CONCILIUM VIII, HABITUM CIRCA ANNUM CCLVII.
Eighth Council, held about the year 257.
Quamvis persuasum omnino habeam S. Hieronymum lapsum fuisse quum scripsit eosdem episcopos Africanos qui rebaptizationem cum S. Cypriano sanciverant, rursum convenientes, novum emisisse decretum, ac sententiam de baptismo suam mutasse, putavi tamen dandum esse in hac nostra collectione locum huic episcoporum conventui, quemadmodum nonnulla concilia referuntur in vulgatis editionibus conciliorum, quae tamen constat habita non fuisse, tantum ne quid istius argumenti praetermittatur, sive verum illud, sive falsum sit. Ait ergo Hieronymus in Dialogo advers. Lucifer., illos ipsos episcopos qui cum beato Cypriano statuerant haereticos esse rebaptizandos, ad antiquam consuetudinem revolutos, novum emisisse decretum, quo videlicet damnabatur superioris concilii doctrina de baptismo haereticorum.
Although I am wholly persuaded that St Jerome erred when he wrote that the same African bishops who had sanctioned rebaptism together with St Cyprian, meeting again, issued a new decree and changed their opinion on baptism, I nevertheless thought that a place should be given in this collection of ours to this assembly of bishops, just as some councils are reported in the common editions of the councils which it is nevertheless certain were never held, only so that nothing on this subject may be passed over, whether it be true or false. Jerome, then, says in the Dialogue against the Luciferians that those very bishops who with the blessed Cyprian had determined that heretics must be rebaptized, having reverted to the ancient custom, issued a new decree, by which, namely, the doctrine of the earlier council on the baptism of heretics was condemned.
Huic Hieronymi opinioni multa repugnare videntur. Primum enim, constat auctoritate concilii Arelatensis, viguisse per multa tempora post Cyprianum doctrinam de rebaptizatione apud Afros. Deinde, istud ipsum probatur etiam ex concilio Carthagine habito apud Gratum episcopum; quod licet constiterit ex episcopis quorum animus abhorrens erat a rebaptizatione, evincit tamen eam doctrinam nondum abolitam fuisse apud Afros, tametsi plerique contra sentirent. Praeterea, concilium Cypriani adhuc aevo Vincentii Lirinensis in auctoritate fuisse, probat exemplum Donatistarum, qui, ut ait idem Vincentius, et constat ex gestis collationis Carthaginensis et ex pluribus Augustini locis, illius auctoritate concilii rebaptizare se jactitabant. Denique, nullum novi istius decreti testimonium alibi exstat in tota antiquitate. Quod tamen si fuisset, haud dubie eo usi frequenter essent adversarii Donatistarum. Contra Augustinus in Epistola XLVII, annotat non inveniri Cyprianum sententiam de rebaptizandis haereticis suam correxisse; quod etiam colligi abunde potest ex cap. 8, lib. II, contra Gaudentium. Itaque fieri potest ut Hieronymus, cum videret rebaptizationem a Catholicis Afris rejici, fortassis odio adversus Donatistas, putaverit Afros ad antiquam consuetudinem revolutos esse statim post concilium habitum sub Cypriano. quemadmodum Augustinus in lib. III, de Baptismo, cap. 2, ait illos ad pristinam consuetudinem rediisse post Agrippinum. Steph. Baluzius. (Nova Collectio Concil.)
Many things seem to conflict with this opinion of Jerome. For first, it is established on the authority of the Council of Arles that the doctrine of rebaptism flourished among the Africans for a long time after Cyprian. Next, this same point is proved also from the council held at Carthage under Bishop Gratus; which, although it consisted of bishops whose mind was averse to rebaptism, nevertheless demonstrates that this doctrine had not yet been abolished among the Africans, even though most held the contrary view. Furthermore, that Cyprian's council was still held in authority in the age of Vincent of Lérins is proved by the example of the Donatists, who, as the same Vincent says, and as is established from the acts of the Conference of Carthage and from many passages of Augustine, boasted that they rebaptized on the authority of that council. Finally, no testimony to this new decree exists anywhere else in all antiquity. Yet if there had been one, the adversaries of the Donatists would without doubt have made frequent use of it. On the contrary, Augustine in Letter 47 notes that Cyprian is not found to have corrected his opinion on the rebaptizing of heretics; which can also be gathered abundantly from chapter 8 of book 2 against Gaudentius. It may therefore be that Jerome, seeing rebaptism rejected by the Catholic Africans, perhaps from hatred of the Donatists, supposed that the Africans had reverted to the ancient custom immediately after the council held under Cyprian, just as Augustine, in book 3 On Baptism, chapter 2, says that they returned to their former custom after Agrippinus. Stephen Baluze. (New Collection of Councils.)