5)
Moreover,  the blessed Apostle John himself distinguished no heresy or
schism,  neither  did  he set down any as s pecially separated; but he
called  all  who  had  gone  out  from  the  Church,  and who acted in
opposition  to  the  Church,  antichrists, saying, "Ye have heard that
Antichrist  cometh,  and even now are come many antichrists; wherefore
we  know  that  this is the last time. They went out from us, but they
were  not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued
with  us."(6)  Whence it appears, that all are adversaries of the Lord
and  antichrists, who are known to have departed from charity and from
the  un  ity  of  the Catholic Church. In addition, moreover, the Lord
establishes it in His Gospel, and says, "But if he neglect to hear the
Church,  let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican."(7) Now
if  they  who  despise the Church are counted heathens a nd publicans,
much more certainly is it necessary that rebels and enemies, who forge
false  altars,  and  lawless priesthoods, and sacrilegious sacrifices,
and  corrupter  names, should be counted among heathens and publicans;
since  they who sin less, and are only despisers of the Church, are by
the Lord's sentence judged to be heathens and publicans.

2. But that the Church is one, the Holy Spirit declares in the Song of
Songs,  saying,  in  the  person of Christ, "My dove, my undefiled, is
one;  she  is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her
that  bare  her."(8)  Concerning  which  also He says again, "A garden
enclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring sealed up, a well of living
water."(9)  But  if  the  spouse  of Christ, which is the Church, is a
garden  enclosed;  a  thing  that  is  closed  up  cannot  lie open to
strangers  and  profane  persons.  A nd if it is a fountain sealed, he
who,  being  placed  without  has no access to the spring, can neither
drink  thence  nor be sealed. And the well also of living water, if it
is  one  and  the  same  within,  he  who  is placed without cannot be
quickened  and sanctified from tha t water of which it is only granted
to  those  who  are  within  to make any use, or to drink. Peter also,
showing this, set forth that the Church is one, and that only they who
are in the Church can be baptized; and said, "In the ark of Noah, few,
that is, e ight souls, were saved by water; the like figure where-unto
even  baptism  shall  save you;"(1) proving and attesting that the one
ark of Noah was a type of the one Church. If, then, in that baptism of
the  world  thus  expiated  and purified, he who was not in the ark of
Noah  could  be  saved  by water, he who is not in the Church to which
alone  baptism  is  granted,  can  also  now  be quickened by baptism.
Moreover,  too,  the  Apostle  Paul,  more  openly  and  clearly still
manifesting  this  same  thing,  writes  to  the Ephes ians, and says,
"Christ  loved  the  Church,  and  gave  Himself for it, that He might
sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the washing of water."(2) But if the
Church  is  one which is loved by Christ, and is alone cleansed by His
washing,  how  can  he  who  is  not  in the Church be either loved by
Christ, or washed and cleansed by His washing?

3.  Wherefore,  since  the  Church alone has the living water, and the
power  of baptizing and cleansing man, he who says that any one can be
baptized  and  sanctified  by  Novatian must first show and teach that
Novatian  is in the Church or presides over the Church. For the Church
is  one,  and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if
she  is  with  Novatian, she was not with Cornelius.(3) But if she was
with  Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination,
and  whom,  beside  the  ho nour of the priesthood, the Lord glorified
also  with  martyrdom,  Novatian  is  not in the Church; nor can he be
reckoned  as  a  bishop,  who, succeeding to no one, and despising the
evangelical  and  apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who
has  not b een ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the
Church in any way.

4. For the faith of the sacred Scripture sets forth that the Church is
not  without,  nor  can  be  separated nor divided against itself, but
maintains the unity of an inseparable and undivided house; since it is
written  of the sacrament of the passover, and of the lamb, which Lamb
designated Christ: "In one house shall it be eaten: ye shall not carry
forth  the  flesh  abroad  out  of  the  house."(4)  Which also we see
expressed  concerning  Rahab,  who  herself  also  bore  a type of the
Church,  who  received  the com mand which said, "Thou shalt bring thy
father,  and  thy  mother,  and  thy  brethren,  and  all thy father's
household  unto  thee  into thine house; and whosoever shall go out of
the  doors  of  thine  house  into the street, his blood shall be upon
him."(5)  In  which  mystery is declared, that they who will live, and
escape  from  the  destruction of the world, must be gathered together
into one house alone, that is, into the Church; but whosoever of those
thus  collected  together  shall  go  out abroad, that is, if any one,
although he may have obtained grace in the Church, shall depart and go
out  of the Church, that his blood shall be upon him; that is, that he
himself  must  charge  it  upon  himself  that  he perishes; which the
Apostle  Paul explains, teaching and enjoining th at a heretic must be
avoided,  as  perverse, and a sinner, and as condemned of himself. For
that  man  will  be guilty of his own ruin, who, not being cast out by
the  bishop,  but  of  his  own accord deserting from the Church is by
heretical presumption condemne d of himself.

5.  And  therefore  the Lord, suggesting to us a unity that comes from
divine  authority, lays it down, saying, "I and my Father are one."(6)
To which unity reducing His Church, He says again, "And there shall be
one  flock,(7) and one shepherd."(8) But i f the flock is one, how can
he  be numbered among the flock who is not in the number of the flock?
Or  how  can  he  be  esteemed a pastor, who,--while the true shepherd
remains   and   presides   over   the  Church  of  God  by  successive
ordination,--succeeding  to  no  on  e,  and  beginning  from himself,
becomes  a stranger and a profane person, an enemy of the Lord's peace
and of the divine unity, not dwelling in the house of God, that is, in
the  Church  of  God, in which none dwell except they are of one heart
and  one  mind,  since the Holy Spirit speaks in the Psalms, and says,
"It is God who maketh men to dwell of one mind in a house."(9)

