L. Thomassin, Dissertatio ad synodos sub Stephano papa in causa baptismi haereticorum collectas

SECOND PART.

THE PRINCIPAL

EXCURSUSES OF MORE RECENT WRITERS

ON THE SAME DISPUTE CONCERNING THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS

OF L. THOMASSIN

DISSERTATION ON THE SYNODS HELD UNDER POPE STEPHEN IN THE CASE OF THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS

AT CARTHAGE, ROME AND ELSEWHERE IN THE YEARS OF CHRIST 256, 257, ETC.

SYNOPSIS

The most rotten calumny of the Innovators is refuted, that Stephen erred in admitting [the baptism] of all just as much as Cyprian and Firmilian erred in repudiating the baptism of all heretics. It is proved from the consensus of all the Fathers that the discipline of the Roman Church concerning the baptism of heretics was then the same as it was afterwards and as still survives even now. Up to no. XXII. From there to the end, another question is resolved in many ways: whether Augustine on this account provides Cyprian with an excuse and a defence, because that matter had not yet been elucidated and settled by a plenary council; seeing that the same man stopped the mouth of the Pelagians when they demanded a plenary council, declaring the dispute finished by local synods and by rescripts of the apostolic See.

I. The contention of Pope Stephen and Cyprian. The calumny of the Innovators against Stephen. A twofold controversy with them to be settled here.

This other question presents itself, illustrious and copious and twin to the one before: on the contention of Stephen with Cyprian concerning baptism conferred by heretics.

For here too bishops conspicuous for holiness come into collision: the Roman, though greater in rank and better in cause, is spurned by his colleague; those who are defiant against the decree of the first see, and more tenacious than is right of ancestral custom, nonetheless enjoy the communion of the Church; finally, in Stephen's favour pronounces

the Nicene Synod. Therefore there is a very great and admirable harmony of persons and of things on both sides. Finally, to crown all, just as Victor, so also Stephen, held in the highest admiration through the rolls of so many past centuries, the most shameless innovators of all in these last dregs of times have begun to blacken, as though with steps turned in the opposite direction he himself had nevertheless erred just like Cyprian. For just as the latter debarred all heretics altogether from the power of giving baptism, so the former, as they prate, endowed them all with it indiscriminately, whether in dipping they used a lawful or a spurious and profane formula of words. Therefore this calumny must first be repelled from the most holy pope and martyr. Then we shall enter upon another controversy also, how Cyprian was almost absolved from blame by Augustine because before a plenary council the truth had not yet been sufficiently cleared up; whereas the same Augustine elsewhere pronounces that by the sole authority and sentence of the first see the Pelagian heretics are abundantly dispatched, and that there is no longer need of a plenary council.

II. That Stephen did not err in receiving the baptism of all heretics is proved from Firmilian.

That Stephen himself therefore also blundered in approving the baptism of all heretics, equally with Cyprian in rejecting that of all, blundering men dream, and elicit it from this decree of his related in Cyprian, Letter 74: "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; since the heretics themselves do not properly baptize those who come to them from one another, but only communicate with them." Stephen therefore, they say, interposed no distinction, and subscribed to baptism consecrated with whatsoever words at last, even those most alien from the evangelical truth. Yet we may first defend Stephen from the very letter of Firmilian written against him to Cyprian: so that that testimony is most invincible which the force of truth extorts from the adversary himself. The words of Firmilian are: "That also is absurd, that 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. Yet who is there in the Church perfect and wise, who would either defend or believe this, that this bare invocation of the names suffices for the remission of sins and the sanctification of baptism? since these things assuredly profit only then, when both he who baptizes has the Holy Spirit, and the baptism itself also is not ordained without the Spirit." Hence it is plain that that baptism alone is approved by Stephen which the invoked Trinity sanctifies, where the invocation of the names suffices for the remission of sins; whereas by Firmilian it is required besides that he who baptizes be quickened by the Holy Spirit. And again in the same place Firmilian most strongly,

as it seems to him, presses Stephen with the example of a sorceress and heretical woman, who had dipped many with the solemn form of the Church: "When she also baptized many, using the customary and lawful words of the interrogation, so that she seemed to differ in nothing from the ecclesiastical rule. What therefore shall we say concerning the baptism of this woman, wherewith a most wicked demon baptized through a 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? Can it be believed either that the remission of sins was given, or that the regeneration of the saving laver was duly accomplished, where all things, although after the image of the truth, were nevertheless 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." I cannot even imagine for myself anything clearer than these words.

III. And the same from the same.

And the same writer in the same place again proceeds to disclose both his own and Stephen's meanings, attacking baptism sanctified by the invocation of Christ unless it be administered by a Catholic man. "But, he says, the name of Christ avails much unto faith and the sanctification of baptism; so that whosoever has been baptized in the name of Christ straightway obtains the grace of Christ. Whereas this point might be briefly met, and it might be said that if baptism outside availed in the name of Christ for cleansing a man, in the name of the same Christ the laying on of the hand could also avail there for receiving the Holy Spirit." Therefore Stephen admitted that baptism which was consecrated in the name of the Trinity, which was consecrated in the name of Christ. And again in the same place: "Now as to that which they allege on behalf of heretics and say, that the Apostle said: Whether by occasion, or in truth, Christ is proclaimed." Would Stephen with his supporters have boasted that Christ is proclaimed by counterfeit formulas of baptism whereby the ecclesiastical faith of Christ and of the Trinity was torn in pieces? Assuredly that passage of the Apostle warns us that the truth of sound preaching is not darkened by the fault of the preacher.

IV. Other arguments from the same.

Moreover, if a baptism profaned by some impious and heretical formula of words had been admitted by the Romans, Firmilian in so lengthy a letter would above all have disclosed this formula of heresy, would have attacked this, and thus would altogether either have inclined the victory to himself or have wrested it from Stephen. Yet while that thoroughly learned man inveighs against the most treacherous faith of the heretics, he nowhere touches upon the very words poured forth by them to defile baptism. For to what purpose would he scoff at the Trinity or the majesty of Christ invoked by a heretical mouth, while keeping silence concerning the madnesses belched forth by the same in insult of the Trinity and of the name of Christ?

V. And again others.

Add that Firmilian is wholly occupied in hissing off the stage the heretical baptizer, and invalidates the baptism from his fault. On the contrary, Stephen was wholly occupied, as is clear even from his refutation, in amplifying the power of the sacrament itself by itself and of the word of Christ and of the invocation of the Trinity, which no worthless man nor any heretic from whose mouth those words resounded could by any means exhaust. The hinge of the controversy therefore then turned upon this: whether the majesty and efficacy of the divine words alone availed to accomplish the sanctification of baptism, by whatsoever minister at last they were uttered; or whether the treachery of the minister could corrupt and make void the virtue of the words. Those therefore who assail Stephen with railings seem not even to have turned their mind to the state of the question.

VI. The same is proved from Cyprian.

Almost the same arguments can be carved out from the short works of Cyprian published in this cause. For thus he writes in the Letter to Pompeius: "Assuredly baptism, which consists in the same unity, cannot be among heretics, because it can be separated neither from the Church nor from the Holy Spirit. Or if they attribute the effect of baptism to the majesty of the name, so that those who are baptized in the name of Christ Jesus, wheresoever and howsoever, are judged renewed and sanctified, etc." Stephen therefore attributed the effect of baptism to the majesty of the names and to the invocation of the name of Christ. And in the Letter to Jubaianus: "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 that those who are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, wheresoever and howsoever, have obtained the grace of baptism; when Christ Himself speaks and says: Not everyone who says to Me: Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of the heavens." Now the fact that Cyprian strives on the other side and urges that not only the name of Christ, but that of the whole Trinity must be invoked in order that baptism may be valid, hinders the cause of Stephen nothing at all. For it is the opinion of many Fathers, and of modern masters of the theological school, that baptism can be accomplished, or at least could at some time be accomplished, even by the invocation of the name of Christ alone. And howsoever that may be, by the invocation of Christ Stephen, like very many also of the ancient theologians, understood the deity of the whole Trinity, and this is plain from the words of Firmilian related above.

