P. Coustant, O.S.B., Dissertatio qua vera Stephani circa receptionem haereticorum sententia explicatur

A DISSERTATION IN WHICH THE TRUE OPINION OF STEPHEN CONCERNING THE RECEPTION OF HERETICS IS EXPLAINED. By Dom P. Coustant.

I. That his opinion was not devoid of reason.

1. Although Cyprian judges the things which Stephen wrote on the controversy over the baptism of heretics to be either arrogant, or not pertinent to the matter, or self-contradictory and written unskilfully and improvidently, yet in those points which both Cyprian himself and Firmilian noted as rather foreign to reason, we find nothing that deserves a censure of this kind. Indeed we discover that the arguments of the Donatists against the Church were wisely forestalled by them. For the rebaptizers were the forerunners of these, when, relying on human reason, they contended that no one gives what he does not have, and therefore that heretics cannot give grace, which they lack. But to this reasoning Stephen opposed custom, not of any sort whatever, but custom received from apostolic tradition: what could be wiser? For in divine matters all human reason must yield to the authority of God. Cyprian therefore attributed more than was fair to his own reasoning when he said: "In vain do certain men who are overcome by reason oppose custom to us (Epist. LXXI);" in vain did he refuse to let Stephen say, "What we have received from the apostles, that we follow (Epist. LXXIII)." That reasoning which sets itself against so great an authority must be held suspect.

2. Though the same prelate may ridicule and judge utterly absurd the reasoning by which Stephen confirmed that tradition, and may say: "A splendid and lawful tradition indeed is set forth by the teaching of our brother Stephen, such as to furnish us with authority. For in the same place of his letter he has added and subjoined that the heretics themselves, properly speaking, do not baptize one another when they come over to each other, but only admit them to communion:" yet concerning it

those who weigh it more attentively will judge far otherwise. For since all heretics have departed from the Church, it is no wonder that they retain something of her doctrine. Indeed there is in fact no one who does not retain something of it. When, therefore, however much they disagree among themselves, they agree with the Church in some point, they are rightly declared to have retained this as handed down to them by the Church. Hence the heretics too who deny the true body of Christ in the Eucharist are convicted of having departed from the ancient and constant faith of the Church by this, that various sects, which for many centuries now have been at variance with the Catholic Church in other matters, agree with her in this dogma. It is not, then, as Cyprian wrote, that "the Church of God and Bride of Christ" had at that time "come to such a pitch of evils as to follow the example of heretics;" but rather the heretics themselves, when they did not baptize those coming to them from other sects, were following what they had seen in use and received in the Church before they were separated from her.

3. Nor did Stephen pass over the argument which Cyprian himself and his associates put forward as unanswerable, taking it for certain that those destitute of the Holy Spirit cannot give Him, and therefore cannot confer the grace of baptism either. For it seemed unanswerable to them because they did not know how to distinguish both the reality of the sacrament from the sacrament, and the minister or instrument from the Lord Who uses it. But Stephen, distinguishing these things exactly, taught, not unskilfully or improvidently, but fittingly and wisely, "that the presence and holiness of Christ are present to those who are baptized among heretics (in Cyprian, Epist. LXXV)," Who, that is, works what He wills through the ministry of heretics. For he was rightly persuaded

that the name (the authority and power) of Christ avails much, (by Whose working it comes to pass) that whosoever and wheresoever has been baptized in the name of Christ straightway obtains the grace of Christ. He championed this therefore, which Augustine in more than one place inculcates that John learned from the dove, namely, as this doctor sets forth in other words, "That there would be a certain property in Christ such that, although many ministers were to baptize, whether righteous or unrighteous, the holiness of baptism would not be attributed save to Him upon Whom the dove descended, of Whom it was said: This is He Who baptizes in the Holy Spirit. Let Peter baptize, this is He Who baptizes; let Paul baptize, this is He Who baptizes; let Judas baptize, this is He Who baptizes." Hence how there can be one baptism of Christ both in the Church and among heretics, which Firmilian bore with an ill mind that Stephen proclaimed, is rightly perceived.

4. In vain therefore did Cyprian for the defence of his cause bring forward the passage of Ecclesiasticus 34:30 in this manner (Letter 71): "He who is baptized from a dead man, what does his washing avail?" First indeed, he falsely supposed that he who receives baptism from a heretic is baptized by a dead man. For Christ lives, Who baptizes through the heretic, and therefore he who receives baptism from a heretic is by no means baptized by a dead man. Next, just as he had not the integrity of the testimony alleged, so neither did he attain to its sense. For in the pure manuscripts of Ecclesiasticus we read it thus: He who is baptized from a dead man, and touches him again, what does his washing avail? By which words we are taught that the washing of him who had touched a dead body is vain, if after being washed he touches the same dead body again. When Donatus had abused the same passage thus truncated and in like manner in favour of his own heresy, Augustine vehemently censured him as a violator of the divine utterance. Yet when the same doctor had afterwards fallen upon books more ancient than the party of Donatus, in which the same fault already existed, he was not ashamed to retract and amend what he had written in good faith against that heretic (Retractations, book I, chapter 21, number 3). Now how rightly he judged concerning the antiquity of those manuscripts, the books of Cyprian prove, in which the clause "and touches him again" was already lacking. Which may be observed in passing. As for what pertains to Stephen, when he said, "If anyone therefore shall come to us from whatsoever heresy, let nothing be innovated, save what has been handed down," he only wished to put forward an opinion opposed to the statute of the African council, which decreed concerning him who comes from heresy: "He who comes untaught to the Church must be baptized and renewed, that within he may be sanctified through the holy (Cyprian, Letter 70)." This therefore is what he means: Let nothing be innovated concerning the baptism of him who thus comes, but let that only be kept which has been handed down; or, let nothing be given to him anew, save what has been handed down as to be performed towards him, namely, that the hand be laid upon him unto penance. Moreover, on this account he was unwilling that baptism should be renewed, because he was persuaded that this sacrament obtains its power not from him who ministers, but from Christ, in Whose name it is conferred. Nor was it with any other faith that he said: "The name of Christ avails

much, etc.," than that wherewith Augustine afterwards said: "For through whatsoever minister, the baptism is His of Whom it was said: This is He Who baptizes (book 5, On Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 12)." Yet the same words of Stephen gave place to other questions.

II. Whether Stephen admitted baptism conferred by heretics under any form whatsoever.

5. There are not wanting those who suspect that Stephen in confuting the opinion of the rebaptizers did not keep due measure, and admitted the baptism of any heretics whomsoever conferred under any form whatsoever. Yet to remove a suspicion of this sort it will be enough to repeat these words of his, which have been transmitted to us by Firmilian: "The name of Christ avails much unto faith and the sanctification of baptism, so that whosoever and wheresoever has been baptized in the name of Christ straightway obtains the grace of Christ." Assuredly he who attributes the whole efficacy of baptism to the power of Christ judges its fruit to be none if the name of Christ be lacking to it. Whence it is concluded that not every baptism, but that only which was conferred in the name and authority of Christ, was admitted by Stephen. When Cyprian undertakes to refute the same words of this Pope, he confirms that they were spoken in this sense, after this manner: "If they attribute the effect of baptism to the majesty of the name, so that those who are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, wheresoever and howsoever, are judged renewed and sanctified: why is not the hand also laid upon the baptized person there in the name of the same Christ for receiving the Holy Spirit? why does not the same majesty of the same name prevail in the laying on of the hand, which they contend prevailed in the sanctification of baptism (Cyprian, Letter 74)?" Thus reasoned Cyprian against Stephen, thinking that he so admitted the baptism of heretics as to spurn the laying on of the hand for receiving the Holy Spirit received from them, that is, the sacrament of confirmation bestowed upon them, and to permit it to be renewed and repeated. Wherein whether he be mistaken or not, we shall examine below: yet hence no doubt is left to anyone that the same prelate plainly recognizes and holds for certain that the baptism of those only who are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ is received by Stephen. Nor ought the word howsoever in the words of Cyprian alleged to move anyone: since it is judged all the more certainly to have been added by him for the greater explanation of the word wheresoever, and to have been taken for any minister whomsoever who baptizes in the name of Jesus Christ, not for any form whatsoever, because in Firmilian, who seems to have reported the very words of Stephen more accurately, that "and howsoever" by no means appears.