6.   Besides  even  the  Lord's  sacrifices  themselves  declare  that
Christian  unanimity  is  linked  together  with  itself by a firm and
inseparable  charity, For when the Lord calls bread, which is combined
by  the  union of many grains, His body, He indicates o ur people whom
He  bore as being united; and when He calls the wine, which is pressed
from  many  grapes  and clusters and collected together, His blood, He
also  signifies  our flock linked together by the mingling of a united
multitude.(10) If Novatian is u nited to this bread of the Lord, if he
also  is mingled  with this cup of Christ, he may also seem to be able
to  have the grace of the one baptism of the Church, if it be manifest
that he holds the unity of the Church. In fine, how inseparable is the
sacrament  of  unity,  and  how hopeless are they, and what exce ssive
ruin  they earn for themselves from the indignation of God, who make a
schism,  and,  forsaking their bishop,(1) appoint another false bishop
for  themselves  without,--Holy  Scripture  declares  in  the books of
Kings;  where  ten  tribes  were  divided from th e tribe of Judah and
Benjamin,  and, forsaking their king, appointed for themselves another
one  without.  It says, "And the Lord was very angry with all the seed
of  Israel, and removed them away, and delivered them into the hand of
spoilers,  until  He  had  c ast them out of His sight; for Israel was
scattered  from  the  house of David, and they made themselves a king,
Jeroboam  the  son of Nebat."(2) It says that the Lord was very angry,
and gave them up to perdition, because they were scattered from unity,
and  had  made  another  king  for  themselves.  And  so great was the
indignation  of  the  Lord against those who had made the schism, that
even  when the man of God was sent to Jeroboam, to charge upon him his
sins,  and predict the future vengeance, he was forbidden to eat bread
or  to  drink  water  with them. And when he did not observe this, and
took  meat  against  the command of God, he was immediately smitten by
the  majesty  of  the divine judgment, so that returning thence he was
slain  on  the way by the jaws of a lion which attacked him. And dares
any one to say that the saving water of baptism and heavenly grace can
be  in  common  with  schismatics,  with whom neither earthly food nor
worldly  drink  ought to be in common? Moreover, the Lord satisfies us
in His Gospel, a nd shows forth a still greater light of intelligence,
that  the  same persons who had then divided themselves from the tribe
of Judah and Benjamin, and forsaking Jerusalem had seceded to Samaria,
should  be  reckon among profane persons and Gentiles. For whe n first
He  sent  His  disciples  on  the ministry of salvation, He bade them,
saying, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the
Samaritans  enter  ye  not."(3) Sending first to the Jews, He commands
the  Gentiles  as  yet to be passed over; bu t by adding that even the
city   of   the  Samaritans  was  to  be  omitted,  where  there  were
schismatics,  He  shows  that  schismatics  were to be put on the same
level as Gentiles.

7.  But  if  any one objects, by way of saying that Novatian holds the
same  law  which  the  Catholic  Church  holds, baptizes with the same
symbol  with which we baptize, knows the same God and Father, the same
Christ the Son, the same Holy Spirit, and th at for this reason he may
claim the power of baptizing, namely, that he seems not to differ from
us  in  the baptismal interrogatory; let any one that thinks that this
may  be  objected,  know first of all, that them is not one law of the
Creed, nor the same interrogatory common to us and to schismatics. For
when  they  say,  "Dost  thou  believe  the remission of sins and life
eternal  through  the  holy  Church?" they lie in their interrogatory,
since  they  have  not the Church. Then, besides, with their own voice
the y themselves confess that remission of sins cannot be given except
by the holy Church; and not having this, they show that sins cannot be
remitted among them.

8.  But  that  they are said to have the same God the Father as we, to
know the same Christ the Son, the same Holy Spirit, can be of no avail
to such as these. For even Korah, Dathan, and Abiram knew the same God
as  did  the  priest  Aaron  and Moses. Livin g under the same law and
religion,  they invoke the one and true God, who was to be invoked and
worshipped;  yet,  because  they  transgressed  the  ministry of their
office  in  opposition  to  Aaron  the  priest,  who  bad received the
legitimate  priesthood by the co ndescension of God and the ordination
of  the  Lord,  and  claimed  to  themselves the power of sacrificing,
divinely  stricken,  they  immediately  suffered  punishment for their
unlawful   endeavours;   and   sacrifices  offered  irreligiously  and
lawlessly,  contrary  to the right of divine appointment, could not be
accepted,  nor  profit  them. Even those very censers in which incense
had  been  lawlessly offered, lest they should any more be used by the
priests,  but  that they might rather exhibit a memorial of the divine
ve  ngeance  and  indignation  for the correction of their successors,
being  by  the  command  of  the  Lord melted and purged by fire, were
beaten out into flexible plates, and fastened to the altars, according
to  what the Holy Scripture says, "to be," it says, "a memorial to the
children of Israel, that no stranger which is not of the seed of Aaron
come  near  to  offer  incense  before  the  Lord,  that  he be not as
Korah."(4)  And  yet those men had not made a schism, nor had gone out
abroad,  and  in opposition to God's p riests rebelled shamelessly and
with  hostility;  but  this  these  men  are  now doing who divide the
Church,  and, as rebels against the peace and unity of Christ, attempt
to  establish  a  throne for themselves, and to assume the primacy,(5)
and  to  claim  the  rig ht of baptizing and of offering. How can they
complete  what  they do, or obtain anything by lawless endeavours from
God,  seeing that they are endeavouring against God what is not lawful
to them? Wherefore they who patronize Novatian or other schismatics of
that kind, contend in vain that any one can be baptized and sanctified
with  a  saving  baptism  among  them,  when  it  is plain that he who
baptizes has not the power of baptizing.

9.  And, moreover, that it may be better understood what is the divine
judgment  against  audacity  of  the  like  kind, we find that in such
wickedness,  not  only  the  leaders  and  originators,  but  also the
partakers,  are  destined  to  punishment, unless they h ave separated
themselves  from  the  communion  of  the wicked; as the Lord by Moses
commands,  and says, "Separate yourselves from the tents of these most
hardened  men,  and  touch  nothing  of theirs, lest ye be consumed in
their  sins."(1)  And  what  the  Lord  had  threatened  by  Moses  He
fulfilled,  that  whosoever  had not separated himself from Korah, and
Dathan,  and  Abiram,  immediately suffered punishment for his impious
communion.  By  which  example  is  shown and proved, that all will be
liable  to  guilt  as  well  as  it s punishment, who with irreligious
boldness  mingle themselves with schismatics in opposition to prelates
and  priests;  even  as  also  by  the  prophet  Osea  the Holy Spirit
witnesses, and says, "Their sacrifices shall be unto them as the bread
of  mourning;  all  that  thereof  shall  be  polluted; "(2) teaching,
doubtless, and showing that all are absolutely joined with the leaders
in punishment, who have been contaminated by their crime.