VII. From the same.

Moreover, even though heretics invoked the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, or the name of Christ, Cyprian interpreted that they had not the same Father and Christ and Holy Spirit as Catholics, because there is not the same faith, and that therefore there is not the same baptism. In the Letter to Jubaianus: "For if there is one faith for us and for heretics, there can also be one grace. If the same Father, the same Son, the same Holy Spirit, the same Church

they confess; there can also be one baptism there, if there is also one faith, etc. Does Marcion hold this Trinity? Does he assert the same God the Father and Creator as we also do? Does he assert the same one Son Christ born of the Virgin Mary? etc. Far different is the faith with Marcion, and moreover with the rest; nay, there is nothing with them save treachery." Cyprian anxiously searches out not what is invoked, but what is believed by the baptizer: whereas Stephen scrutinized not the faith of the baptizer, but the power of the words. And below: "Wherefore we and heretics cannot have baptism in common, with whom neither God the Father, nor Christ the Son, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the faith itself in the Church is in common." Since Cyprian by this decree of his embraces the Novatians also, who as is established kept undefiled the faith of the Trinity and of the flesh of Christ, it is plain that he says that the same God and the same Christ are not common to us and to heretics, even though there is the same invocation of the names.

VIII. From the Council of Carthage.

From the Council of Carthage likewise it is disclosed wherein the sum of this disputation consisted. "To heretics either nothing is lawful, or all is lawful. If they can baptize, they can also give the Holy Spirit. But if they cannot give the Holy Spirit, because they have not the Holy Spirit, neither can they baptize spiritually." In the same place another bishop also, a follower of Cyprian, says: "Are heretics Christians, or not? If they are Christians, why are they not in the Church of God; how do they make Christians?" Cyprian therefore contemplated only the person of the ministers, Stephen only the efficacy of the words of Christ. For if both the minister had been a heretic and the form had been impious, why would Stephen have suffered this to be called baptism even in name? Why would he have approved in a heretic what he would have abominated even in a Catholic man? Finally, the very words indicate the matter. For the inquiry is concerning the baptism of heretics, that is, concerning baptism given by heretics: where namely that sole ground of doubting occurs which is drawn from the person of the heretic who baptizes. For if both a heretic dips, and in dipping invokes profane masks of the Deity, who would hold these things indiscriminately? who would even name this a baptism? who would mingle this with the baptism of the Novatians and equally approve it?

IX. From Tertullian.

The same is established from Tertullian. For in the book On Modesty he says in defence of this very opinion of Cyprian: "As equal to a heathen, nay, even above a heathen, a heretic also is admitted through the baptism of truth." And in the book On Baptism: "Their God and ours is not the same: nor is there one Christ, that is, the same. And therefore neither is the baptism one, because it is not the same." And lest you suspect that these things look to the Marcionites alone, consult Cyprian again, book 1, Letter 6, disputing the same things more at length concerning the Novatians.

X. Likewise from the Council of Arles.

I come to Canon 8 of the Council of Arles, in the year 314: "Concerning the Africans, because they use their own law so that they rebaptize, it has pleased us that if anyone comes to the Church from heresy, 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, that he may receive the Holy Spirit. But if when asked he does not answer this Trinity, let him be baptized." Why in this canon are the Africans alone censured, and not the Romans also, if both were involved in an error, though dissimilar, yet equally absurd? Or if the intention was to spare the Romans, why was not the name of the Africans spared also, and the rule of baptism alone set forth? Nay, rather, the Romans ought to have been pierced through, as erring far more shamefully, if they had held as valid a baptism conferred with a foreign form hostile to the faith. For that is more atrocious than to rescind the baptism of any heretics whomsoever. For in the latter case the impiety of the baptizer is always detestable, and therefore the zeal of him who detests it is in some measure excused. But in the former case the profanity both of the baptism and of the baptizer is manifest, whence the ignorance of those who approve it would be altogether inexcusable.

XI. From Eusebius.

Eusebius also defends Stephen and removes from him all suspicion of error, book 7, chapter 2: "To this Stephen Dionysius composed the first of those letters which were written concerning baptism. Since about that time no small controversy had arisen whether those who are converted from any heresy ought to be cleansed by baptism, seeing that the ancient custom had prevailed that for men of this sort the laying on of hands alone with prayers should be employed. First of all men Cyprian, who at that time governed the Church of Carthage, judged that they were not to be admitted unless first cleansed from error through baptism. But Stephen, thinking that nothing ought to be innovated against the tradition which had held good from ancient times, bore this very grievously." He retorts the whole blame of innovation upon Cyprian, or upon Cyprian's predecessor Agrippinus, while as for Stephen he says that nothing else pleased him than that the ancient custom should be retained, wherein he assuredly could by no means err.

XII. From the words of Stephen himself.

Which very thing is made most plain from the very words of Stephen related by Cyprian and Firmilian: that nothing is to be innovated; that what has been handed down ought to be retained. Who does not understand that this is a most certain medicine against all errors, much less that any error can be proffered in these words? For from the beginning of the evangelical preaching that discipline of the Roman Church had prevailed, as Eusebius intimates. Or if anything otherwise than the apostles and apostolic men had practised had afterwards been innovated by some Roman prelate, Stephen would not lean so confidently upon tradition and antiquity. Of the Roman tradition, or of its corruption,

Cyprian or Firmilian, whose learning and heat in this business are most thoroughly proved, would at some time have pointed out some beginning, as it were its cradle. Eusebius notes the recent beginnings of the African discipline, by no means of the Roman. Finally, Cyprian himself professes that he follows Agrippinus as his author, whereas whom Stephen follows as his first leader he nowhere declares, but repeatedly cries aloud that truth must be preferred to custom and tradition, from which he could not detract. And so in Letter 71 he has it thus: "Which indeed Agrippinus also, with the rest of his fellow-bishops who at that time governed the Church of the Lord in the province of Africa and Numidia, determined, and confirmed by the weighed examination of the common council. Whose opinion we also have followed." And in the Letter to Jubaianus: "With us it is no new or sudden thing that we judge that those who come from heretics to the Church must be baptized: since it is now many years and a long age since under Agrippinus, a man of good memory, very many bishops assembling together determined this, and thenceforth unto this day so many thousands of heretics in our provinces, converted to the Church, have obtained the grace of saving baptism." He betrays the novelty of his own custom while he vaunts its antiquity. Yet not being able to disparage the antiquity of the Roman discipline, he cries aloud a little after that truth alone must be served: "Wherefore in vain do certain who are overcome by reason oppose custom to us, as though custom were greater than truth, or that were not to be followed in spiritual things which has been better revealed by the Holy Spirit." Whatsoever error therefore is fastened upon Stephen, the same is fastened upon the most ancient tradition of the Churches, the same upon the apostles themselves, its masters.

XIII. The argument of Stephen against Cyprian is defended.

And Cyprian indeed assailed Stephen with gibes and jeers when he argued from the example of the heretics. Yet with the leave of the most holy martyr I would say that nothing could have been more opportune than this argumentation of Stephen, nothing more inconsiderate than this scoffing. For hence it became most thoroughly established that the heretics had innovated nothing in the solemn form of baptism, nor mingled with it any stain of their own delusions, seeing that they did not spurn one another's baptism. For they detested one another's error, and accordingly would have detested the baptism if it had been vitiated by the peculiar ravings of each. The same reason therefore which the heretics had was present to Stephen also for not repeating baptism bestowed outside the Church.