6. Wherefore they are deceived, and wander far from the mind of Stephen, who, clinging too closely to his words wherein he commands that anyone from whatsoever heresy he has come be received and that in no one baptism be renewed, opine that baptism conferred under any form whatsoever is admitted by him. For Stephen spoke thus because heretics baptizing under

a foreign form he either did not know of, or did not attend to. Assuredly this is the observation of Augustine, that "heretics are more easily found who do not baptize, than who do not baptize with those words (customary in the Church) (St. Augustine, book 6, On Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 25, number 47)." Innocent also (Letter 16, To the Macedonians, chapter 10) and Jerome (towards the end of the Dialogue against the Luciferians) note that the Nicene Council, when it excepts the Paulianists alone, receives the baptism of the rest of the heretics. On account of this rarity therefore it came to pass that the Fathers, when speaking of the baptism of heretics, thought nothing at all of making any exception. Just as Stephen in the letter of Firmilian is related to have said in general: "What therefore shall be done concerning those who coming from heresy have been received without the baptism of the Church?" so also Jerome towards the end of the dialogue just mentioned says: "That heretics were always received by our ancestors, and that the Church always received baptism from heretics." Nor is the decree of Leo less general, whether in Letter 149, To Nicetas, chapter 7: "Those who have received baptism from heretics, when they had not previously been baptized, are to be confirmed by the sole invocation of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands"; or in Letter 155, To Neon, chapter 2: "If it be established that anyone has been baptized by heretics, towards him let the sacrament of regeneration by no means be repeated; but let that only which was lacking there be conferred, that through the laying on of the episcopal hand he may obtain the power of the Holy Spirit." By which words everyone perceives that Leo wished to express the opinion of Stephen. If therefore in these and similar passages of Leo, Jerome, and other Fathers concerning the receiving of the baptism of heretics no one doubts that the clause, provided that it was conferred with the lawful form and the customary words, is understood, neither ought anyone to doubt that the same clause and the same condition were understood by Stephen also. Nay, if the preceding observation of Innocent and Jerome is true, whereby they judge that at the time of the Nicene Synod the Paulianists alone sinned against the form of baptism, and that therefore the Fathers of this council, excepting the Paulianists alone, received the baptism of the rest of the heretics: since in the age of Stephen the Paulianists had not yet arisen, there was no need that this Pope, when championing that the baptism of heretics must be received, should add that exception.

7. Moreover, from other sources it is certain that he neither knew nor approved any other baptism save the baptism of Christ. With Firmilian in this matter, as we have seen, Cyprian agrees: who indeed besides in Letter 73 first sets forth the opinion of Stephen by name concerning the baptism of Marcion thus, "that he says that those coming (from him) also ought not to be baptized, because they seem to have been baptized already in the name of Jesus"; and presently notes why the same Pope in general judges that those coming from the rest of the heretics also are to be received in the same manner, in these words: "Now there is no reason why anyone, in order to circumvent Christian truth, should set up the name of Christ in opposition, so as to say: Those baptized IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST wheresoever and howsoever have obtained the grace of baptism." Whence it is ascertained

that Stephen both received no baptism save that conferred in the name of Jesus Christ, and attributed the whole power and efficacy of this Sacrament to the holiness of this most mighty name. And indeed an anonymous writer contemporary or nearly contemporary with those times, first published by Nicolas Rigault from the Rheims manuscript at the end of the works of Tertullian, and afterwards reprinted by Philippe Labbe, volume 1 of the Councils, page 770, thus from the beginning of the Treatise on the Baptism of Heretics states the question which was then debated: "I perceive that it has been inquired among the brethren what ought rather to be observed regarding the person of those who have been dipped in heresy indeed, yet IN THE NAME OF OUR GOD JESUS CHRIST, and afterwards departing thence, and flying suppliantly to the Church of God, should repent with their whole hearts." The question therefore was not then concerning those who had been baptized in heresy indifferently under any form whatsoever, but concerning those alone who were dipped in heresy indeed, yet in the name of our God Jesus Christ, or, as the same author presently repeats in other words, who outside indeed, yet IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST received the Lord's baptism: nor for any other reason did Stephen, as Cyprian testifies, receive the baptism of the Marcionites, save because they were baptized in the name of Jesus. Hence arises another question.

III. Whether Stephen understood those whom he called baptized in the name of Jesus to have been baptized in the name of the Trinity.

8. The same question can be stated otherwise thus: whether namely Stephen admitted a baptism wherein the name of Jesus Christ had been substituted in the place of the three Persons, and thought that he who had been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, not in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, could obtain the grace of baptism. Now it must be observed that Stephen's manner of speaking concerning baptism, which everyone knows is supported by the authority of the Acts of the Apostles, was familiar not to him alone, but to the ancients also. Even the adversaries of Stephen himself used it. Namely, in the Third Council of Carthage under Cyprian, chapter 1, Caecilius of Biltha denies that there is baptism among heretics "where Antichrist dips IN THE NAME OF CHRIST," not because it is in the name of Christ, but because Antichrist dips. With no other mind in chapter 21, Hortensianus of Lares asks: "How can those baptize anyone in the name of Christ, whom Christ Himself calls His adversaries?" Both Cyprian, Letter 73, and in him Firmilian, Letter 75, employ the same manner of speaking. Here the warning of Hilary ought to prevail, whereby he observes that those passages of the Acts in which the apostles are read to have baptized in the name of Jesus stand in need of explanation: "Lest, says he, the apostles be found in fault, who being commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, baptized only in the name of Jesus (if we cling to the letter) (Hilary, 85, On the Synods)." For the Fathers of the following centuries also will be held in the same fault, if those whom they called baptized in the name of Jesus they by no means understood to have been baptized with the words prescribed by Christ. But the interpretation is not difficult whereby both the apostles and the imitators of the apostles may be freed from fault.

For in the times of the apostles the baptism which Christ afterwards instituted had to be distinguished from the baptism which John had handed down. Now no more apt distinction could be devised than that, since the first was already called the baptism of John, the other should be called the baptism of Christ; and that those who received this should be called baptized in the name of Jesus, that is, initiated with the baptism instituted by the authority of Christ, and therefore in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

9. Wherefore Innocent, in Letter 16, To the Macedonians, number 10, pronounces without doubt that those who in Acts 19:5 are said to have been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus were baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, although he himself in Letter 2, chapter 8, decrees: "Let those coming from the Novatians or Montenses be received through the laying on of the hand alone, because although by heretics, they have nevertheless been baptized in the name of Christ"; yet he holds for certain that both the Novatians and the Montenses or Donatists baptized with the words prescribed by Christ. Whence he observes that in the Nicene Council the Paulianists were dealt with in one way, and the Novatians in another: "Because the Paulianists by no means baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, whereas the Novatians baptize with those same tremendous and venerable names." The same must be said concerning the Donatists also, who did not cease to baptize with the words customary in the Church. Cyprian himself also, no otherwise than Innocent, does not doubt that what in the Acts of the Apostles is called the baptism of Christ was conferred in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. For first he premises: "Those who had already obtained the most ancient baptism of the law and of Moses had also to be baptized in the name of Jesus, according as in the Acts of the Apostles Peter speaks to them and says: Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." And next, explaining these things, he subjoins: "Peter makes mention of Jesus Christ, not as though the Father were omitted, but that the Son also might be joined to the Father."