10.  What,  then, can be their deservings in the sight of God, on whom
punishment are divinely denounced? or how can such persons justify and
sanctify  the  baptized,  who, being enemies of the priests, strive to
usurp  things  foreign and lawless, and by n o right conceded to them?
And  yet  we  do not wonder that, in accordance with their wickedness,
they  do  contend  for them. For it is necessary that each one of them
should  maintain  what  they  do; nor when vanquished will they easily
yield,  although they know that what they do is not lawful. That is to
be  wondered  at,  yea,  rather to be indignant and aggrieved at, that
Christians  should  support antichrists; and that prevaricators of the
faith,  and betrayers of the Church, should stand within in the Church
its  elf.(3)  And these, although otherwise obstinate and unteachable,
yet  still  at  least  confess  this  that  all,  whether  heretics or
schismatics,  are  without  the  Holy  Ghost, and therefore can indeed
baptize,  but  cannot  confer  the Holy Spirit; and at this very point
they  are held fast by us, inasmuch as we show that those who have not
the Holy Ghost are not able to baptize at all.

11. For since in baptism every one has his own sins remitted, the Lord
proves  and  declares  in His Gospel that sins can only be put away by
those  who  have  the Holy Spirit. For after His resurrection, sending
forth  His disciples, He speaks to them, and says, "As the Father hath
sent me, even so send I you. And when He had said this, He breathed on
them,  and  said to them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins
ye  remit,  they shall be remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye
retain,  they  shall be retained."(4) In which place He shows, that he
alone  can baptize and give remission of sins who has the Holy Spirit.
Moreover, John, who was to baptize Christ our Lord Himself, previously
received the Holy Ghost while he was yet in his mother's womb, that it
might  be  certain  and  manifest that none can baptize save those who
have  the  Holy  Spirit.  Therefore  those  who  patronize heretics or
schismatics  must  answer  us  whether  they have or have not the Holy
Ghost.  If they have, why are hands imposed on th ose who are baptized
among them when they come to us, that they may receive the Holy Ghost,
since  He  must  surely  have  been received there, where if He was He
could  be given? But if heretics and schismatics baptized without have
not  the  Holy  Spirit, and t herefore hands are imposed on them among
us,  that here may be received what there neither is nor can be given;
it  is  plain,  also,  that remission of sins cannot be given by those
who,  it is certain, have not the Holy Spirit. And therefore, in order
that,  according  to the divine arrangement and the evangelical truth,
they  may  be  able to obtain remission of sins, and to be sanctified,
and  to  become  temples  of God, they must all absolutely be baptized
with  the  baptism  of  the  Church  who  come  from  adversaries  and
antichrists to the Church of Christ.

12.  You  have  asked  also,  dearest son, what I thought of those who
obtain  God's  grace  in sickness and weakness, whether they are to be
accounted  legitimate  Christians, for that they are not to be washed,
but  sprinkled,  with  the saving water. In this p oint, my diffidence
and  modesty prejudges none, so as to prevent any from feeling what he
thinks  right,  and from doing what he feels to be right.(5) As far as
my  poor  understanding conceives it, I think that the divine benefits
can  in  no  respect be muti lated and weakened; nor can anything less
occur  in  that  case,  where,  with full and entire faith both of the
giver  and receiver, is accepted what is drawn  from the divine gifts.
For in the sacrament of salvation the contagion of sins is not in such
wise  washed  away, as the filth of the skin and of the body is washed
away  in the carnal and ordinary washing, as that there should be need
of  saltpetre  and  othe  r  appliances  also,  and a bath and a basin
wherewith this vile body must be washed and purified. Otherwise is the
breast  of  the believer washed; otherwise is the mind of man purified
by  the merit of faith. In the sacraments of salvation, when necessity
co  mpels,  and  God  bestows His mercy, the divine methods confer the
whole  benefit on believers; nor ought it to trouble any one that sick
people  seem  to  be sprinkled or affused, when they obtain the Lord's
grace,  when  Holy  Scripture  speaks  by  the  mouth  of th e prophet
Ezekiel,  and says, "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye
shall  be clean: from alI your filthiness and from all your idols will
I  cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit will
I  put  within  you."(1)  Also in Numb ers: "And the man that shall be
unclean  until  the evening shall be purified on the third day, and on
the seventh day shall be clean: but if he shall not be purified on the
third  day,  on  the  seventh day he shall not be clean. And that soul
shall  be  cut  of f from Israel: because the water of sprinkling hath
not  been  sprinkled upon him."(2) And again: "And the Lord spake unto
Moses  saying, Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and
cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them : thou
shall  sprinkle  them  with  the water of purification."(3) And again:
"The water of sprinkling is a purification."(4) Whence it appears that
the  sprinkling  also  of  water  prevails equally with the washing of
salvation;  and that when this is done in th e Church, where the faith
both  of  receiver and giver is sound, all things hold and may be con-
summated  and perfected by the majesty of the Lord and by the truth of
faith.

13.  But, moreover, in respect of some calling those who have obtained
the  peace  of Christ by the saving water and by legitimate faith, not
Christians,  but Clinics, I do not find whence they take up this name,
unless  perhaps,  having read more, and of a more recondite kind, they
have  taken  these  Clinics from Hippocrates or Soranus.(5) For I, who
know of a Clinic in the Gospel, know that to that paralytic and infirm
man,  who  lay  on  his  bed  during  the long course of his life, his
infirmity  presented  no  obstacle  to  his  attainment in the fullest
degree  of  heavenly  strength. Nor was he only raised from his bed by
the  divine  indulgence,  but  he also took up his bed itself with his
restored  and  increased  strength.  And  therefore,  as  far as it is
allowed  m  e  by  faith to conceive and to think, this is my opinion,
that any one should be esteemed a legitimate Christian, who by the law
and right of faith shall have obtained the grace of God in the Church.
Or  if  any  one  think that those have gained nothing by h aving only
been  sprinkled  with  the saving water, but that they are still empty
and  void,  let them not be deceived, so as if they escape the evil of
their  sickness, and get well, they should seek to be baptized.(6) But
if  they  cannot  be  baptized  who  have  already  been sanctified by
ecclesiastical  baptism,  why  are  they  offended in respect of their
faith  and  the  mercy  of  the Lord? Or have they obtained indeed the
divine favour, but in a shorter and more limited measure of the divine
gift  and of the Holy Spi rit, so as indeed to be esteemed Christians,
but yet not to be counted equal with others?