XIV. Likewise from Jerome it is shown that Stephen did not err in the question of baptism.

Furthermore, Jerome in the Dialogue against the Luciferians writes things which not even men of the most brazen brow could dare to deny were written in defence of Stephen: "Blessed Cyprian endeavoured to flee broken cisterns and not to drink of strange water, and on that account reprobating the baptism of heretics, to Stephen, who was then bishop of the Roman

city, the twenty-sixth from blessed Peter, sent an African synod upon this matter. Yet his endeavour was in vain. Finally, those very bishops who had determined with him that heretics must be rebaptized, returning to the ancient custom, issued a new decree. What are we to do? So both our ancestors handed down to us, and their ancestors to them." You see how he assigns novelty to Cyprian, and the antiquity of tradition to Stephen, and says finally that the colleagues of Cyprian at length repented of their endeavour, and returned to the ancient custom of Stephen and of their own ancestors themselves. And the same writer presently establishes that the opinion and tradition of Stephen was truly apostolic, truly propagated by the apostles while they still survived, and confirmed by examples, enumerating the bands of apostates and heretics which infested the very cradle of the Church, of none of whom nevertheless is the baptism read to have been repeated: "But why should I speak of later men? While the apostles still survived in the world, while the blood of Christ was still fresh in Judaea, the body of the Lord was asserted to be a phantom: the Galatians, led over to the observance of the law, the Apostle travails in birth with again: the Corinthians, not believing the resurrection of the body, he endeavours by many arguments to draw to the true way. Then Simon Magus and Menander his disciple asserted themselves to be the powers of God. Then Basilides, etc. Nicolas also, etc. Saturninus, etc. Carpocrates, and Cerinthus, and his successor Ebion, and the rest of the pests, very many of whom broke forth while John the apostle was still living. And yet we read that none of them was rebaptized." You see that Jerome uses no division so as to teach that some of the heretics are to be dipped in the Church, and others not to be dipped; but universally denies that any are to be dipped again, or that any were dipped again by the apostles or their successors, even though very many of them had already then belched forth certain monstrous figments concerning God. Nor did it escape Jerome in so great a light of his age, especially so long after the Synod of Arles, that no baptism is valid save that which is sanctified in the name of the Trinity. Therefore, if Simon, Menander, Basilides, Carpocrates, Cerinthus, and Ebion had not adulterated the form of ecclesiastical baptism, so that their baptism also was not to be made void, it is most fair to conjecture the same concerning the rest down to the times of Stephen.

XV. Again from the same.

Jerome proceeds in the same place to argue the same thing from the Apocalypse, where very many are mentioned imbued with heretical madness; and yet to them or to their disciples not baptism, but penance for washing away their filth is enjoined: "From the Apocalypse also let us prove that penance ought to be granted to heretics without baptism. In the Angel of the Church of Pergamum the eating of things offered to idols and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans are reproved. Likewise with the Angel of Thyatira the prophetess Jezebel, and the meats of idols and fornications are rebuked. And yet all these, to penance, the Lord

exhorts, etc. Did He say: Let those be rebaptized who have been baptized in the faith of the Nicolaitans? Nay rather: Do penance, says He, etc." Thus he demonstrates that the long-standing custom which Stephen defended tooth and nail had been derived even from the apostles themselves, and had been recorded in the very pages of divine Scripture. Furthermore, just as Stephen did, so Jerome makes no distinction among heretics, places them all in one ship, commands them all to be washed by penance, not by baptism.

XVI. From the same again.

But clearest above the rest are the things which the same Jerome disputes below against Hilary the deacon, the herald of the Luciferian schism, made thence a new Deucalion of the world because he raved that those coming from the Arians must be dipped anew: "If heretics have not baptism and therefore must be rebaptized by the Church because they were not in the Church, Hilary himself also is not a Christian. For he was baptized in that Church which has always received baptism from heretics. Before the Synod of Ariminum took place, before Lucifer went into exile, Hilary as a deacon of the Roman Church received those coming from heretics in that baptism which they had previously received. Unless perchance the Arians alone are heretics, and it is not lawful to receive one baptized by them alone, while from others it is lawful. You were a deacon, O Hilary, and received those baptized by the Manichaeans. You were a deacon, and approved the baptism of Ebion. Suddenly, after Arius arose, you began to be wholly displeasing to yourself." And a little after he introduces the Roman Church speaking to Hilary: "If born in my bosom, if nourished with the milk of my breasts, you lift up a sword against me, give back what I gave, and be, if you can, a Christian otherwise. I am a harlot, yet nevertheless I am your mother. Do I not keep the chastity of one couch? Such was I when you were conceived. Do I commit adulteries with Arius? I did so before also with Praxeas, with Ebion, with Cerinthus, with Novatus." You see how here also he defends the reception of all heretics altogether by the Roman Church through penance alone without a new baptism, and maintains that this was done rightfully and by apostolic institution and by the unshaken precept of the divine Scriptures; and so concludes that the Arians also are to be admitted without baptism. Furthermore, Jerome wrote these things after the Synod of Arles, after the Nicene decree concerning baptism.

XVII. From the same.

Finally, the same writer consequently fortifies this also more strongly: "Now if anyone thinks it must be denied that heretics were always received by our ancestors, let him read the letters of blessed Cyprian, wherein he rends Stephen, bishop of the city of Rome, and the error of inveterate custom. Let him read also the pamphlets of Hilary himself which he published against us concerning the rebaptizing of heretics, and there he will find Hilary himself confessing that by Julius, Mark, Sylvester, and the rest of the ancient bishops all heretics were similarly received unto penance,

and yet that custom ought not to prejudice truth for himself. The Nicene Synod also received all heretics, except the disciples of Paul of Samosata." You see here also that heretics, all heretics, were received without repetition of Baptism by the Roman Church, equally after the Synods of Arles and Nicaea and before. Therefore, if any blame is fastened upon Stephen, the same must be smeared upon all the Roman bishops after the Synods of Arles and Nicaea, at which the Roman See had been present through legates and of which it itself always stood forth as the primary defender, and upon Jerome himself, their herald. You see again how favourable and agreeable to Stephen was the Nicene Synod, which "received all heretics except the disciples of Paul of Samosata," who in the age of Stephen had not yet raised their ill-omened head from hell. So that nothing can be devised either more petulant or more unskilful by the innovators of this age, who prate that the Nicene Synod voted neither for Stephen, who received all, nor for Cyprian, who received none without baptism, but used that distinction whereby each error was chastised. For the Nicene Fathers altogether agreed with Stephen, since they ordered all the heretics whom he received to be received without baptism; they decreed that those should be dipped whom he could not foreknow were going to break forth. Finally, nowhere did Jerome even in the slightest degree complain of an error either of Stephen, or of those who did not repeat baptism conferred in heterodox words.

XVIII. The same is established from Basil.

Let Basil be added, Letter to Amphilochius, chapter 1. For although he less approves the custom of the Roman prelates in baptism, he nevertheless assigns it not to error, but to economy. And although he himself less subscribes to it, yet for the sake of economy he assents that those who wish may adhere to it. And with Dionysius of Alexandria indeed, because he approved the baptism of the Pepuzeni, which monstrously abhorred from the faith, he is somewhat angry; he mentions Cyprian and Firmilian not without praise; from censuring Stephen he altogether abstains, who nevertheless, if any credit were to be given to recent sycophants, would have stumbled far more foully than Dionysius: "The baptism of the Pepuzeni seems to me to have no ground, and I have wondered how this escaped the great Dionysius, who was skilled in the canons." And below: "The Pepuzeni blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, nefariously attributing the title of the Paraclete to Montanus and Priscilla. What ground therefore is there for judging their baptism true, who baptize into the Father, and the Son, and Montanus and Priscilla? For they have not been baptized who have not been baptized into the things handed down to us. Wherefore, even though this escaped the great Dionysius, yet the imitation of an error must not be observed by us." Where it is easily perceived under what error not so much Dionysius as Basil labours. For the Pepuzeni had corrupted the faith, not the words of baptism, nor did they baptize into the names of Montanus and Priscilla, but into the name of the Holy Spirit; and because by Him they understood Montanus and Priscilla, that they had dipped into the name of Montanus and Priscilla, a less apt interpreter,

Basil comments, weighing their mind rather than their words. Therefore on this account the Montanists were not rebaptized by the Romans either.