10. Moreover, a suitable interpreter of Stephen is Firmilian himself, who reported his words. Now what Stephen with his fellows had said: "The name of Christ avails much... so that whosoever and wheresoever has been baptized in the name of Christ straightway obtains the grace of Christ," he openly and plainly expounds thus: "They do not think it must be inquired who he was that baptized, because he who has been baptized could obtain grace when the TRINITY OF THE NAMES of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit has been invoked." Whence it is evident that by these words, to be baptized in the name of Christ, baptism conferred in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit was understood by Firmilian, Stephen, and his fellows. A matter so evident is confirmed more and more by the story subjoined by the same Firmilian against Stephen and his fellows concerning the woman "who previously through the juggleries and deceits of a demon contrived many things for the deception of the faithful," and among other things had dared this also, "that she baptized many, using the customary and lawful words of the interrogation, so that she seemed to differ in nothing from the ecclesiastical

rule." Which deed when Firmilian has related more at large, he straightway adds: "What therefore shall we say concerning the baptism of this woman? Do Stephen and those who agree with him approve this also? especially when neither the creed of the Trinity nor the lawful and ecclesiastical interrogation was lacking to her?" Now to what purpose is that "especially, etc.," save because Stephen, holding the ecclesiastical form of baptizing, wished it to be held by others also; so that if anyone had omitted or changed anything principal from the received rule of the Church, such as is above all the form of words prescribed by Christ, Firmilian would not doubt that his baptism must be rejected by this Pope? Moreover, on that occasion also the same bishop wonderfully illustrates the opinion of Stephen while he scoffs at it thus: "Can it be believed either that the remission of sins was given, or that the regeneration of the laver was duly accomplished, where all things were done through a demon? Unless those who defend the baptism of heretics contend that the demon also in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit gave the grace of baptism." For thence it is manifest that no baptism was admitted by Stephen save that which had been conferred in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. In a word, the controversy of Cyprian, Firmilian, and their fellows with Stephen and the rest of the bishops who defended tradition was solely concerning the minister, not concerning the form of baptism, the former thinking that it must be inquired who he was that baptized, the latter judging that this must not be inquired.

IV. Whether Stephen does not attribute to the baptism of heretics a greater power and efficacy than is fitting.

11. The origin and cause of the whole controversy concerning which we have already discussed much, Augustine explains thus: "Nor was it for any other reason that in those times, when that question was discussed against the ancient custom in disputations struggling without breach of charity and unity, it seemed to certain even egregious prelates of Christ, among whom blessed Cyprian chiefly shone forth, that the baptism of Christ could not be among heretics or schismatics, save because the sacrament was not distinguished from the effect or use of the sacrament. And because its effect and use in liberation from sins and uprightness of heart was not found among heretics, the sacrament itself also was thought not to be there" (Beginning of book 6, On Baptism against the Donatists). Wherefore the same doctor to Cyprian objecting, "There is no salvation outside the Church," answers: "Who denies it? And therefore whatsoever things of the Church herself are held outside the Church do not avail unto salvation. Yet it is one thing not to have, another thing not to have profitably (Ibid., book 5, chapter 17). (For he has not profitably who has the sacrament without the effect of the sacrament.) He who has not, must be baptized that he may have. He who has not profitably, must be corrected." And with a few words interposed: "Baptism therefore can be common to us and to heretics, with whom the Gospel also can be in common, although their error stands apart from our faith."

12. Yet if Cyprian wandered from the truth when, not distinguishing

the sacrament and the use or effect of the sacrament, he therefore denied that the sacrament is received from heretics because in heresy the effect of the sacrament is not conferred; must not Stephen also be said to have sinned when, holding the opposite way, he seems to affirm that not only the sacrament, but also the effect of the sacrament is received from heretics? For since it is acknowledged that there is no salvation outside the Church, in what way is it allowable to exempt from error the things which Cyprian and Firmilian testify were said by Stephen and those who agreed with him? For if these men are not mistaken, those said "that the forgiveness of sins and the second birth proceed in the baptism of heretics, or through those who, although they themselves are set in all sins, can give the remission of sins; and that therefore it must not be inquired who he was that baptized, because he who has been baptized could obtain grace when the Trinity of the names has been invoked; and because the name of Christ avails much, so that whosoever has been baptized in the name of Christ straightway obtains the grace of Christ."

13. Here it must be observed first, that no words of Stephen have come down to us save from the writings of his adversaries. Nor is there any doubt that they copied out those things, and perchance expressed them in that manner also, whence they could stir up greater odium against him. Next, it is to be feared lest those who did not distinguish the sacrament and the effect of the sacrament attributed the same confusion to Stephen, so that what he said of the sacrament alone, they out of a preoccupied mind interpreted to have been said by him of the effect of the sacrament also, as though a thing following thence. Although even if they be supposed not to have changed the aforesaid words of Stephen, but to have expressed them with the utmost fidelity, there is nothing in them which can either be convicted of error or be judged not agreeable to Catholic truth. For if the discourse is concerning infants, it is certain that they, wheresoever and by whomsoever they have been baptized, straightway obtain the grace of Christ. If it is a question of adults, that also was truly written in the letter sent by Jubaianus to Cyprian, "that it must not be inquired who baptized, since he who has been baptized could receive the remission of sins"; not simply indeed, and like infants by the very use of the sacrament, but, as is immediately subjoined there, according to what he believed, that is, if he received it with right faith and displayed all the things which the Christian religion requires for obtaining this grace. And that this indeed was the opinion of Stephen and of those who agreed with him, Firmilian confirms when concerning those "who do not think it must be inquired who he was that baptized" he testifies this: "They say that he who is baptized outside in whatsoever manner can obtain grace by his own mind and faith." As often therefore as Stephen and the rest of the bishops agreeing with him say that one baptized by heretics can obtain grace, we have it by the unsuspected testimonies of Cyprian and Firmilian that there must be understood: according to what he believed, or according to his faith and disposition of mind. Wherein assuredly there is nothing absurd, nothing

which does not fully agree with the truth. For it can happen that someone thinking rightly receives baptism from one whom he does not know to be a heretic. And then the heresy of the giver will prove no hindrance at all to the man who receives this sacrament with sound and whole faith.

14. Nay, even from one whom he knows to be a heretic, a Catholic can receive baptism with the effect of this sacrament. "For he, says Augustine, to whom (one separated) delivers it, can receive it wholesomely, if he himself receives it not as one separated: even as it has happened to very many that with a Catholic mind and heart, not alienated from the unity of peace, by some necessity of urgent death they rushed upon some heretic, and received from him the baptism of Christ without his perversity." Only they had then to beware of this, lest perchance they should be thought to have passed over to the heresy and perversity of those from whom they received baptism, and their example should be an offence to others. For the rest, as the same doctor explains, "when baptism is given in the evangelical words, with whatsoever perversity he through whom it is given or he to whom it is given understands them, it is holy in itself on account of Him Whose it is: and if anyone receiving it through a perverse man nevertheless receives not the perversity of the minister, but only the holiness of the mystery, being joined in good faith, hope, and charity to the unity of the Church, he receives the remission of sins (book 4, chapter 12)." Then therefore happens what Stephen taught: "Heresy indeed brings forth and exposes, while the Church takes up those who are exposed."

15. Likewise it is the constant doctrine of Augustine that that which is called the sacrament is equally holy in all who receive it, and that neither the righteousness nor the perversity of him who delivers or of him who receives it profits or hinders for increasing or diminishing its holiness. "It makes no difference, says he, to the holiness of baptism how much worse each one is who has it and how much worse he is who delivers it." And when Stephen had received this from tradition, he taught that it must not be inquired who baptized (book 6, chapter 5); even as, because the wickedness of him who delivers it in no way hinders the holiness of the body of Christ, we believe that it must not be inquired who the priest is that delivers it. Yet although the sacrament is whole, whether it be delivered by a bad man or received by a bad man, nevertheless its effect is far different according as it is received with right faith and a very good heart, or with perverse faith and a perverse heart. And therefore Augustine says: "I say that both good and bad men can have, can give, can receive the sacrament of baptism: and the good indeed profitably and wholesomely, but the bad perniciously and penally; whereas nevertheless it is in both equally whole (book 4, chapter 2)." For the same reason also Stephen taught that those who receive the sacrament of baptism are distinguished by their own mind and faith, and that each one receives the effect of baptism according to what he believed. If, moreover, taught by apostolic tradition, because he certainly believed that in those who came from heresy the sacrament of baptism remained whole, he was unwilling that it should be repeated; and because he nevertheless knew that it was in them perniciously and penally,

he wished the hand to be laid unto penance upon those returning to the Church. And at length, as Augustine testifies, "it shone forth to the pastors of the Catholic Church, through whom afterwards by the authority of a plenary council the original custom (championed by Stephen) was confirmed, that the sheep also which wandered outside, and had received the LORD'S CHARACTER outside from its deceitful robbers, when coming to the salvation of Christian unity, is corrected from error, freed from captivity, healed from its wound; and yet that the Lord's CHARACTER in it is recognized rather than disapproved." That Stephen indeed used the word character I would by no means affirm, yet that he championed the thing expressed by this word no one will deny. Thus that asserter and defender of the right faith is proved to have sown the seeds of those explanations wherewith Augustine afterwards happily illustrated and championed the Catholic truth against the Donatists. Nevertheless, there still remains a scruple to be removed concerning that which he commands about laying on the hand unto penance.