14.  Nay,  verily,  the  Holy  Spirit  is not given by measure, but is
poured  out  altogether on the believer. For if the day rises alike to
all,  and  if  the sun is diffused with like and equal light over all,
how  much  more  does  Christ,  who is the true sun a nd the true day,
bestow in His Church the light of eternal life with the like equality!
Of  which equality we see the sacrament celebrated in Exodus, when the
manna  flowed  down  from heaven, and, prefiguring the things to come,
showed forth the nourishment of the heavenly bread and the food of the
coming Christ. For there, without distinction either of sex or of age,
an omer was collected equally by each one? Whence it appeared that the
mercy  of Christ, and the heavenly grace that would subsequently follo
w,  was  equally divided among all; without difference of sex, without
distinction  of  years,  without  accepting  of  persons, upon all the
people of God the gift of spiritual grace was shed. Assuredly the same
spiritual grace which is equally received in bapt ism by believers, is
subsequently  either  increased  or diminished in our conversation and
conduct;  as  in  the  Gospel  the  Lord's  seed is equally sown, but,
according  to  the  variety  of  the soil, some is wasted, and some is
increased  into a large variety of p lenty, with an exuberant fruit of
either  thirty  or  sixty or a hundred fold. But, once more, when each
was  called  to  receive a penny, wherefore should what is distributed
equally by God be diminished by human interpretation?

15.  But  if  any  one  is  moved  by this, that some of those who are
baptized  in  sickness  are  still tempted by unclean spirits, let him
know  that  the  obstinate wickedness of the devil prevails even up to
the  saving  water, but that in baptism it loses all the poison of his
wickedness.  An  instance  of  this  we  see in the king Pharaoh, who,
having  struggled  long,  and delayed in his perfidy, could resist and
prevail  until  he came to the water; but when he had come thither, he
was both conquered and destroyed. And that that sea was a sacrament of
baptism, the blessed Apostle Paul declares, saying, "Brethren, I would
not  have  you ignorant how that all our fathers were under the cloud,
and  all  passed  through the sea, and were all baptized unto Moses in
the cloud and in the sea;" and he added, saying, "Now all these things
were  our  examples."(1)  And this also is done in the present day, in
that  the devil is scourged, and burned, and tortured by exorcists, by
the  human voice, and by divine power;(2) and although he o ften says.
that he is going out, and will leave the men of God, yet in that which
he  says  he  deceives,  and  puts in practice what was before done by
Pharaoh  with the same obstinate and fraudulent deceit. When, however,
they  come  to  the  water  of  salvation and to the sanctification of
baptism,  we ought to know and to trust that there the devil is beaten
down,  and the man, dedicated to God, is set free by the divine mercy.
For  as  scorpions and serpents, which prevail on the dry ground, when
cast  into  water,  cannot prevail nor retain their venom; so also the
wicked  spirits,  which are called scorpions and serpents, and yet are
trodden  under  foot  by  us,  by  the power given by the Lord, cannot
remain  any  longer in the body of a man in whom, baptized and sanctif
ied, the Holy Spirit is beginning to dwell.

16. This, finally, in very fact also we experience, that those who are
baptized  by  urgent necessity in sickness, and obtain grace, are free
from the unclean spirit wherewith they were previously moved, and live
in the Church in praise and honou r, and day by day make more and more
advance  in  the  increase  of  heavenly  grace by the growth of their
faith.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  some of those who are baptized in
health, if subsequently they begin to sin, are shaken by the return of
the  unclean  spir it, so that it is manifest that the devil is driven
out  in baptism by the faith of the believer, and returns if the faith
afterwards  shall  fail.  Unless,  indeed, it seems just to some, that
they  who,  outside  the Church among adversaries and antichrists, are
polluted  with  profane  water, should be judged to be baptized; while
they  who are baptized in the Church are thought to have attained less
of  divine  mercy  and  grace;  and  so great consideration be had for
heretics, that they who come from heresy are no t interrogated whether
they are washed or sprinkled, whether they be clinics or peripatetics;
but  among  us  the  sound  truth  of  faith  is  disparaged,  and  in
ecclesiastical baptism its majesty and sanctity suffer derogation.(3)

17.  I  have  replied,  dearest son, to your letter, so far as my poor
ability  prevailed; and I have shown, as far as I could, what I think;
prescribing  to  no one, so as to prevent any prelate from determining
what  he  thinks right, as he shall give an ac count of his own doings
to the Lord, according to what the blessed Apostle Paul in his Epistle
to the Romans writes and says: "Every one of us shall give account for
himself:  let  us  not  therefore  judge  one  another."(4) I bid you,
dearest son, ever heartily farewell.










                       ELUCIDATIONS.

VII.

(The honour of our colleague, p. 319.)

Thus  Cyprian  speaks  of the Bishop of Rome, whose due ordination and
rightful jurisdiction Novatian was impugning. The absurdity of calling
this  heretic  Novatian  an  anti-pope  involves  a great confusion of
ideas,  however. For, as Cornelius was no more a pope than Cyprian (to
both  of whom the title was freely conceded in its primitive sense(2),
how can it be proper to give Novatian a name which implies a mediaeval
sense, and leads the student to infer that his claim was not merely to
the See of Rome,(3 ) but to a universal bishopric over all Christians?
It  is needless to say, that, had the churches so understood the case,
the whole Christian world would have been convulsed by a matter which,
in  point  of  fact, was soon settled by Cyprian's enforcement o f the
canons. See subsequent letters.

VIII.

(Novatian, pp. 319, 324.)

The  similarity  of  the  names  of  Novatus  and  Novatian, and their
complicity  in  a  common  schism, led to great confusions among their
contemporaries,  which  have not been wholly cleared even to this day.
See  Lardner's  elaborate  argument  against the latter name as a mere
blunder.  He  calls  Novatian  also  Novatus,  and  gives his forcible
reasons.