XIX. From Siricius, Innocent, and Leo, Roman Pontiffs.

Moreover, Innocent I, in Letter 22, chapter 4, similarly unconcerned with distinctions, says: "Now the law of our Church is, to those coming from heretics, who nevertheless have been baptized there, through the laying on of the hand to grant only lay communion, etc." While he says, "who nevertheless have been baptized there," he signifies that true baptism was required both by himself and by his ancestors, dedicated with the evangelical words: otherwise it is not even to be called baptism. Whence in chapter 5, in the same place, investigating the reason why the Nicene Synod was so favourable to the Novatians, and on the other hand so adverse to the Paulianists, that it did not even remove the former from the clergy, while it made void the very baptism of the latter, he says: "Which manifest reason declares was on that account distinguished for those two heresies, because the Paulianists by no means baptized 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." Therefore, even though the holy Fathers without distinction pronounce that all dipped by heretics are to be expiated by penance alone, yet the same are conscious that it is not even called baptism unless sealed with the name of the Trinity. And again, since the Paulianists, because they did not dip in the name of the Trinity, when coming to the Church are commanded to be washed again, therefore no other heretics at the time of the Nicene Synod had contaminated the mystery of baptism with a heretical form of words. To which argument strength will be added from Letter 1 of Siricius, chapter 1, who fights also with the past decree of his predecessor Liberius: "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 episcopal laying on of the hand, unite the Arians to the assembly of Catholics. Which also the whole East and West observes." You see how he does not trouble himself about signifying a distinction. Likewise Leo I, Letter 37, chapter 2: "Now if it be established that anyone has been baptized by heretics, towards him let the sacrament of regeneration by no means be repeated." Namely, he does not suffer it to be called baptism unless bestowed with due observance. And Letter 79, chapter 7: "For 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, because they have received only the form of baptism without the power of sanctification." And Letter 92, chapter 16: "Now those who know that they have been baptized, but profess that they know not of what faith were those who baptized them, in whatsoever way they have received the form of baptism, are not to be rebaptized." You see how they agree not only in the sentiment, but in the very words of Stephen, and hold all heretics indeed indiscriminately, and do not rebaptize those baptized by them; yet doubtless intimate this, that none are called baptized save those who have received the form of baptism, that is, the invocation of the Trinity.

XX. Likewise from Augustine.

To these let Augustine succeed, who could have gone before and alone been equal to all. Now from him what shall we pluck first, what next, in defence of Stephen? For all his writings concerning baptism against the Donatists, all the chapters, almost all the lines, pursue this contention of Stephen with Cyprian in such a way that the whole majesty of sounder discipline and of truth resides with Stephen. I will pluck very few things out of an almost immense heap of innumerable testimonies. Therefore, book 1, On Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 18: "For although Cyprian, a bishop of so great merit, thought otherwise concerning baptism than the truth more diligently inquired into was going to confirm; and many of his colleagues, although it was not yet clearly manifested, nevertheless held that which both the past custom of the Church and afterwards the whole Catholic world embraced, yet he did not sever himself by separate communion from the rest who thought differently." Do you hear that Stephen and the rest of his colleagues from whom Cyprian dissented held that "which both the past custom of the Church and afterwards the whole Catholic world embraced"? And book 2, chapter 7: "That question of baptism had not yet been diligently treated throughout. Yet nevertheless the Church held a most wholesome custom: which I believe came from apostolic tradition, even as many things are not found in their letters, nor in the councils of later men; and yet, because they are kept throughout the universal Church, are believed to have been handed down and commended by none save themselves." Therefore Stephen and the universal Church with him, if you except Cyprian with his supporters, retained a custom not erring and afterwards to be amended, but apostolic and afterwards to be corroborated by the plenary Councils of Arles and Nicaea. And in the same place, chapter 9: "A universal council had not yet been held, because the world was held by the strength of custom, and this alone was opposed to those who wished to introduce novelty." And book 4, chapter 6: "Nor do I find why they disapprove that custom, which after Cyprian was confirmed even by a plenary council of the whole world, etc., whereas when Cyprian sought authority for changing that custom, he found only the council of Agrippinus held in Africa alone a few years before himself. Which when he perceived was not sufficient for him against the custom of the whole world, etc." And book 5, chapter 23: "Until through a plenary council what was more right shone forth, not by some novelty being instituted, but by antiquity being corroborated." Do you see whereto the plenary council tended and what it accomplished, whether assembled at Arles or at Nicaea? Not that it might make a new distribution of heretics, but that it might confirm the ancient custom championed by Stephen, illustrated by the kindled torch of truth. And book 7, chapter 20: "For when the truth was afterwards more clearly revealed, error yielded to truth, when that most wholesome custom was confirmed by the authority of a plenary council also." And in the book On the One Baptism against Petilian, chapter 14: "Behold, there were two at one time, to be silent concerning others, who thought differently:

there were two bishops of the most eminent Churches, to wit, the Roman and the Carthaginian, Stephen and Cyprian, both set in Catholic unity. Many thought with the former, some also with the latter, etc." Who furthermore was more practised than Augustine in this debate? Who went more deeply into the investigation of this question, which was still boiling with the Donatists? To whom were the words and meanings both of Stephen and of Cyprian more thoroughly known? Those words of Stephen, "from whatsoever heresy," had not escaped him. And yet he did not elicit thence that Stephen had erred, but on the contrary, that he had invincibly adhered to apostolic tradition. Moreover, who could have perceived more clearly than he himself the sense and fruit of the Canon of Arles and of the plenary council, not in amending, but in confirming the prior custom?

XXI. How unspeakable to say that the whole Church at any time erred in this matter also.

For that in this part the universal Church was at some time in darkness, and entangled in the nets of falsehood, heretics indeed eagerly embrace, to whom the Bride of Christ is a brothel. But far be it that Catholic men should ever assent to this! Let them subscribe rather to Augustine, to be silent concerning other things, a witness of a very recent matter, than to upstart heretics bringing forth after almost fourteen hundred years ever new monsters of falsehoods and calumnies. Let Augustine unteach them from suspecting so ill of the Church of Christ, book 2, Against Cresconius the Grammarian, chapter 33: "Wherefore, although of this matter assuredly no example is brought forward from the canonical Scriptures, yet the truth of the same Scriptures is held by us in this matter also, when we do that which has pleased the universal Church, which the authority of the Scriptures themselves commends: so that, since holy Scripture cannot deceive, whosoever fears to be deceived by the obscurity of this question may consult concerning it that same Church which sacred Scripture without any ambiguity points out." The rule therefore not only of faith, but also of more chastened discipline, if anywhere Scripture is silent, is nevertheless the Church herself, concerning which Scripture is not silent. Now if the universal Church had at any time lain in error, even though dissimilar, what would it avail for her to be consulted? If the universal Church had erred outside a synod, why would she not have erred in a plenary synod also? Is the representation of the Church safer from error than the Church? Is she safer when gathered into one place than when spread abroad into every place? Or where she herself is poured out everywhere on earth, is the Holy Spirit, the inmost guest of the breast, poured out and vanished? In what Catholic would these things not stir up bile?

XXII. Likewise from Vincent of Lérins.

Vincent of Lérins also cuts off all opportunity of cavilling, Commonitory 1, chapter 9: "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 Pope 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. Finally, in the letter which was then sent to Africa, he decreed in these words, that nothing was to be innovated, save what had been handed down." Where you perceive how all things are drawn up for the defence of Stephen. And these things indeed Vincent wrote after the Council of Arles, after the Nicene, after the General Council of Constantinople. He did not therefore suspect that by these councils the opinion of Stephen had been repudiated equally with that of Cyprian.

To these add Facundus, bishop of Hermiane, book 10: "When Cyprian defined, not only privately as it seemed good to him, but also after assembling a council, that every heretic returning to the Church should be baptized, and being blamed on account of this by Stephen, the Roman prelate, resisted, injuriously treating the same blessed Stephen by whom he had been rightfully blamed, etc." And in the book Against Mocianus: "On that account blessed Stephen also, prelate of the Apostolic See, when he learned that Saint Cyprian and other African bishops had decreed concerning the baptizing of all heretics, straightway announced to him that if any dared these things, they should be driven from the Church. And the Church holds the opinion of Stephen rather than of Cyprian, not only concerning not rebaptizing heretics, but also concerning not tolerating rebaptizers." What can be wished clearer than these words?