V. Whether Stephen wished the hand to be laid upon those returning from heresy in order that the sacrament of confirmation might be conferred upon them.

16. What Stephen said, "If anyone therefore shall come to us from whatsoever heresy, let nothing be innovated save what has been handed down, that the hand be laid upon him unto penance," may be interpreted in a twofold way: first indeed thus, that in him who comes nothing be innovated concerning his baptism, but that only be kept which has been handed down, that the hand be laid upon him unto penance; or in this other manner, that in him who has come from heresy to the Church nothing be innovated, save what has been handed down as to be innovated, namely, that the hand laid upon him in heresy be laid a second time upon him when returning. And interpreting the words of Stephen in this latter way indeed, Cyprian, Firmilian, and some of their fellows persuaded themselves that the repetition of confirmation was permitted by him. Whence against this Pope, Cyprian in Letter 73 disputes thus: "Now if anyone could be baptized outside according to a perverse faith, and obtain the remission of sins, according to the same faith he could obtain the Holy Spirit, and there is no need for the hand to be laid upon him when he comes, that he may obtain the Holy Spirit and be sealed. For either faith outside could do both, or he who had been outside received neither of them." A similar argument in Letter 74, copied out by us above in number 5, he repeats in Letter 76 also. Treading in his footsteps, Firmilian says: "Assuredly he who has been baptized there in Christ has put on Christ: but if he has put on Christ, he could receive the Holy Spirit also, Who was sent by Christ; and in vain is the hand laid upon him when he comes for receiving the Holy Spirit." And below, when he has reported the words of Stephen concerning the power of the name of Christ in baptism, he immediately subjoins: "If in the name of Christ baptism outside availed for cleansing a man, in the name of the same Christ the laying on of the hand could avail there for receiving

the Holy Spirit." With no other mind in the Third Council of Carthage under Cyprian, chapter 24, Secundianus of Carpi said: "It is established that upon strange children and the offspring of Antichrist the Holy Spirit cannot descend through the laying on of the hand alone, since it is manifest that heretics have not baptism." For this is what he means: Those are altogether deceived who think that baptism is among heretics, and that only the sacrament of confirmation cannot be conferred by them, since it is established that they have not baptism either.

17. In the same council, chapter 5, Nemesianus of Thubunae states his opinion thus: "Christ spoke, saying: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. This is the Spirit Who from the beginning was borne upon the water. For neither can the Spirit work without water, nor water without the Spirit. Ill therefore do certain interpret for themselves, so as to say that through the laying on of the hand they (returning heretics and schismatics) receive the Holy Spirit, and thus are received: since it is manifest that they ought to be born again by BOTH SACRAMENTS in the Catholic Church." Wherein Nemesianus seems to have imitated that which he had heard in Letter 73 of Cyprian, then read aloud to the whole council: "Those must be baptized who come from heresy to the Church; that those who by the lawful and sole baptism of the holy Church are prepared by divine regeneration for the kingdom of God, may be born by BOTH SACRAMENTS, because it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Thus Cyprian speaks again also in the preceding Letter 2, To Stephen, number 1: "For then only can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God, if they be born by both sacraments, since it is written: Unless a man be born again, etc." Now words of this sort might perchance be interpreted thus, that in vain is anyone washed with water if he does not at the same time obtain the Holy Spirit or spiritual grace also; and that therefore upon those who have not obtained that spiritual grace, when they return, the hand is laid in vain for receiving the Holy Spirit, unless they be first washed with water also. But the ancient writer of the treatise On the Baptism of Heretics, already cited above in the notes to Letter 2, first notes the same opinion in these words: "You who bring in something new, straightway impatiently answering (perchance, answer) as you are wont, that the Lord said in the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of the heavens. From which it manifestly appears that that baptism alone profits, in which the Holy Spirit also can be present." Then he sets forth that the asserter of this opinion held the view that there is no baptism unless at the same time the Holy Spirit also be received through the laying on of the hand of the bishop: so that those two sacraments cannot be separated. Confuting which, the writer of the aforesaid treatise, both by the example of the apostles, who having been baptized by Christ before His death, received the Holy Spirit only after His resurrection,

and by many other examples, proves that baptism can be given and received without the bestowal of the Holy Spirit; and again by the example of those concerning whom Peter in the Acts of the Apostles is read to have said: Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit even as we? he shows that the Holy Spirit can be conferred without water. Whence he also infers: "And this will not be doubtful, that men can be baptized in the Holy Spirit without water." Wherefore he who compares the things which that writer sets forth in the first part of his treatise with the preceding opinion of Secundianus, will not rashly suspect that he wished above all to confute this.

18. The same author states the question which was then debated in this manner: "Whether by the most ancient custom and ecclesiastical tradition... for those who outside indeed, yet in the name of Jesus Christ received the Lord's baptism, it would suffice only that the hand be laid upon them by the bishop for receiving the Holy Spirit, and this laying on of the hand would afford them the repeated and consummated sign of faith; or whether repeated baptism also was necessary for them, as though they would have nothing if they had not obtained this also anew." Whence, in the opinion of this writer, the question did not lie in this, whether for those returning from heresy the laying on of the hand which is conferred by the bishop for receiving the Holy Spirit, or confirmation, had to be repeated, since there was agreement concerning this between the parties; but the whole controversy was concerning this, whether baptism also had to be repeated, some affirming this, and the majority, on whose side the writer himself stands relying on the most ancient custom and ecclesiastical tradition, denying the same. For that the same author by these words, "the repeated and consummated sign of faith," understands the sacrament of confirmation, is proved both from these words of Cyprian, Letter 73: "Now also with us (this) is done, that those who are baptized in the Church are offered to the rulers of the Church, that through our prayer and the laying on of the hand they may obtain the Holy Spirit, and be consummated with the Lord's seal"; and from the rite prescribed in the ancient books of the sacraments, whereby the pontiff signing the forehead is commanded to say: The sign of Christ unto life eternal, or: God seals you with the seal of faith (Martène, On the Ancient Rites of the Church, volume 1, page 251). Moreover, from the tenor also of the treatise cited it is not doubtful that the laying on of the hand prescribed for those coming from heresy is so regarded in it as the sacrament of confirmation. Now let us weigh whether there be other testimonies of the ancients which favour the same opinion.

19. Concerning that matter, the Fathers assembled at Arles in the year 314, in the Letter to Pope Sylvester, write that it was established by them: "That if any heretic comes to the Church, they shall ask him the Creed, and if they perceive that he has been baptized in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, let the hand only be laid upon him." Moreover, in Canon 8 issuing the very same edict, after the words: Let the hand only be laid upon him, they add: That he may receive the Holy Spirit.

Siricius, in receiving both other heretics and those by name who had received baptism from the Arians, explains the custom of the Church thus: "Whom we, together with the Novatians and other heretics, even as was established in the synod, through the invocation alone of the sevenfold Spirit, by the laying on of the episcopal hand, unite to the assembly of Catholics; which also the whole East and West observes." Now the use of this rite, which Siricius hands down as observed by the whole East and West, the Gellone manuscript written in the times of Charlemagne exhibits, wherein is read: BLESSING OVER THOSE WHO COME FROM DIVERSE HERESIES: Holy Father almighty, Who hast vouchsafed to rescue Thy servant from the error of heresy, and to recall him to the holy Church, we beseech Thee, O Lord, send into him Thy sevenfold Spirit the Paraclete, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and godliness, and fill Thy servant with the Spirit of the fear of the Lord. Nor can it be denied that that blessing is altogether very similar to that which was uttered over those who approached the sacrament of confirmation: of which fact almost all the ancient books of the Sacraments give assurance. In the manuscript of the distinguished church of Beauvais we have: PRAYER OVER THOSE TO BE CONFIRMED: Almighty everlasting God, Who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these servants of water and the Holy Spirit, and Who hast given them the remission of sins, send into them Thy Holy Spirit the Paraclete, and give them the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and godliness, and fill them with the Spirit of the fear of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ; and command them to be sealed with the sign of the cross unto life eternal, being propitiated. Through. In the Cahors manuscript: BLESSING FOR CONFIRMATION: Almighty everlasting God, Who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these Thy menservants (or maidservants), and Who hast given them the remission of sins, send into them from the heavens Thy sevenfold Spirit the Paraclete, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and godliness, and fill them with the Spirit of Thy fear; and seal them in the sign of the holy cross unto life eternal, being propitiated. Amen. Moreover, similar formulas of prayers of this sort to be said over those to be confirmed, copied or cited from many other ancient books, you may see in our Edmond Martène, On the Ancient Rites of the Church, volume 1, page 249 ff. And this agreement indeed of the blessings, whether over those who come from heresy or over those to be confirmed, seems not a little to favour those who think that the hand was laid by the bishop upon those coming from heresy in order that the sacrament of confirmation might be conferred upon them. Whether however it in very deed votes for them, we are presently about to examine. Only we observe here that the blessing prescribed in the Gellone copy is most ancient. And this indeed Eusebius (History, book 7, chapter 2) not obscurely notes in these words: "The ancient custom had prevailed that for men of this sort (who came from heresy) the laying on of hands alone