Observe  that  "ordination"  is  the term here used for conferring the
order of bishops on a presbyter. So always anciently, though now it is
customary to speak only of the "consecration" of a bishop. This is the
inferior  term;  for the bishop is supposed to be "consecrated" to his
specialty  or diocese, while he is raised by "ordination" to the order
in  which  all bishops are equal. Mirabeau says, "Words are things." I
quote  from  a  political  source  the  following  remarks of a shrewd
observer  of Mirabeau's principle. Speaking of American phraseology in
constitutional  affairs,  he  says,  "It  is  true that this is a mere
matter  of words or phrases, but words and phrases misused have a very
potent  influence for confusing the minds of men as to real things. In
po  litics,  as  in  theology, it is best to stick to the text, and to
avoid supposedly equivalent phrases. Such phrases often contain within
them  the  seeds  of heresy and schism." Now, it was the policy of the
schoolmen  to  confuse  terms,  in  order  to break down the Cyprianic
theory;  and they denied that bishops were ordained to a "Holy Order."
Theirs  was  only  a  name  of  office;  and  their  order was only an
ecclesiastical  order,  as  much  so as "sacristans."(1) This to, keep
them  from  Cyprian's  claim of equality wit h the Bishop of Rome. But
this  was  debatable  school doctrine only, till the Council of Trent.
Since  that,  it  has  been  dogma  in  the Roman communion. Contrast,
therefore, the Greek and (modern) Roman dogmas:--

1.  Greek.(2)  "The  three  orders, by divine institution, are,(1) the
episcopate,(2) the priesthood,(3) the diaconate."

2.  Roman.(3)  "According  to the uniform tradition(4) of the Catholic
Church,  the  number  of these orders is seven; and they are called(1)
porter,(2)    reader,(3)   exorcist,(4)   acolyte,(5)   sub-deacon,(6)
deacon,(7) priest." The "bishop," then, is only a pr iest, who acts as
vicar  for  the  one "Universal Bishop" at Rome. For the Greek theory,
note Cyprian passim.

IX.

(Cornelius, our colleague, p. 328.)

Observe  the  state of the case. "Lest perchance the number of bishops
in Africa should seem unsatisfactory," etc., he wrote to his colleague
in  Rome,  who  gathered  a  council  also,  "with very many bishops."
Imagine such language, and such action in any case, between the French
metropolitan  and the present Bishop of Rome! The contrast illustrates
the  absolute  nonentity,  in  the Cyprianic age, of any conception of
such  relations  as  now exist between Rome and her vassal episcopate.
"Prostrate  at  the feet o f your Holiness," etc.: the noblest bishops
and  the  boldest  at the Vatican Council thus signed their feeble and
abject   remonstrances.   Among   their   names   are   Schwarzenberg,
Furstenberg, and even Strossmayer.(5)

X.

(One episcopate diffused, p. 333.)

Here is the principle expounded in the Treatise on Unity. He states it
tersely as follows:--

"Episcopatus unus, episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus."

And  he  then  states in few words his theory of the "compact unity of
the  Catholic  Church,"  in  which the existence of the "provinces" is
recognised,  and an "ecclesiastical structure;" but not a hint of what
must  have  been  laid  down  as the test and primal l aw of truth and
unity,  had  any  infallible supremacy been imagined to exist. In that
case,  no  need  of  a  treatise, no need of words: he would have said
nothing  of  "co-bishops,"  but simply of communion with the Bishop of
Rome.

XI.

(Fabian and Donatus, also our predecessors, p. 342.)

Here  the  Paris  editors  of  A.D.  1574 take pains to remind us that
Cyprian  means  "Fabian,  your  predecessor,  and Donatus, mine." Very
well.  But  the implication is that "our predecessors" were persons of
the  same  office  and  dignity. Let us suppose the pr esent Bishop of
Alger  writing  to  Leo  XIII. in the same manner, as follows: "Bishop
Strossmayer  was  severely  remarked  upon  by  Plus  and Martial, our
predecessors,  in  their letters." Would this be tolerated? The editor
of  this  series answered the invitation of Pins IX. to his council in
1869,  after  the  manner of a contemporary of Cyprian,(1) in order to
make  the  contrast  between  the  third  century  and  the nineteenth
palpable  to  the  venerable pontiff and his adviser Antonelli. It was
resented  with  animosity  by the Ultramontane journals, on the ground
that  nobody  on earth should address the pontiff as bishop to bishop,
or as man to man.

XII.

(To whom perfidy could have no access, p. 344.)

When  we put a man in mind of his self-respect, we imply that he is in
peril  of  forgetting  the  quality  we  impute  to  him.  "You  are a
gentleman,  and,  of  course, cannot deceive me:" such language is not
complimentary,  but involves a gentle reproof. So he re our author has
to  remind the Roman clergy of what is due to themselves if they would
keep  up  the  credit assigned to them by St. Paul, but from which, as
the  apostle  himself  warned  them,  they  were in danger of falling.
Cyprian  goes  on  to remind them of what they owe to Carthage and its
synods,  and  warns  them against "abandoned men" seeking to discredit
the  African  bishops.(2) The Roman clergy had already confessed their
sense  of  what  was  due  to  Carthage,(3) and in another epistle,(4)
doubtless  remembe  ring  Zephyrinus and Callistus, they confess their
degeneracy, and the ignominy of their actual position as compared with
that  which the apostle had praised. The passage is often quoted as if
it  read, "to whom corrupt faith can have no access:" but the wo rd is
perfidia,  and  has reference, not to faith, but morals; and, to avoid
ambiguity,  I  have put the word "perfidy" into the translation, where
the Edinburgh translator has "faithlessness."

Here  note  (p.  346,  note  2)  the  reference  to  St.  Paul's  term
(katatomh),  the  concision,  where the Oxford note (p.
170,  Oxford  trans.)  is  to  the  point. Only let it be more clearly
stated,   that   St.   Path   calls   the  Judaizing  schismatics  the
katatomh;  meaning  that,  instead  of  the circumcised
body,  they are but the particula proeputii cut off and cast away. Our
author  uses it here with great effect, therefore. In another place(5)
St. Paul carries his scornful anathema farther, with a witty reference
to  a heathen example; on which see Canon Farrar in his St. Paul, cap.
xxii.  (Agdistis)  p. 235, ed. New York. The "sport with children," in
the  Canon's  note (p. 227), seems to me illustrated by Ex. iv. 24-26.
Trifling with childre n, i.e., their salvation.