XXIII. From Hincmar of Rheims, and Augustine again.

Finally Hincmar, not to proceed further, in the Fifty-five-Chapter Opusculum, chapter 19: "And because the Nicene Council commanded that the Paulianist heretics when coming to the Church should be baptized, certain said that other heretics also must be baptized; which the Apostolic See and plenary councils, even as the decrees of the Roman pontiffs and Saint Augustine in words and meanings copiously show, utterly rejected." For the Paulianists, as Innocent handed down above, did not dip in the name of the Trinity, whereas almost all other heretics did dip therein, even though under those names they did not embrace the same faith as the Catholic Church. Whence Augustine, book 3, On Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 15: "Wherefore, if Marcion consecrated baptism with the evangelical words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, the sacrament was whole, although his faith, thinking under the same words something else than the Catholic truth teaches, was not whole, but defiled with fabulous falsehoods. For under the same words, that is, in the names of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, not

only Marcion, or Valentinus, or Arius, or Eunomius, but the very carnal babes of the Church, concerning whom the Apostle said: I could not speak to you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, if each one could be diligently questioned, there would perchance be numbered as many diversities of opinions as men." Consult Epiphanius and others who have written concerning heresies: although almost all have pursued minutiae, yet you will scarcely find the form of baptism overthrown by any, save by one or two. Whence Augustine skilfully says in book 6, On Baptism against the Donatists: "For the rest, who knows not that it is not the baptism of Christ if the evangelical words whereof the Creed consists have been lacking there? Yet heretics are more easily found who do not baptize at all, than who do not baptize with those words."

XXIV. The second controversy is touched upon, whether after the decree of Stephen there was still need of a plenary council, as Augustine seems to intimate.

Now enough, as I suppose, and more than enough has it shone forth how little credit is to be given to the innovators, when in a matter so open they have endeavoured to practise deceit, and to struggle against the most unanimous opinion of all the Fathers. Let us now gird ourselves to dispatch the second part of this controversy. And from the testimonies of Augustine set down above, this indeed shone out, that he held the adversaries of Stephen in some measure excused, because the matter had not yet been defined and elucidated by a plenary council of the Church. Are those therefore who despise the ordinances of the Apostolic See before the definition of a plenary council implicated in no blame? Or was there such equality between Cyprian and Stephen that with equal right in a disagreement on so great a matter each might enjoy his own judgement?

XXV. On the contrary, from the same Augustine, even before the council both the power of Stephen was supreme and the error of Cyprian needed to be expiated, not excused.

That it is by no means so, even Augustine himself is surety. For in book 5, chapter 23, On Baptism against the Donatists: "Cyprian writes that Stephen, whom we have learned was then bishop of the Roman Church, not only did not agree with him in these things, but even wrote and commanded to the contrary." Thus therefore elsewhere above he said that there were two prelates of the most eminent Churches thinking differently, in such a way that here he acknowledges that the one commanded the other. And in book 1, On Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 18: "In which Church, if some still thought otherwise than others concerning that question without breach of peace, until by a universal council some one cleared and pure decision had pleased them, the charity of unity would cover the error of human weakness: even as it is written, that charity covers a multitude of sins. For when this is absent all other things are held in vain, and when the same is present certain things are venially not held." He does not dissemble that Cyprian sinned: whom he presently says "attained to the palm of martyrdom, so that if any cloud had crept into his bright mind from the human condition, it was put to flight by the glorious serenity of his shining blood." And presently he adds that what he had thought concerning baptism otherwise than the matter stood, "was compensated by the abundance of his charity, and by the pruning-hook of his passion

purged away." And in book 5, chapter 25: "Now those things which Cyprian when irritated poured out against Stephen I do not wish to handle again, because there is no need either. It is better to pass over those things which had the danger of pernicious dissension. Moreover, Stephen had thought that those also were to be excommunicated who endeavoured to pluck up the ancient custom concerning the receiving of heretics; whereas the latter, moved by the difficulty of that question and most lavishly endowed with bowels of holy charity, thought that they must remain in unity with those who thought differently. Thus, although he is somewhat excitedly, yet fraternally indignant, nevertheless the peace of Christ conquered in their hearts, so that in such a debate no evil of schism arose between them." You see how he touches upon the effervescence of Cyprian, establishes that the same things pleased Stephen which afterwards pleased the universal Church, that the baptism of heretics should not be repeated, and that those who repeated it should be excommunicated; and finally that Stephen at length acquiesced in the dispensation whereby Cyprian flattered his own error, in order to avert schism. For although by no decree, yet by his very patience whereby he withheld the threatened thunderbolt, Stephen consented to this economy. Therefore, since Stephen consented to that economy, those who awaited a plenary council no longer spurned his authority.

XXVI. From the same, Cyprian is compared to Peter erring, yet listening to his rebuking colleague.

What of the fact that six hundred times the same writer compares Cyprian to Peter, a bishop to an Apostle, an erring man to an erring man, a martyr to a martyr? Yet whereas Peter acquiesced in Paul when he rebuked him, the followers of his error were cut off from the Church. So also the imitators of the martyr Cyprian broke themselves off from unity. Book 7, chapter 1: "The heretics born from that error into which Peter deviating was recalled by Paul, persist in this even unto this day. Just as they therefore, while Peter in the primacy of the apostles was crowned with the glory of martyrdom, remained in their perversity cut off from the Church; so these, while Cyprian through the abundance of his charity was received into the lot of the saints by the brightness of his passion, recognize themselves as exiles from unity." Thus Cyprian ought at least to have obeyed Stephen, as Peter obeyed Paul. That therefore besides he washed away with his blood. And book 3, chapter 8: "It warns us that it was not impossible that concerning baptism Cyprian should think somewhat otherwise than the truth demanded, which was retained by the Church both before him and after him, even as Peter also could think somewhat otherwise than the truth had, which we have learned from Paul the Apostle as teacher."

XXVII. How Cyprian cannot be excused according to the same, as disobedient to apostolic tradition and to the universal Church.

How Augustine also could not absolve Cyprian is plain besides from book 2, On Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 7, where he says that although the matter had not yet been more diligently treated throughout, "nevertheless the Church held a most wholesome custom, etc., which custom I believe came from apostolic tradition, even as many things are not found in their letters

nor in the councils of later men, and yet because they are kept throughout the universal Church, are believed to have been handed down and commended by none save themselves. This most wholesome custom therefore Saint Cyprian says as it were began to be corrected through his predecessor Agrippinus. Yet as the truth more diligently inquired into has taught, it is more truly believed to have begun to be corrupted through Agrippinus, not corrected." The same writer elsewhere many times inculcates that that custom of not repeating baptism had hitherto been observed by the universal Church. Cyprian therefore could not be freed from blame, who despised the custom of the universal Church and the tradition derived even from the apostles themselves, and esteemed it less than the recent corruption brought in through Agrippinus. It is the less wonderful therefore if he made less account of the statutes of the Apostolic See, who accounted as a straw the apostolic traditions and the laws of the universal Church. From this contempt of Cyprian, which he expiated by martyrdom, nothing can duly be excepted against the authority either of the first See, or of the universal Church, or of the apostolic traditions.

XXVIII. The same things are confirmed from Jerome, Vincent of Lérins, and Facundus of Hermiane.

Thus Jerome in the Dialogue against the Luciferians joins together both authorities, of the Apostolic See and of the universal Church, as attacked in vain by Cyprian: "Let him read the letters of blessed Cyprian, wherein he rends Stephen, bishop of the city of Rome, and the error of inveterate custom." Thus also Vincent of Lérins in the passage cited above: "Stephen, prelate of the Apostolic See, withstood Cyprian, together indeed with the rest of his colleagues, yet beyond the rest: thinking it worthy, as I suppose, if he surpassed all the rest as much in devotion of faith as he excelled them in dignity of place." It was assuredly fair that Cyprian should comply with him who surpassed the rest of his colleagues both in devotion of faith and in dignity of place. Yet what wonder if he did not yield to him, when he rather bound himself to Agrippinus, "who first of all mortals, against the divine canon, against the rule of the universal Church, against the sense of all priests, against the custom and institutions of the ancestors, judged that men must be rebaptized"? Thus Facundus also said above that Cyprian was "rightfully blamed" by Stephen, and that not Cyprian indeed at that time, yet the Church, both then and afterwards acceded to the opinion of Stephen.