with prayer should be employed." Siricius in the passage cited above more openly mentions the same, and with him agrees Innocent, to be reported below. Nor does Leo look less clearly to the same in Letter 149, To Nicetas, chapter 7, where he decrees this: "Those who have received baptism from heretics, when they had not previously been baptized, are to be confirmed by the sole invocation of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands." Or when in Letter 2, To Rusticus, chapter 18, he establishes concerning the same: "Through the laying on of the hand, when the power of the Holy Spirit has been invoked, which they could not receive from heretics, they are to be joined to the Catholics." And in Letter 155, To Neon: "Let this only, which was lacking there, be conferred, that through the laying on of the episcopal hand they may obtain the power of the Holy Spirit."

20. As for what pertains to Stephen, there is nothing in his words which sounds of the sacrament of Confirmation, nothing whereby we may opine that any other laying on of the hand was required by him than that which was a token of penance. For when to this opinion of the Africans concerning him who comes from heresy, "He must be baptized and renewed," he opposed his own in these words: "Let nothing be innovated save what has been handed down," that is, let not his baptism be renewed, but let that only be held which has been handed down; and next added to these words, "that the hand be laid upon him unto penance"; he could utter nothing more express whereby to remove the understanding of the sacrament of confirmation. Among those also who agreed with Cyprian that baptism must be conferred upon those coming from heresy, there were not wanting some who clung to the words of Stephen in that which pertains to the laying on of the hand. By name Crescens of Cirta in the aforesaid Third Council of Carthage said that he judged "that all heretics or schismatics who wish to come to the Catholic Church should not enter before they have been exorcized and baptized, excepting those assuredly who were previously baptized in the Catholic Church; yet in such a way that through the laying on of the hand unto penance they be reconciled to the Church." In the same council Vincentius of Thibaris said: "We know that heretics are worse than heathens... Therefore first through the laying on of the hand in exorcism, secondly through the regeneration of baptism, they can then come to the promise of Christ." Where assuredly, since that laying on of the hand is required which is employed before baptism for those coming from heresy, and whereby Leo (Letter 156) notes that those to be baptized are prepared for this sacrament, no place lies open for understanding the sacrament of confirmation, seeing that this sacrament is conferred upon the baptized alone.

21. Cyprian himself also, to use the words of Augustine, "determined with the rest, that if any returned from heresies to the Church who had been baptized in her, they should be received no longer through baptism, but through penance (St. Augustine, book 5, On Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 11)." Nay, Cyprian must be said not so much to have determined this, as to have confirmed what was received by usage. Concerning this matter he himself in the Letter to Quintus speaks thus: "Which we also observe today, that those whom it is established were baptized here,

and passed over from us to the heretics, if afterwards, recognizing their sin and putting away their error, they return to the truth and the mother-womb, it suffices to lay on hands unto penance." Furthermore, from this usage a firm argument is framed whereby anyone may be convinced that for those returning from heresy to the Church that laying on of the hand was not commanded or employed which conferred the sacrament of confirmation, but that which displayed at least the appearance of public penance. For there was not commanded and employed one laying on of the hand for those baptized in the Church, and another for those initiated with this sacrament in heresy, but one and the same which was common to both. Now upon those baptized in the Church, the hand was laid only unto penance, not for receiving the sacrament of confirmation; and therefore also upon those baptized outside the Church. Holding this for certain, the Donatists, to whom it had been promised that if they returned to the Church they should be received with their honours, say in Augustine, Letter formerly 50, now 185, number 44: "If therefore it behooves us to repent of having been outside the Church and against the Church, in order that we may be able to be saved, how after that penance do we remain clerics or even bishops among you?" Which they would not have said unless they had been persuaded that the laying on of the hand held the place of public penance, which was wont to debar from the clergy. Innocent prefers to call this an image of penance rather than penance: who indeed, while he sharply denies that the clerics of the Arians and of similar heretics are to be received in their honours, has these words concerning their laity: "Their laity we receive under the image of penance and the sanctification of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of the hand." And with a few words interposed: "How can it come to pass that we should judge their profane priests worthy of the honours of Christ, whose laity, imperfect for receiving the grace of the Holy Spirit, we receive with the image of penance?" (Innocent, Letter 24, To Alexander, number 4). Where assuredly he sufficiently indicates that the laying on of the hand is employed for them for the sake of a certain satisfaction. Moreover, it is called by him an image of penance on this account, because upon him who returned from heresy to the Church no laborious works were enjoined, nor was communion deferred; but he straightway, as Leo already cited speaks, "through the invocation alone of the sevenfold Spirit, by the laying on of the episcopal hand, was united to the Catholics." Wherefore Pope Vigilius, Letter 2, To Profuturus, number 4, distinguishing those who have simply been baptized in heresy from those who, having received the saving grace of baptism, being baptized a second time among the Arians, have been plunged in the death of a deep whirlpool, decrees concerning the latter: "Whose reconciliation is accomplished not through that laying on of the hand which works through the invocation of the Holy Spirit, but through that whereby the fruit of penance is acquired and the restitution of holy communion." By which words a twofold laying on of the hand is distinguished: one which exhibits the image and likeness of mournful penance, another which has its reality; one which through the invocation

of the Holy Spirit straightway unites to the assembly of Catholics, another whereby the restitution of holy communion is deferred, and is acquired through very many fruits of penance.

22. Now just as by those diverse testimonies of the ancients which we have hitherto brought forward everyone sees that that blessing is noted which we copied out above in number 19 from the Gellone manuscript; so from the same everyone easily perceives what the laying on of the hand over those who come from heresy has in common with that which is celebrated over those to be confirmed, and what it has that is different. And it is common indeed to both that the Holy Spirit is invoked over them. For the Church, taught by Christ, does not count it enough to unite to herself by external worship those coming to her from heresy, unless she also joins and binds them to herself by an internal and spiritual bond. Now the Holy Spirit alone can perform this, that He unite so many members scattered throughout the world, and make one body out of them. It is no wonder therefore if the Church in the same words prays for the Holy Spirit both for those coming from heresy and for those to be confirmed. Yet if in this matter the prayer of the Church for them is common to both, nevertheless it differs in this, that for the former she prays that they may now begin to have the Holy Spirit, Whom they had not; while for the latter she prays that they may have more abundantly, or so to speak have more strongly impressed, Him Whom they already had. Whence there is this difference also in the two blessings, that for those coming from heresy, no mention being made of the seal, the Holy Spirit is simply invoked; whereas for those to be confirmed, besides the invocation of the sevenfold Spirit, the sealing also is asked for. Now no one is ignorant that the primary difference of confirmation, whereby this sacrament is distinguished from the rest, consists in a sealing of this sort. Concerning which matter let it be enough for us to recall one testimony of Cornelius expostulating thus with Novatian: "Nor after he was freed from the sickness (Letter 9, number 4) (wherein he had received baptism only by being affused with water), did he receive the remaining things which ought to be received according to the rule of the Church, nor was he sealed by the bishop. Now when this seal had by no means been received, how could he receive the Holy Spirit?" The words of Cyprian already related above confirm the very same thing. Since therefore from that blessing whereby those forsaking heresy were received in the Church that prayer is absent whereby the sealing was asked for those to be confirmed, it is manifest that this blessing must be distinguished from the sacrament of confirmation.