XIII.

(I both warn and ask you, p. 346 at note 4.)

The  original is, "admoneo et peto;" the language of an equal, but yet
of  an  older  brother  in  the episcopate. Here some other points are
worthy to be noted in this important letter, and they shall be briefly
taken in serie.

1.  We here encounter the tangled knot of the triple schisms, in which
the   unhappy  Felicissimus,  with  Novatus  and  Novatian,  has  long
presented   a  scandal  to  criticism.  Thus,  our  author  speaks  of
Felicissimus as "schismatis et disidii auctor;" and diffi culties have
been  raised  about  the  meaning  of  the text, because Novatus would
rather  seem  entitled  to that "bad eminence." I think all difficulty
disappears  if  we  drop  the  idea  that  a particular schism is here
referred to, and understand merely that this bad man was "the beginner
of schism and dissension," out of which the three specific schisms had
cropped.  Go  back  to Epistles xxxvii. (p. 315) and xxxviii. (p. 316)
and xxxix. (p. 319) for his antecedents. The "faction of Felicissimus"
(sec.  2),  and  of  "five  presbyters"  with  him  (sec.  3), is here
sufficiently  evident to illustrate the point now under consideration.
In  Epistle  xlviii.  (p. 325) we find Novatus, it is true, accused as
"the  first  sower  of  discord  and  sedition," but in another sense,
becaus  e Felicissimus was a mere layman. Novatus took him up, and had
him  unlawfully ordained a deacon; and now Felicissimus becomes a mere
appendage,  and  Novatus  becomes  formidable.  Sailing  to Italy, and
coming to Rome just in time to inspire the discontent of Novatian with
a  wicked  ambition,  he  next  proceeds  to engineer his schismatical
ordination  to  the  bishopric  of Rome by the hands of three bishops,
acting  uncanonically  and sinfully. So now Novatian becomes the chief
character  as  rival  to  Cornelius,  and p retender to his See; while
Novatus  returns  to  Africa to foment new disturbances, but is justly
excommunicated, and disappears from history.

2. In this epistle it would seem that Cornelius had vacillated weakly,
and  was  in  peril of acting uncanonically. Cyprian gently admonishes
him  (sec. 2): "I was considerably surprised," etc.; also (sec. 6), "I
speak to you as being provoked, as grievi ng, as constrained," etc.

3.  Here  Fortunatus  appears  on the scene, to embroil the matter yet
more seriously; of whom (sec. 9) enough appears in this letter.

4.  Fortunatus, with his wicked allies, sails to Rome (sec. 11) as the
nearest  apostolic  See, hence spoken of (sec. 14) as the chief church
(i.e.,  of  the  West)  and the matrix of unity (i.e., to the daughter
churches  of  Africa).  Let  us  read  into  the  pa ges of Cyprian no
Decretalist  ideas  when  he  modestly  acknowledges  the  comparative
inferiority of his place. Let us find his meaning in this very letter,
and  others,  in  which his words contradict all ideas of any official
inferiority.  Take also the ideas of the epoch for illustration. Recur
to   Cyprian's  master  expounding  the  relations  of  the  primitive
churches, one to another, in his Prescription. Tertullian points out a
root-principle  in  all  apostolic  Sees;(1) and then, after elaborate
discussion, he th us applies it practically:--

"Run  over  the  apostolic  churches, in which the very thrones of the
apostles,"  etc.  "Achaia,  e.g.,  is  proximate to you; then there is
Corinth.  If you are near Macedonia, there is Philippi. . . . Crossing
to  Asia,  you  get Ephesus. . . . Close to Italy you have Rome, front
which  comes  to us (in Africa) our authority," etc. I abridge, but do
not  alter  the sense.(2) Here, then, we find what Cyprian was writing
about.  The  schismatics, on this principle, had rushed to the nearest
apostolic See, viz., that of the Imperial City. Cyprian recognises his
claims on its bishop; Rome being the source of his own ordination, and
the matrix of the Carthaginian church. This animates him with a loving
humility.  But  what  next? Having expressed all this, he proceeds, as
an  equal  but an elder brother, to assert his rights, and to admonish
Cornelius  that  he,  too,  must  obey  the ecclesiastical discipline.
Nobody,  even  among the Greeks, would object to such a Roman primacy,
even at this day; but "to give place by subjection, even for an hour,"
is  what  St.  Cyprian  would  not  endure  any more than St. Paul.(1)
"Supremacy" is another thing.

5.  The  grounds of his conduct in this and other acts are unfolded in
his  Treatise on Unity. But here is the place to show what Cyprian had
in   his   mind  as  the  arkaia  eqh. A
canon(2)  of  the  African  church, after providing for local appeals,
reads  as  follows: "Let them not appeal to tribunals beyond the seas,
but  to  the primates of their own provinces, or to a general council,
as  hath  been often ordained with respect to bishops. But whoso shall
persevere in appealing to tr ibunals beyond seas, let them be received
to  communion  by  no one in Africa." And here note that the plural is
used,  illustrating  the  above  quotation  from  Tertullian.  All the
apostolic  Sees  are  treated alike, as "tribunals beyond seas." Note,
also,  that i f any one of these tribunals should receive and hear the
appellant, its decisions were of no force in Africa.

6.  And, still further, let it be noted that the greatness of Rome, as
the  capital,  was  its  only  ground,  even  to  a  canonical primacy
afterwards  conceded  to  it  for  the  sake  of order. The Council of
Chalcedon  (Fourth  (Ecumenical,  A.D. 451) states the ca se, and sets
the  historical  fact beyond dispute, as follows: "The Fathers rightly
granted the seniority (apodedwkasi ta presbeia), because that city was
the  capital,  to  the  throne  of  the  elder  Rome,  . . . and equal
precedency  (ta  isa presbeia) to the most holy throne of New Rome
(Constantinople); justly judging that the city which is dignified with
the  sovereignty and the senate, and enjoys equa l privileges with the
elder  imperial  Rome,  should likewise be magnified with the other in
ecclesiastical  affairs, and rank second after that See." Second as to
order, that is; but equal as to this presbeia.