XXIX. Again from Augustine.

And again Augustine, not ignorant that eighty bishops agreed with Cyprian and fifty with Firmilian, nonetheless confidently affirms that the universal Christian world stood on the side of Stephen; so that hence again it is plain that nothing can from this be objected against the authority or decrees of Stephen any more than against those of the universal Church. Moreover, let the power both of Stephen and of the Church be understood as invincible indeed, yet very modest and tempered by many soothing indulgences of economy and pardon. Book 3, Against Cresconius, chapter 3: "Wherefore, if altogether

it must now be believed that the same thing seemed good to fifty bishops of the Easterns as to seventy Africans or even somewhat more, against so many thousands of bishops to whom this error was displeasing in the whole world, why should we not rather say that those few Easterns themselves also corrected their judgement?" And book 2, chapter 9, On Baptism against the Donatists: "A universal council had not yet been held, because the world was held by the strength of custom." See also book 4, chapter 6, as we related above. Eusebius also, related above, book 7, chapters 2 and 3, intimates that the ancient custom which Stephen applied himself to defending had prevailed in every Church from the beginning; so that Firmilian must needs have been swept outside the path of truth by zeal for his own party when he boasts too licentiously of the abundance of his followers.

XXX. Stephen did not rage beyond threats, and at length acquiesced in a dispensation, and thus himself suspended the execution of his decree.

Moreover, that Stephen did not break forth beyond threats and terror, and withholding the sacred sword, at least silently acquiesced in indulgence, lest for that reason the unity of the Church should be rent, we gather by many conjectures. Eusebius says that Stephen bore very grievously the new and unusual decree of Cyprian and of the Synod of Carthage, and does not relate that he boiled beyond indignation, or attempted anything further. Jerome, cited above, said that Cyprian sent the decree of his council to Stephen, yet that his endeavour was in vain; and finally that those very bishops betook themselves back to the more ancient custom. Vincent of Lérins pursued the fervour of Stephen in the most magnificent words, and is altogether silent concerning an anathema. Augustine, book 5, chapter 23: "Cyprian writing to Pompeius indicates that Stephen not only did not agree with him in these things, but even wrote and commanded to the contrary." Thus far did the severity go. And in the book On the One Baptism against Petilian, chapter 14: "Although Stephen not only did not rebaptize heretics, but even judged that those who did so, or decreed 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." He judged that they must be excommunicated, he did not excommunicate them: Stephen threatened, he did not hurl the bolt. Therefore Cyprian also remained in the peace of unity, even with Stephen; whence in the same place presently: "Behold, there were two at one time, to be silent concerning others, who thought differently. There were two bishops of the most eminent Churches, to wit, the Roman and the Carthaginian, Stephen and Cyprian, both set in Catholic unity. Many thought with the former, some also with the latter, both standing with them in unity." Nothing can be made clearer than these words. And therefore the words of Firmilian to Cyprian grating against Stephen in this manner must be somewhat mitigated: "Breaking peace with each by a varied kind of discord, now with the Easterns, which we trust does not escape you either; now with you, who are in the south; from whom

he received the legate bishops patiently enough and gently, so that he did not admit them even to the speech of common conversation: and moreover commanded the universal brotherhood that no one should receive them into his house: so that to them when they came not only peace and communion, but roof and hospitality were denied." Firmilian was playing the rhetorician, and growing too extravagantly hot with the heat of his own cause. That Stephen at first received the legates of Cyprian somewhat harshly, in order to recall him to his duty, I do not care to deny: yet that peace was not broken by him, the preceding arguments thoroughly prove. And finally Cyprian himself in the Letter to Pompeius, wherein he most harshly attacks the harsher letter of Stephen to himself, nevertheless calls him brother, and nowhere makes mention of broken communion. And to crown all, Augustine, book 5, Against the Donatists, chapter 25: "Stephen had thought that those were to be excommunicated who endeavoured to pluck up the ancient custom concerning the receiving of heretics; Cyprian thought that they must remain in unity with those who thought differently. Thus, although he is somewhat excitedly, yet fraternally indignant, nevertheless the peace of Christ conquered in their hearts, so that in such a debate no evil of schism arose between them." However that may be, Stephen therefore consented that those who thought differently should not be cut off from unity, and that a universal council should be awaited.

XXXI. That Cyprian ought to have yielded to the weightier authority, according to Augustine.

Wherefore, that his authority was resisted by many, his charity was the cause, which inclined him at length to pardon and economy. Otherwise, with howsoever great power and abundance of knowledge Cyprian overflowed, yet that he himself ought to have been bent by a weightier authority, Augustine himself is voucher, book 2, On Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 3: "Assuredly you are wont to object to us the letters of Cyprian, the opinion of Cyprian, the council of Cyprian, etc. Who knows not that the holy canonical Scripture is so preferred to all later letters of bishops, that concerning it there can be no doubt or debate at all whether it be true or whether it be right, whatsoever is established to have been written in it; whereas the letters of bishops which either have been written or are written after the canon was confirmed, may lawfully be rebuked both through the perchance wiser discourse of anyone more skilled in that matter, and through the weightier authority and more learned prudence of other bishops, and through councils, if perchance anything in them has deviated from the truth?" The letters of any bishops whomsoever, as you see, and therefore of Cyprian, could be rebuked, not only by the wiser discourse of any private person whomsoever, not only by the assembly of a council, but also by the weightier authority and more learned prudence of other bishops, and indeed above all others of the Roman Prelate. For Augustine clearly distinguishes these three things.

XXXII. Both Cyprian and the others who agreed with him perchance repented.

What if Cyprian himself also repented before his death? I would not indeed bind the fame of the holiness either of him or of Firmilian to this uncertainty. Yet a doubtful matter also

I would not have undoubtedly exploded. Soberly and wisely after his manner Augustine says in book 2, On Baptism against the Donatists: "If Cyprian praises and proclaims Peter as openly and harmoniously corrected by one later colleague; how much more quickly would he himself with the council of his province have yielded to the authority of the universal world, when the truth was made plain? Because assuredly so holy a soul, so peaceful, could most easily consent even to one speaking and demonstrating the truth. And perchance it was done, but we know it not. For neither could all the things which at that time were done among the bishops be committed to memory and letters; nor do we know all the things which were committed." You see how the holy Father neither lightly establishes nor confidently spurns these conjectures. And in Letter 48: "Cyprian either did not think at all what you recite that he thought, or he afterwards corrected this in the rule of truth, or he covered this as it were blemish with the breast of charity."

Jerome in the book On Ecclesiastical Writers teaches that Dionysius of Alexandria "consented to the dogma of Cyprian and of the African synod": and yet, to be silent concerning his letters given to the Roman pontiffs from Eusebius, Basil in the Letter to Amphilochius once and again complains of Dionysius, because he approved the baptism of the Pepuzeni. Hence the conjecture is that he at length acceded to the opinion of the Romans. Moreover, Jerome Against the Luciferians says: "Those very bishops who had determined with Cyprian that heretics must be rebaptized, returning to the ancient custom, issued a new decree, etc." Augustine in book 3, Against Cresconius, chapter 2, intimates "that the Easterns corrected their judgement." In vain therefore are men indignant with Baronius when he conjectures something of this sort concerning Firmilian. Yet if the credit of that matter still wavers, and we must not indulge the suspicions of our mind more than is fair, it will be more advisable to hear Augustine again, in the book On the One Baptism against Petilian, chapter 13: "Neither are we, who recognize rather than deny the truth of baptism even in the iniquity of heretics, therefore better than Cyprian, just as we are not better than Peter either, because we do not compel the Gentiles to Judaize. This I would answer concerning Agrippinus and the other bishops who are said to have held those councils, who so thought differently that they persisted in unity with those against whom they thought concerning this question, where charity covers a multitude of sins." And to hear Bede again, related above, who praised the life of Aidan as fitted to the evangelical rule, yet did not praise the fact that "either being ignorant of the canonical time of Easter, or overcome by the authority of his own nation so that he did not follow it when known, he did not observe it."