23. Yet because those to be confirmed and those coming from heresy had this in common, that upon both the episcopal hand was laid and the sevenfold Spirit was invoked in the same words, by this affinity of the two rites some were easily led to think that the sacrament of confirmation was conferred equally upon both. Although it must not be denied that the First Council of Constantinople, Canon 7, wished that sacrament also to be conferred upon some heretics whom it names, inasmuch as when they returned it commanded their forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears to be sealed with holy chrism,

and that it be said by those sealing them: The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Now why it wished the Novatians by name to be dealt with thus, Theodoret, related above on page 154, note c, explains; whereas that the Arians, whom the same council determined must be similarly sealed, are received in the West by the laying on of the hand alone, Gregory testifies, book 11, indiction 4, Letter 67, To Quiricus. For the rest, the effect of the laying on of the hand employed for returning heretics was twofold. For in them as penitents it washed away the stain of heretical guilt; and it joined the same as corrected persons to the Church. Augustine states both effects thus: "Moreover, if the laying on of the hand were not employed for him who comes from heresy, he would be judged to be as it were outside all blame. And on account of the joining together of charity, which is the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit, without which whatsoever other holy things may be in a man do not avail unto salvation, the hand is laid upon heretics (Book 5, On Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 23, number 33)." Hence those who say that hands are laid upon them either for receiving the Holy Spirit, or unto penance, or both, utter nothing which does not agree with the ancient faith, or whence it may be concluded that by the term of a laying on of this sort they understood the sacrament of confirmation. Least of all indeed can this be elicited from the words of Stephen.

VI. Stephen is praised by the ancients as the defender of apostolic tradition, nor is he accused of error by anyone save by those who spurned the baptism of any heretics whomsoever.

24. To Vincent of Lérins no one occurs more ancient than Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, to whom the custom of baptizing heretics returning to the Church can be attributed. For he speaks thus: "Once upon a time therefore Agrippinus, of venerable memory, bishop of Carthage, first of all mortals against the divine canon, against the rule of the universal Church, against the sense of all his fellow-priests, against the custom and institutions of the ancestors, judged that men must be rebaptized. Which presumption brought in so much evil that it afforded not only to all heretics a pattern of sacrilege, but also to certain Catholics an occasion of error. When therefore from all sides all cried out against the novelty of the thing, and all the priests everywhere resisted, each according to his own zeal; then Stephen of blessed memory, prelate of the Apostolic See, together indeed with the rest of his colleagues, yet beyond the rest, withstood it; thinking it worthy, as I suppose, if he surpassed all the rest as much in devotion of faith as he excelled them in authority of place." Cyprian himself does not deny that that usage which he championed was first brought into Africa by Agrippinus; nor does he deny that the custom which Stephen constantly defended was ancient. For he so contends that it is destitute of truth in these words: "Nor ought a custom which had crept in among certain persons to hinder the truth from prevailing, for custom without truth is the antiquity of error," that he at least

is compelled to confess its antiquity. To confess equally the antiquity of the same custom, as the force of truth persuaded and convinced them, the other bishops also who sat together with Cyprian in the Council of Carthage were compelled. And their opinions indeed Augustine, book 3, On Baptism against the Donatists, chapters 5, 6, etc., purposely collected, in order to prove that they had not been able to deny this.

25. Firmilian himself also, although he alleges that the custom of baptizing heretics is ancient among his own people, nevertheless of his own accord recognizes that the same is new among the Africans, in these words: "Against Stephen you Africans can say that, having known the truth, you have left the error of custom." To which he next adds in favour of his own province: "For the rest, we join custom also to truth, and to the custom of the Romans we oppose custom, yet that of truth; holding from the beginning this which was handed down by Christ and by the Apostle." Now in this battle of opinions, while on the one side Stephen receiving the baptism of heretics says, "What we have received from the apostles, we follow," and on the other side Firmilian spurning the same affirms that he holds "what was handed down by Christ and by the Apostle," which of the two is to be believed? If we test assertions so opposite and so contrary by the rule of Augustine, whereby he judges that to have been handed down by the apostles which, though written nowhere, the universal Church nevertheless frequents, we shall grant that Stephen with a better right than Firmilian claims for himself the authority of apostolic tradition. Perchance even in the East itself the custom of baptizing heretics took its beginning from the definition of the Council of Iconium, which Firmilian praises. And indeed to this definition, as Firmilian testifies, the doubt of some concerning the baptism of the Montanists, whether it ought to be received, gave occasion. For although in their confession of the Father and of the Son there was no error, yet concerning the faith of the Holy Spirit they seemed to sin. Wherefore, says the same Firmilian, "very many of us meeting together in Iconium treated it most diligently, and confirmed that every baptism which is set up outside the Church must be altogether repudiated" (In Cyprian, Letter 75, pages 198 and 202). Now if in the East it was held as a thing handed down by Christ and by the Apostle that the baptism of heretics must be repudiated, whence came that doubt of some concerning the baptism of the Montanists, who already long before were spoken of as heretics, and had been condemned under that name? Assuredly, although Firmilian says that he by no means remembers that the baptism of heretics in the East ever began to be repudiated, he could prove by no example and by no author that it had in very deed been repudiated previously. Nor have any writings of the ancients come down to us which testify to the truth of the tradition claimed by him. Only Dionysius of Alexandria, when he has explained the tradition of his own Church concerning the receiving of the baptism of heretics, added this in favour of the Africans: "I have learned that this custom was not first brought in by the Africans alone, but that even long before, in the times of the preceding bishops,

in the most populous Churches, and in the councils at Iconium and Synnada, and among very many others, the same thing had been decreed." In which words, although the prudent man and zealous for peace omits nothing in order to magnify the antiquity of the custom brought in by the Africans, yet he brings forward nothing more ancient than the Council of Iconium, which the council of Synnada followed. Here one cannot help wondering how Eusebius, although he inserted these words of Dionysius into book 7, chapter 7, of his History, nevertheless said in chapter 3: "First of all Cyprian, who at that time ruled the Church of Carthage, judged that heretics ought not to be admitted unless cleansed from their error through baptism"; unless we understand Cyprian to be called by Eusebius the first author, not of the custom brought in, but of the controversy born thence, inasmuch as sending the decree of his council to Pope Stephen, he bore with an ill mind its being reprobated by him.

26. Yet Stephen withstood him out of no lust of contradicting, but out of the sole zeal of preserving tradition: he did not oppose decree to decree, but forbade what he had received as handed down by the apostles to be innovated and changed. Now when the discourse is of ascertaining the truth of traditions, who would deny credit to that Church which had the first of the apostles for her parent, and in preserving traditions was always more religious than all? It is she who, as Ambrose and the other bishops assembled with him testify, "always guards and preserves undefiled the Creed of the Apostles" (In Siricius, Letter 8, number 4). The very same thing Rufinus also affirms in the Treatise on the Creed. Moreover, the antiquity of the tradition championed by Stephen not even his adversaries are able to deny. The multitude of bishops agreeing with him supports him. He himself proves it even by the example of the heretics, who receive the baptism of those coming to them from all sides. This the ancient writer also of the treatise On the Baptism of Heretics testifies "was received by the most ancient custom and ecclesiastical tradition (Labbe, volume 1 of the Councils, page 770), that the baptism of those who had been baptized outside the Church in the name of the Lord Jesus should be admitted." Eusebius also expressly asserts that the tradition which Stephen championed had obtained from the beginning of the Church, κρατήσασαν ἀρχῆθεν (Eusebius, the same book, chapter 3). Hence not undeservedly Augustine, book 5, On Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 23, says: "The apostles indeed commanded nothing concerning this matter; yet that custom which was opposed to Cyprian must be believed to have taken its origin from their tradition: even as there are many things which the universal Church holds, and on this account are well believed to have been commanded by the apostles, although they are not found written." I do not repeat the words of Vincent of Lérins, wherein he notes that a novelty was brought in by Agrippinus "against the divine canon, against the rule of the universal Church, against the sense of all his fellow-priests, against the custom and institutions of the ancestors." Only I observe that, excepting those who judged that heretics must be baptized, no one is found who rebuked, or

even suspected, any error in the opinion of Stephen. "What therefore, says Vincent of Lérins, was then the issue of the whole business? What assuredly, save the customary and usual one? Namely, antiquity was retained, and novelty exploded." And, as Facundus in the book Against Mocianus speaks, "The Church holds the opinion of Stephen rather than of Cyprian, not only concerning not rebaptizing heretics, but also concerning not tolerating rebaptizers." And now these last words of Facundus lead us to a new question, wherewith our whole Dissertation is to be closed.