Cyprian's theory shows why they said nothing of its apostolic dignity;
viz.  because  in  that respect all apostolic Sees were equal, and all
older  than  Rome,  and  because  all other churches in communion with
these centres were practically apostolic, and each was a See of Peter.
For,  as  Cyprian  expounds  it, there is but one episcopate; and each
bishop,  locally,  possesses  the  whole  of it. It was given first to
Peter  to  make this principle emphatic; i.e., it is a gift held whole
and  entire by each holder. Then he gave the same to all the apostles,
that  each  one  of  them might comprehend that what St. Peter had, he
had:  it  was an undivided and indivisible authority. "Each particular
church,"  says  the  Oxford  translator,  "being  the miniature of the
whole, ea ch bishop the representative of Christ, the Chief Bishop; so
that,  all  bishops being, in their several stations, one and the same
(as  representing  the  Same), there was, as it were, but one Such was
Cyprian's  exposition of the arkaia <greek >eqh: I am not so forgetful
as  to  introduce  anything of my own. But here it is to be noted that
the  theory of the Decretals was subversive of all this: there was but
one,  personally,  the representative of Christ, His(3) Vicar; and his
See,  by  div  ine warrant, was supreme. Hence others, called bishops,
were  not  such,  as  being  equals  with  the  Bishop  of Rome in the
episcopal  order,  for  their "order" was only that of presbyters; and
they  were  called "bishops" only as vicars of the one Bishop at Rome,
empowered  to  act  for  hint  in  local  stations, but having no real
episcopate  in  themselves. Now, Calvin's memorable sentence was based
on  this difference between the primitive bishops and those of his day
With  his strong logic he argued: if, then, bishops are but shadows of
a  papacy  which  we have proved fabulous, bishops must be rejected as
part  of  the  papacy.  But,  he  said,  "Talem  nobis  hierarchiam si
exhibeant,  in  qua  sic  emineant  episcopi  ut  Christo  subesse non
recusent,  et  ab  illo,  tanquam  unico capit e, pendeant et ad ipsum
referantur;  in  qua,  sic inter se fraternam societatem colant ut non
alio  nodo,  quam  ejus  veritate  sint  colligati; rum veto nullo non
anathemate  dignos  fatear,  si  qui  erunt,  qui  non eam reverenter,
summaque obedientia, observent." It would seem, therefore, that Calvin
drew  a  correct  distinction between the Cyprianic theory and that of
the Decretists. "A Christo, unico capite, pendeant," touches the point
of  the Western schism, which altered this principle into "A pontifice
Rom ano, unico capite," prorsus pendeant omnes praesules Catholici.

XIV.

(The bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, p. 371.)

Concerning the election of bishops, and the part of the laity therein,
enough  has  been  already said to elucidate this important historical
point.(1)  But  here  is the place to elucidate Cyprian's relations to
Ignatius,  by  pointing out his theory as to "bishops, presbyters, and
deacons."  The  inquiry is, not whether his theory was right or wrong;
but  the  ante-Nicene  Constitutions  and  Canons cannot be understood
without  a  clear comprehension of it, and it is practically important
in  the coming collisions with the alien religion now lifting its head
aggressively  amongst  us.  To  refute  its  pretensions,  Cyprian and
Hippolytus  are sufficient if cleared from all ambiguities thrown back
into  their  expressions  from  the  mediaeval corruption of primitive
words, i dioms, and modes of thought.

As  to  presbyters  and  deacons, then, we must refer to pp. 306, 366,
370;  sub-deacons  are  mentioned pp. 301 and 3061, with lectors under
"teaching-presbyters," as preparing for the clerical office. On p. 306
an acolyte is mentioned. Now, these readers, sub-deacons, and acolytes
(akolouqos)  are  all  of a class,--persons preparing for Holy Orders,
and  after a time known as in "ecclesiastical" or minor orders.(2) The
lectors  need  not be explained. The sub-deacons are a class not heard
of  ti  ll this third century, even in the West. Cyprian and Cornelius
are  the  first to mention them. In the East, sub-deacons and acolytes
first  appear  in  the  fourth  century; they were sub-ministrants and
attendants  on  the  clergy,  and  doubtless  had  charge of th e very
trouble  some  work of preparing the candidates for immersion, and the
waters   for   that   sacrament,  besides  cleansing  the  fonts,  and
superintending the changes of raiment made necessary. Their offices in
time  of  divine  service,  attending  upon  the  alta  r,  taking the
offerings,  seating the congregation, watching the children, etc., may
be  supposed.  Apart  from the names, just such offices, like those of
sextons,  are  required  in  all  public  worship.  The Moravians have
acolyths, to this day.

XVI.

              (Epistle lxxi. . . .To Stephen their brother, p. 378.)

We  now reach a very different character from that of his predecessor;
and   in  him  we  encounter  the  germinant  spirit  which,  in  long
after-ages,  was  able to overcome the discipline of the Church.(1) At
this  time,  and  during  the  great synodical period, t hese personal
caprices  were  made  light  of:  the  canons and constitutions of the
Church were strong enough to check them; and such was the predominance
of the Eastern mind, for many generations, that the ship of the Church
was  not  thrown  out  of trim. Let u s carefully note this historical
point,  however,  and the spirit in which our great author exposes the
elements of error.

(In the name of, etc. Since Three are One, pp. 380, 382.)

Having   elsewhere   touched   upon   the   quotation   attributed  to
Tertullian,(2)  I need not repeat what has been said of this once very
painfully  agitated  matter.  But, as to the quotations of the African
Fathers  generally,  it ought to be understood that ther e was a vetus
Itala  before  Jerome,--more than one, no doubt,--to which that Father
was  largely  indebted for the text now called the Vulgate. Vercellone
assured  Dean  Burgon  that  there  was  indeed  one established Latin
text,(3) an old Itala.