XXXIII. Another way of solving this controversy is opened, from the distinction between questions of faith and of customs.

And hence again unfolds itself another method of solving the second conflict among the various heads of Augustinian doctrine: seeing that the same writer himself both cut off the hope of a plenary council from the Pelagians, declaring an inexorable necessity of subscribing to the African councils and above all to the definitions of the Apostolic See, and to Cyprian and his colleagues

granted leave, or furnished a defence, that they did not acquiesce before a plenary council. For these questions stand apart by an altogether huge interval. The former pertains to faith, the latter rather to the customs of the Church. Into the unity of faith it is necessary that the faithful agree together: for those who deviate from the faith no pardon remains, unless they restore themselves to the right track; whereas those who decline from the right path of customs are very often tolerated out of pardon. Here dispensation has place, there it has not. From the faith once defined nothing can ever or anywhere thereafter be detracted: from the discipline of customs, howsoever established, a later age not seldom detracts, at least by desuetude itself. Even oecumenical councils sanctioning certain customs either are not obeyed straightway, or cease to be obeyed afterwards, though not without blame, yet without ruin to ecclesiastical unity; whereas the faith once established must be irrevocably obeyed. Tertullian in the book On the Veiling of Virgins: "The rule of faith, says he, is altogether one, alone immovable and irreformable."

XXXIV. Various proofs of this distinction.

Therefore perchance those who disagreed with the Catholic Church concerning the day of Easter were retained in the bosom of unity and peace even until the Nicene Council, whereas other heresies even before the Nicene Synod were lopped off from the body of the Church. Therefore the Nicene Fathers laboured vehemently to decide the question of Easter, while about proscribing again and striking with the thunderbolt of an oecumenical synod's authority the innumerable ancient heresies hitherto proscribed only through provincial councils, they were not at all solicitous. Therefore the same Fathers endeavoured to put to sleep the contention concerning baptism also, by commanding the Paulianists alone to be rebaptized. Because just as discipline is of its own accord freer and more versatile, so there is more need of universal consent if anywhere it is to be restricted. Therefore both Cyprian vehemently contended, and Stephen at length pardoned it, that those who thought as differently as you please might nevertheless not depart from the undivided bond of unity: even as in the business of Easter also Irenaeus and others thought that all those who were more tenacious of an inferior observance ought not to be rent from the framework of the Church. Finally, that variety of discipline is in some places even an ornament, both Augustine and Gregory will teach us below in their proper place. Moreover, Gregory not only assented, but even exhorted that rites different from the Roman Church, if anywhere they occurred as more seasonable, should be transplanted into the English Church. In faith, however, no one would grant this licence.

XXXV. That this question was treated moderately, as looking to customs, not to faith, is proved first from Firmilian.

Nor does it escape me that those questions concerning the baptism of heretics can in a certain way be referred back to a matter of faith, much more even than that concerning the day of Easter, wherein Victor called the erring churches heterodox. Yet this one thing I judge sparkles forth from the writings of the ancient Fathers, that they regarded this matter in no other way than as a part of ecclesiastical custom and discipline,

and did not refer it back to the substance and necessity of faith. Thus thought Firmilian in the Letter to Cyprian, that without breach of the bond of unity men could disagree in these things: "Concerning the celebrating of the days of Easter and concerning many other sacraments of divine worship, one may see that there are among the Romans certain diversities, and that not all things are observed there equally which are observed at Jerusalem; according as in very many other provinces also many things are varied according to the diversity of places and names, and yet on this account there was never any departure from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church. Which now Stephen has dared to do, breaking peace against you, which his predecessors always kept with you in mutual love and honour." And everywhere throughout the whole context of the letter he raves against Stephen on this score almost alone, that he did not rather suffer each one to enjoy his own customs than dissolve the covenant of peace.

XXXVI. Likewise from Cyprian.

Thus thought Cyprian also in the Letter to Jubaianus. For when he had hedged his own opinion about with many arguments, he says at length: "These things we have briefly written back to you according to our mediocrity, prescribing to no one nor prejudging against each one of the bishops doing what he thinks good, having the free faculty 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 the divine peace of the Lord. There is kept by us patiently and firmly charity of mind, the honour of the college, the bond of love, the concord of the priesthood." And in the exordium of the Council of Carthage: "It remains that concerning this very matter we each bring forward what we think, judging no one, nor removing anyone from the right of communion if he thinks differently. For neither does any one of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror drive his colleagues to the necessity of obeying; seeing that every bishop has according to the license of his liberty and power his own proper judgement, etc." In a matter of discipline these things are discussed with some colour; in a head of the Catholic faith all of them would be most alien. Moreover, those words: "Let him do what he thinks good, having the free faculty of his own judgement, etc., the necessity of obeying, etc., of judging concerning our action Christ alone has the power," are clearly referred to discipline, not to faith. For concerning faith it is lawful for no one to dissent from his colleagues: if anyone dissents contumaciously, he must be cast out from peace and communion. Whereas that the ancient customs of his own Church should be retained by any bishop whomsoever, even though dissonant from others, is in some measure tolerated even until a plenary council, and sometimes even beyond.

XXXVII. Likewise from Stephen, from the Synods of Arles and Nicaea, and from Optatus.

Thus thought Stephen also, when he commanded what ought to be done, not what ought to be believed, and displayed the tradition of ancient custom. Thus also Eusebius, described above,

mindful of mere custom. Thus also Jerome, whose lengthy disputation vaunts nothing else than ancient and inveterate custom. Thus felt the Synod of Arles also in Canon 8, where it has: "Concerning the Africans, who use their own law so that they rebaptize," nor is anything more insulting hurled against them, or against their error. For if that had seemed contrary to faith, why should that be called not madness, not heresy, but their own law of rebaptizing? Finally, the canons here embrace only the rule of discipline, whereas the definition of faith in the ancient councils was almost always drawn up separately. Thus felt the Nicene Synod also, striving to decide that whole controversy concerning baptism not by a Creed or confession of faith, but by a single canon, and by this one decree, that thereafter the Paulianists alone were to be dipped again. Concerning the Apostolic Canons pertaining to this same matter we shall discuss in their proper place. One thing besides I add, Optatus, book 1: "Among whom there are no sacraments." Upon which words L'Aubespine notes these things: "Therefore from this and from many other passages, so far as I conjecture, Optatus did not think that heretics could baptize."

XXXVIII. Likewise from Basil.

Thus without doubt thought Basil also, who in the Letter to Amphilochius, when he had distinguished heretics who strive to shake the very sum of the faith from schismatics who have cut themselves off on account of curable questions, says: "It seemed good therefore from the beginning wholly to reject heretics indeed; but as for those who cut themselves off, to admit the baptism of schismatics, as still belonging to the Church." Nevertheless, he presently says that to Firmilian and Cyprian it seemed good to repeat the baptism of schismatics also: "Yet since to some of the Asiatics it has altogether seemed good, for the sake of the economy and dispensation of many, that their baptism be received, let it be received." These things he says concerning the Cathari, and presently concerning the Encratites: "Since nothing has been openly said concerning these, we ought to abrogate their baptism. Yet if this is going to be a hindrance to the universal economy, we must again use custom, and must follow the Fathers who have provided the things which pertain to us." And below, Canon 47, he says that all those schismatics are rebaptized by him, and recommends the same to Amphilochius: although he says that all these controversies are more expeditiously decided by an episcopal synod. Many arguments bubble up hence for our purpose. First he mentions a more ancient tradition using a division; then he confesses that he dissents from it. In a matter of faith Basil would not take that upon himself. He places the Cathari and the Encratites in the same ship of schismatics; then he permits the baptism of the former to be received, and forbids that of the latter. He would not thus alternate in a question of faith. He judges that the baptism of the Cathari is received out of dispensation. Yet in a matter of faith place is not thus given to dispensation. He advises that the Encratites be rebaptized; yet if that grates against the universal peace and dispensation of the Church, he judges that their baptism must be admitted: is not this very thing the versatility of discipline? He sighs for a new synod

which may clear away all those clouds of doubt: scarcely therefore had all controversy been put to sleep by that plenary council so much chanted in Augustine. Thus after the Synod of Arles, after the Nicene Synod, the debate concerning baptism seemed to Basil scarcely sufficiently elucidated; a new synod was in his prayers, and again concerning that matter the Second Oecumenical Council decreed what was to be followed. Thus after the sanctions of Pope Stephen, and of the Synods of Arles and Nicaea, Basil desired a new synod, inasmuch as in a matter then looking to discipline, not to faith: although elsewhere sometimes heads of discipline and of customs, pertaining to wit to the spiritual causes of baptism or of the sacraments, are drawn to faith, as we shall warn below in the last number of this dissertation.