VII. Whether Stephen struck the rebaptizers with excommunication. Whether he bore himself too severely with holy men.

27. Firmilian writes not only that Stephen "disagreed with so many bishops throughout the whole world," but also brings him in as "breaking peace with each by a varied kind of discord, now with the Easterns, which we believe does not escape you either, says he to Cyprian, now with you, who are in the south (in Cyprian, Letter 75, towards the end)." And a little before, turning his discourse to Stephen, he addresses him thus: "Moreover, how great a sin have you heaped up, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For you have cut off yourself... For while you think that all can be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all." Moved by which words, some think that all those, whether in the East or in Africa, who judged that heretics must be rebaptized, were excommunicated by Stephen: especially since he, as the same Firmilian testifies, is said to have repulsed the bishops sent as legates by the Africans in such a way "that he did not admit them even to the speech of common conversation, nay, even commanded the universal brotherhood that no one should receive them into his house; so that to them when they came not only peace, but roof and hospitality also were denied."

28. Yet before we assent to an opinion of this sort, saving the reverence due to the holy prelate, it must be observed that he so bore himself in this business that the suspicion fits him of a somewhat too vehement mind, which is able neither to keep due measure, nor to restrain its speech within the fair laws of accurate truth. For he speaks thus, as though the whole world conspired with himself, and a very tiny portion clung to Stephen. Nor is he ashamed to say to the first prelate of the Church, who with the bishops of the whole world was championing apostolic tradition: "You are worse than all heretics." Now when he is convicted of having exceeded due measure in these things, you will deservedly suspect that he was carried away by the same impulse of mind to exceed equally in that which he relates concerning the legates of the Africans. An exasperated man is easy and prone to catch up even from a single rumour all things which favour his preoccupied mind, although we experience that rumour very often deceives, and while it passes through the mouths of many, reports things otherwise than they were done. Yet let us suppose that Firmilian in that which he relates concerning the legates of the Africans said nothing alien from the truth: could not certain special and secret reasons have come to Stephen,

which compelled him to bear himself thus with those legates? Afterwards Hormisdas seemed to some to have dealt unfairly with the Scythian monks, who wished One of the Trinity to be said to have been crucified, thinking that they had been driven out of the city on account of this preaching; whereas it was not for that reason, but on account of the seditions which they stirred up at Rome, that they were commanded to depart thence. So also Stephen had reason to fear lest the Africans should stir up something at Rome, and abuse the authority of Cyprian, whose name was great in the city, and of his councils, as well as human reason, in order to shake the truth of apostolic tradition. Already the Novatians, as Jubaianus testifies in Cyprian, rebaptized Catholics coming to them. Nor was Cyprian, when writing back to Jubaianus, able to deny this. Dionysius of Alexandria also in Eusebius, book 7, chapter 8, testifies that so great a wickedness was committed by those heretics, and that for that reason he turned away from them with just indignation. While therefore that new madness of those same heretics, who raged especially in the City, was a matter of just horror to Stephen, it is no wonder that he was by no means willing to communicate with legates who obstinately defended a similar error. Namely, he had reason to fear lest, if he dealt more mildly with them, he should seem to connive at their error and to have hurled empty threats against them. He dealt with them indeed in the way in which men are wont to deal with those who are accounted excommunicated: yet sometimes a manner of acting of this sort is only a token of suspended, not of wholly removed communion. The Africans did not yet hold as excommunicated the legates of Novatian, whom Cyprian, Letter 1, To Cornelius, number 1, writes to have come to Carthage, and when they demanded to be heard, audience being denied, "we judged," says the same Cyprian, "that they must straightway be debarred from our communion." So also from the fact that Stephen was unwilling to hear the legates of the Africans, and straightway debarred them from his communion, it does not follow that he must be thought to have already pronounced sentence of excommunication against the Africans. Nor indeed would I believe that the names of Cyprian and his fellows, if they had already obtained a place in the sacred diptychs of the Roman Church, were at that time expunged thence. Finally, if we cling to the testimonies of the ancients who lived either in the age of Stephen or afterwards, Stephen did not altogether excommunicate the Africans or the Easterns or cast them out of the Church, but only gave notice that he would excommunicate them if they persisted in their opinion.

29. Nothing else by itself does that saying of Cyprian to Pompeius concerning Stephen sound: "A friend of heretics and enemy of Christians, he thinks that the priests of God defending the truth of Christ and the unity of the Church are to be excommunicated (Letter 74)." Here indeed I do not deny that the word are to be excommunicated can be said and understood concerning those also who had been excommunicated: yet that in very deed it must be understood of threats of excommunication alone is persuaded by what Dionysius of Alexandria writes to Xystus, the successor of Stephen: "Previously indeed he (Stephen) had written letters concerning Helenus and concerning Firmilian and concerning

all those set throughout Cilicia and Cappadocia and all the neighbouring provinces, that he would depart from their communion (οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις κοινωνήσων) for that same reason, because they rebaptized heretics." Stephen therefore had only threatened that Firmilian and his fellows should not rebaptize heretics, and that otherwise he would depart from their communion; and therefore he had not yet departed from it. Moreover, Dionysius wrote these things after his death: whence it follows that what Stephen had threatened, he by no means accomplished in fact, or at least that this was unknown to Dionysius. Treading in the same manner of speaking, Augustine says: "Although therefore Stephen not only did not rebaptize heretics, but even judged that those doing this, or decreeing that it should be done, must be excommunicated, as the letters of other bishops and of Cyprian himself show; nevertheless Cyprian remained with him in the peace of unity (book On the One Baptism against Petilian, number 23)." Another African, a most celebrated writer of the sixth century, committed to memory what he had received as handed down concerning that matter, in these words: "Blessed Stephen also, prelate of the Apostolic See, when he learned that St. Cyprian and other African bishops had decreed concerning the baptizing of all heretics—although, as has been said, they had pronounced such an opinion with no anathema interposed, nor against any more ancient decrees of a general council, nor as conniving at heretics—straightway gave notice to him that if any dared this, they should be driven from the Church (Facundus, Against Mocianus)." Speaking thus, Facundus could bring forward nothing clearer, I suppose, whereby to teach that threats of excommunication were only held out by Stephen against those who rebaptized heretics.

30. Nor did the same writer declare less openly how fair the censure of Stephen against Cyprian seemed to him, when he says: "If no wise man believes the Church to be heretical because she praises the doctrine of blessed Cyprian, bishop of Carthage and martyr, although he not only privately, as seemed good to him, but also when a council had been assembled defined that every heretic coming to the Church must be baptized, and being blamed on this account by Stephen, the Roman prelate, resisted, and writing to Pompeius defended his own opinion with all the human argumentation he could, treating injuriously the same blessed Stephen, by whom he had been rightfully blamed (book 10, chapter 3)." Moreover, the same Cyprian, who was rightfully blamed by Stephen in this, that he did not suffer himself to be torn away from an opinion which opposed tradition, deserved the praises of Augustine on this account, because he remained with Stephen in the peace of unity. "Namely, in that very matter, says that doctor, wherein he thought otherwise, he decreed that his colleagues who thought differently were neither to be judged nor to be removed from the right of communion (St. Augustine, Letter formerly 48, now 93, number 36)." That heretics coming to the Church must be baptized he established indeed; yet, as Facundus observed above, with no anathema interposed against those who judged that the same ought not to be baptized. Wherefore Jerome, warning the disciples of Hilary the deacon, who abused the writings of Cyprian,

gives this warning: "Let them know that he published these things not with an anathema against those who had been unwilling to follow him, seeing that he remained in the communion of those who had gone against his opinion (towards the end of the Dialogue against the Luciferians)." Cyprian himself signifies his most constant zeal for the peace of unity in Letter 73, To Jubaianus, in these words: "These things we have briefly written back to you according to our mediocrity, dearest brother, prescribing to no one nor prejudging against each one of the bishops doing what he thinks good, having the liberty of his own judgement. We, so far as in us lies, do not contend on account of heretics with our colleagues and fellow-bishops, with whom we hold divine concord and the Lord's peace." He repeats similar things also at the end of Letter 75, To Magnus. We have heard the same man testifying the very same thing also in the preceding Letter 2, which he wrote from the council with the rest of his colleagues to Stephen. Finally, in the celebrated Third Council of Carthage also, he prefaces thus to his colleagues: "It remains that concerning this very matter we bring forward what we think, judging no one, nor removing anyone from the right of communion if he thinks differently." For Cyprian, as Augustine observed, moved by the difficulty of the question itself, and most lavishly endowed with holy bowels of charity, had determined that they must remain in unity with those who thought differently. Nor is there any doubt that his consciousness of the custom which he knew had obtained in the Church, and still obtained in most provinces, having been changed among his own people not so long before, begot and increased that difficulty. Lest therefore he should seem to condemn his own ancestors and almost the whole Church, he permitted each one of the bishops to think or do what he judged better; and therefore thought that that question pertained to mere discipline.