Scrivener(4)  says  candidly, "It is hard to believe that(1) John v. 7
was not cited by Cyprian;" and again, "The African writers Vigilius of
Thapsus  (at  the end of the fifth century) and Fulgentius (circa 520)
in  two places expressly appeal to the thr ee heavenly Witnesses." So,
too,  Victor  Vitensis, in the notable case of the African king of the
Vandals.  The  admission  of  Tischendorf  is also cited by Scrivener.
Tischendorf  says,  "Gravissimus  est  Cyprianus (in Tract. de Eccles.
Unitate),  Dicit  Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus (Joann. x. 30); et,
iterum,  de  Patre,  Filio,  et Spiritu Sancto, scripture est, Et tres
unum  sunt."  Tischendorf  adds  the  testimony  of  this  epistle  to
Jubaianus.  And  Scrivener  decides  that "it is surely safer and more
candid  to  adm  it that Cyprian read it in his copies, than to resort
to,"  etc.,  the  usual  explainings  away.  To this note of this same
erudite  scholar  the  reader may also turn for satisfaction as to the
reasons  against  authenticity.  But primarily, to meet questions as t
o  versions  used by Cyprian, let him consult the same invaluable work
(p.  269)  on  the  Old Latin before Jerome. I have added an important
consideration  in  a  note to the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism, which
follows (infra), with other documents, in our Appe ndix.(5)

XVIII.

(Return to our Lord and Origin, p. 389.)

Here is an appeal to the arkaia eqh, that explains other references to
"the  Root and Origin," which he here identifies with our Lord,(6) and
"the  evangelical and apostolic tradition." This was the understanding
at  Nicaea  :  "ut  si in aliquo nutaverit et vacillaverit veritas, ad
originem   dominicam   et   evangelicam   et  apostolicam  traditionem
revertamur."  Is  not  this  the grand catholicon for the disorders of
modern  Christendom?  "Nam consuetudo, sine veritate, vetustas erroris
est,"  says Cyprian in this very Epistle.(1) And, "If we return to the
head and source of divine tradition, human error ceases."

XIX.

(Firmilianus to Cyprian, p. 390.)

The contest with Stephen, bishop of Rome, will require no great amount
of  annotation  here,  chiefly  because  the  matter  has no practical
bearings,  except  as  it incidentally proves what was the relation of
Stephen  to  other bishops and to the Catholic Ch urch. In this letter
(set. 6) Firmilian accuses Stephen of "daring to make a departure from
the  peace  and  unity  of  the  Catholic  Church."  And (in sec. 16),
further,  he  sets  forth,  for the Easterns, the same theory of unity
which  Cyprian  had  expounded  for  the  West; viz., the unity of the
episcopate.  He  interprets the parallel texts (Matt. xvi. 19 and John
xx. 22, 23) of bestowal in the same manner. His idea is, that, had the
latter  bestowal  been the only one, the apostles might have felt that
each  had onl y a share in the same respectively; while, as it stands,
there  is  one  episcopate  only:  in  effect, only "one bishop;" each
apostle  and  every bishop, by "vicarious ordination," holding for his
flock in his own See all that Christ gave to Peter himself, sav e only
the  personal  privilege  of  a  leader  in  opening  the  door to the
Gentiles,(2)  and  in  teaching  the  apostles the full meaning of the
gift.  The  point here is not whether this was the true meaning of our
Lord:  it is merely that such was the understanding of the Ante-Nicene
Fathers.(3)

Further  (sec.  17), he complains of Stephen for his rally in assuming
that  he  had  received  some  superior privileges as the successor of
Peter;  also  censures him for "betraying and deserting unity." So (in
sec. 35) he reflects on Stephen for "disagreei ng with so many bishops
throughout  the  world  ...  with  the  Eastern  churches and with the
South."  He  adds,  "with  such a man, can there he one spirit and one
body?"

Firmilian was of Cappadocia, and a disciple of Origen. The interest of
his  letter  turns  upon  its  entire innocence of any conception that
Stephen  has  a  right  to  dictate;  and,  while it shows a dangerous
tendency  in  the  latter  personally  to  take  airs up on himself as
succeeding  the  primate  of the apostolic college, it proves not less
that  the  Church  was aware of no ground for it, but held all bishops
equally  responsible  for  unity  by communion with their brethren. To
make  them  thus  responsible to him and his See had probably not even
entered  Stephen's  head.  He was rash and capricious in his resort to
measures  by  which  every  bishop felt bound to separate himself from
complicity with open heretics, and he seems to have had local usage on
his  side.  But  how  admirable the contrasted forbearance of Cyprian,
whose  views  were  equally  strong,  but  who  protested  against all
coercive measures against others.

XX.

(Clinics, p. 401.)

Cyprian's  moderation  is  conspicuous in his views of clinic baptism;
for,  though  Novatian  knew  none  other,  he  forbore  to  urge this
irregularity   against  him.  Even  the  good  Cornelius  was  not  so
forbearing.(4)  St.  Cyprian  seems  to be the earliest apologi st for
sprinkling.  See  Wall,  Reflections  on  Baptism  of  Infants (Wall's
Works),  vol.  iii.  p. 219, for a refutation of Tertullian's supposed
admission  of  "a  little  sprinkling."(5)  And see Beveridge on Trine
Immersion, Works, vol. xii. p. 86; also Canon L., Apostolical Canons.

(Senators and men of importance and Roman knights, p. 408.)

1 Cot. i. 26. We have already seen tokens of the gradual enlightenment
of  the higher classes in the empire; "the palace, senate, forum," are
mentioned  by  Tertullian.(1)  The fiercer persecutions seem now to be
stimulated  by  this  very  fact,  and a fear lest Christianity should
spread too freely among patricians must have prompted this decree.

XXII.

(The Lord ... speaks in that hour, p. 409.)

The  saying of Christ (Matt. x. 10, Mark xiii. 11), "It is not ye that
speak, but the Holy Ghost," was literally accepted, and acted upon. Is
it  marvellous  that  it inspired believing men to be martyrs, or that
martyrs  were  so  much  venerated? And ought not the same texts to be
more  faithfully  accepted  in  explaining the inspiration of the Holy
Scriptures?  Language  could  hardly  be  stronger: "It is not ye that
speak."  So  we  reach  the  close of this holy and heroic life of the
great, the fervid, the intre pid, but, withal, the gentle and generous
Cyprian. And in these last words we see the spirit of the man cropping
out  in his proposal to "arrange in common" with the clergy and people
what  should  be  observed,  as  requisite  for  the diocese after his
decease  ,  according  to  "the  instruction  of  the Lord." Qui facit
voluntatem  Dei  manet  in  aeternum.  1 St. John ii. 17. id Cornelius
himself.  No,  nor  St.  Peter  either,  who  says  (1 Pet. ii. 5) all
Christians may become Peters by being laid on the Living Stone, Christ
Jesus.