31. Thence at least it will seem to some to follow that if Cyprian was deservedly praised because, permitting to each one the free decision of his own opinion, he accounted no one to be removed from his communion, Stephen must rightfully be blamed because he defined that all who dissented from him must be driven from the Church. Yet this by no means follows, unless concerning that controversy the condition of Cyprian and of Stephen was equal, and the judgement of both concerning it was or ought to have been the same. But it happened otherwise. It seemed hard to Cyprian to deny communion to those who kept what he saw kept in almost all churches, and what he was not ignorant had been observed by his own ancestors before Agrippinus. Whereas Stephen judged it agreeable to equity that those who by the worst example refused to obey commands received from the tradition of the apostles should be driven from the Church. To Cyprian in this debate there was not at hand a tradition of John to be opposed to the tradition of Peter, as of old to Polycrates in the controversy concerning the day of Easter. For with Stephen conspired all the Churches except the African and a few provinces of the East. In Africa Cyprian and his fellows confessed that the same custom had obtained even until Agrippinus, nor

was any trace of a contrary custom discovered in the Churches of the East before the doubt born concerning the baptism of the Montanists had brought forth the decree of Iconium. Now to what must so great an agreement of the Churches of the whole world be attributed, save to apostolic tradition? Yet the Africans were unwilling to allow that this had proceeded from the apostles for this reason, because it seemed to them to be repugnant to human reason. Yet the more probable that reason which they objected seems, the more does it persuade us that the custom which it spurns could not have been received in all the Churches save by divine tradition. Aptly therefore did Vincent of Lérins say: "The holy and prudent man (Stephen) understood that the rule of piety admitted nothing else than that all things should be consigned to the children with the same fidelity wherewith they were received from the fathers; and that it behooves us not to lead religion whither we will, but rather to follow whither she leads; and that this is proper to Christian modesty and gravity, not to hand down one's own things to posterity, but to keep the things received from the ancestors."

32. Neither again was the judgement of Cyprian and of Stephen concerning that controversy the same. Cyprian, departing from the ancient tradition, was compelled so to opine concerning it as though it pertained to mere discipline. But concerning the same Stephen judged far otherwise. Nor indeed was it such as that of old concerning the day of Easter, wherein it was allowable for each one of the contenders to defend and hold his own opinion with faith unharmed. It was a question of a principal head of our religion, that is, of the power and efficacy of an altogether necessary sacrament, failing which, no one can be called or accounted a Christian. Besides this, it was a question of defending the unity of baptism. For that this, which Scripture in set words proclaims to be one, must not be repeated, faith teaches. And concerning that matter indeed there was agreement between the parties: so that Cyprian, fearing lest if he were thought to wish heretics to be rebaptized, odium should be stirred up against him hence, wrote both in Letter 71, To Quintus: "Now we say that those who come thence are not rebaptized among us, but baptized"; and in Letter 73, To Jubaianus: "By a certain odium, as though of rebaptizing, it is accounted a wicked thing to baptize after the enemies of God." Moreover, how greatly Christians, not without the nod of God, abhorred repeating baptism, Augustine clearly testifies in this manner: "So do men, by I know not what hidden inspiration of God, detest it if anyone receives baptism a second time, which he had already received wheresoever, that those very same heretics (the Donatists) when they dispute rub their forehead, and almost all their laity... confess that this alone there (in their sect, that baptism is repeated) displeases them (book 5, On Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 5)." See also the things subjoined. Now would not Stephen have seemed either to pluck up or to suffer to be plucked up this dogma of not repeating baptism, if he had permitted the custom of rebaptizing heretics, brought in not so long before, to grow strong any longer? The greater the merit of those who defended it, the graver was the danger impending over the Church, unless he who was strong with the chief authority in the Church had sharply championed the faith received from apostolic tradition. The stain of so great

an evil had already infected the whole of Africa, which was no lowest portion of the Church, as well as Cilicia and Cappadocia, and since it did not cease to spread into the neighbouring provinces, would shortly have ruined the whole East, unless it had been checked and healed by a prompt remedy.

33. Stephen therefore with the whole weight of his authority had to interpose against the celebrated decree whereby Cyprian with his council had enacted: "He who comes to the Church must be baptized and renewed, that within he may be sanctified through the holy"; and had to strive stoutly against those who too obstinately defended it. For if in this cause he had borne himself more remissly; if under the appearance of peace he had suffered this opinion to obtain, that no one can be sanctified save through holy men, and that he who has not the Holy Spirit is not able to give Him through the sacraments, so that whosoever cannot give the Holy Spirit cannot baptize, and baptism conferred by him is altogether void and null: what would those do, as Augustine observes (book 5, On Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 21), who seeking a man of God even within the Church, had lighted upon a hidden murderer, a drunkard, a robber, and an envious man? What perturbation of consciences, what anxiety would arise thence? For although the rebaptizers did not advance so far as to say that baptism conferred by bad Catholics must be renewed, yet from all the considerations which they opposed to Stephen it follows that he who seems to be baptized by Catholics destitute of charity and grace is not baptized in very deed, and therefore must be renewed. Which once admitted, who would be confident that he was baptized? how many would deservedly doubt concerning that matter? Already Firmilian hands down that this also was received by usage in his church concerning those whom bishops removed from the priestly dignity on account of the crime of idolatry had baptized, "that whosoever dipped by those (bishops) come to us, as strangers and having obtained nothing, are baptized among us with the one and true baptism."

34. In this whole disputation, which must be confessed to have been exceedingly sharp and lively, if from men endowed with no common holiness, while they seemed to themselves to be carried away by the sole zeal of truth, some words fell which the common laws of Christian modesty do not approve, what is not to be feared from those disputations which are undertaken rashly and for slight causes, and are often fostered and nourished by the sole desire of glory? Yet if they cannot be avoided, let the parties so bear themselves that both he who champions the truth cannot be reproached with displaying a schismatic mind, and he who wanders from the truth may be able to glory in a Catholic mind. Let them imitate Stephen and Cyprian, whose minds were always so disposed that they sincerely wished the peace of the Church no otherwise than the faith to be unharmed; and concerning whom Augustine says: "Peace conquered in their hearts, so that in such a debate no evil of schism arose between them (book 5, On Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 25)." Thence also let lovers of novelty and despisers of ecclesiastical

traditions learn to what danger they commit themselves when, relying on certain specious human reasons, or even altogether destitute of them, they do not fear to depart from customs always received and studiously observed in the Church. Even if the faith of the Church received by constant tradition could sometimes be attacked by men of the highest holiness and authority, it could never be overcome by anyone. If in his own age, when no decrees of a general council were read, Cyprian cried out against Stephen: "Nor let anyone say: What we have received from the apostles, this we follow; how much more robustly, says Augustine (Ibid., book 4, chapter 6), do we now say: What the custom of the Church has always held, what this disputation could not rend asunder, and what a plenary

council (whether that of Arles, Canon 8, or the Nicene, likewise Canon 8) has confirmed; to this is added that, when the reasons of the disputation and the testimonies of the Scriptures have been thoroughly examined on both sides, it can also be said: What the truth has declared, this we follow." Elsewhere Augustine wonders, and this is truly worthy of wonder, that Petilian the Donatist, while praising and following the opinion of Cyprian concerning baptism, nevertheless mentioned Stephen among those prelates of the Roman Church "whom he confessed to have borne an unblemished episcopate." Such namely is the force of truth that sometimes it extorts a fair testimony even from its adversaries. Now after a testimony of this sort, who would suspect any stain in the faith of Stephen?