XXXIX. From Amphilochius.

Thus thought Amphilochius also, who in repeating or not repeating the baptism of the Novatians judged that the customs of each several Church must be served; as Basil testifies in chapter 1 of the letter written to the same: "Concerning the things therefore which pertain to the Cathari, you have rightly admonished that it behoves us to follow the custom of each several region." Which things Balsamon interprets thus: "Whether the Novatians ought to be baptized, diverse opinions have gone forth, even as you admonished, and it has pleased us to follow the custom of each several region."

XL. From Athanasius.

Thus thought Athanasius also, whose words in Oration 3, Against the Arians, are these: "If the perfection of baptism and full initiation is given in the name of the Father and of the Son, while the Arians do not pronounce the true Father, because they deny that anything exists from Him and is like to His substance, and deny also the true Son, and devising for themselves another created out of things that are not, bring him forward in baptism; how, I pray, is the baptism which is given by them not altogether vain and unprofitable, since it is nothing but an appearance and an empty phantom? For the Arians do not bestow baptism into the Father and the Son, but into a Creator and a creature, into a Maker and a thing made. Just as therefore a creature is something different from the Son, so that which is thought to be given by them is something different from true baptism, even though, because they see those names in the Scriptures, they pretend that they name the name of the Father and of the Son." And below: "Assuredly other heresies also, and those not few in number, pronounce that rite as far as the name goes, yet not thinking rightly, nor retaining sound faith, they possess unprofitable water, destitute namely of light and religion: so that those who are sprinkled by them are defiled by a perverse religion rather than redeemed." These things says a man of the most undefiled faith concerning the baptism of the Arians and of the other heresies, even though it were conferred with the invocation of the Trinity. Hear also what he presently subjoins: "In like manner also the Manichaeans, and the Phrygians, and the disciples of the Samosatene, pronouncing the very names, are on that account none the less heretics. So also thereafter both the rest and those who think with Arius, even though they recite

the things written, and utter the very names, deceive and mock those who receive baptisms from them." Here in passing observe that the very names of the divine Persons, because they are recorded in the sacred pages in set words, were pronounced in dipping by almost all heretics, and that therefore neither Stephen nor the Roman Church was implicated in any blame when forbidding their baptism to be repeated. Furthermore, Athanasius openly votes with Basil, accounting void a baptism which, even though conferred in the evangelical words, yet those who confer it have a sense alien from the Gospel, and an alien faith.

XLI. From Epiphanius.

Thus thought Epiphanius also, whose illustrious passage in the Exposition of the Catholic Faith, number 13, must be written down here: "Others who seem more audacious from the party of the Catholics, having forged a private faction for themselves beside the custom of the Church, and without the decree of a general council, do not at all fear to baptize again those who pass over from the Arians to their side: whereas that matter, as I said, has not yet been decided by the judgement of a universal synod, because the peoples are still held promiscuously even unto this day. Among whom many indeed are Catholics, yet feignedly and through simulation follow the authority of the priests, until that execrable sect be separated from the communion of the Church, so that something may then be determined concerning it. Of those who by their own authority baptize again in this manner, I hear that there is a certain presbyter in Lycia." To no one hereafter, as I suppose, will it happen as a wonder if Athanasius wavered, if Basil, if Amphilochius, and wished the baptism of heretics conferred in the name, yet not in the faith of the Trinity, to be repeated; seeing that Epiphanius, most skilled in the customs of the Roman and Western Church, equally alternated, and accused those who washed a second time men washed by the Arians, not of heresy, but of audacity, and deprecated this one thing again and again, that they should not persevere in rebaptizing them before the definition of a universal council, especially since they had not yet either seceded or been cut off from the communion of the Catholic Church.

XLII. From Cyril of Jerusalem.

Thus thought Cyril of Jerusalem also, who in the Preface to the Catecheses has these words concerning all heretics indiscriminately: "Heretics alone are rebaptized; since the former one was not a baptism." Now what even the slightest report of that plenary council from the whole Christian world, so much chanted by Augustine, had gone forth to Basil, to Amphilochius, to Cyril of Jerusalem, and finally to Epiphanius? Where is that agreement of the world after the plenary council for not repeating the baptism of heretics? Since that synod pointed out by Augustine is assuredly the Synod of Arles, celebrated a little before his birth, as we shall show elsewhere, what traces of this can anywhere among the Greeks be scented out even by men of the keenest nose? Not Zonaras, not Balsamon, not others have mentioned it

among the Greeks. Moreover, in the Synod of Arles also, where is that so copious elucidation of the truth, whereby the doctrine of Cyprian was refuted, and the reason and wisdom of the Catholic and most ancient tradition shone forth most splendidly? Did the iniquity of the times intercept such egregious monuments of Catholic doctrine? Or had the matter been agitated and cleared up long before the synod among the orthodox bishops, and so they came to the synod? That perchance Augustine intimates, book 2, On Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 4: "How could that matter, wrapped in such clouds of altercations, be brought to the clear illustration and confirmation of a plenary council, unless it were established that it had first been treated throughout at considerable length through the regions of the world, by many disputations and conferences of bishops on this side and on that?" This assuredly is established from the things said before, that the Greeks were scarcely sprinkled with any rumour of the Synod of Arles, and that therefore it was perchance called plenary by Augustine, not as oecumenical, but as is his custom, as universal, that is, assembled out of several provinces, like a regional or national synod. Whence the same writer a little below, for untying certain other doubts concerning baptism, will wish for "the authority of a council so great as may suffice for so great a matter." He will likewise wish that "things begun by a regional council be terminated by a plenary council." The same writer elsewhere seemed to make great account of transmarine councils. Now whence would this opinion concerning oecumenical councils have crept upon Augustine, who heard of almost the Nicene alone, scarcely knew of the Constantinopolitan, and anticipated the Ephesine by death? And yet he frequently talks of plenary councils, and supposes that some are amended by others. Nor did Basil above busy himself about an oecumenical council, but only about a council, that that strife might be decided. Epiphanius desires the work of an oecumenical synod, being better acquainted perchance with the disagreement whereby some Easterns still disagreed with the Westerns.

XLIII. From the Second Oecumenical Synod.

Thus thought the hundred and fifty Fathers in the Second Oecumenical Synod. For in Canon 7 they issue this edict: "Those who are added to the right faith, and to the portion of those who are saved from among the heretics, we receive according to the order and custom subjoined here: the Arians indeed, etc.; but the Eunomians, etc." Namely, the former by the anointing of chrism, the latter by baptism. They set forth their own custom most simply, they state that this is the custom, and are not at all bitterly angry against those who either think or do otherwise. For the rest, they command the Montanists or Cataphrygians, the Eunomians, and some others to be baptized again, who, as is elicited from the testimonies of Jerome and others set down above, were not rebaptized in the Roman Church. The Nicene Synod had ordered the Paulianists alone to be dipped again, not the Montanists. In the code of canons of the Roman Church that canon is lacking.

XLIV. From the Synod in Trullo.

Thus thought the Fathers in Trullo also, who in Canon 2 receive, together with the other most received synods, also "the

canon issued by Cyprian, who was archbishop of the region of the Africans and a martyr, and by the synod which was held under him; which was observed in the places of the aforesaid prelates, and only according to the custom handed down to them." Although the Greeks then dissented from Cyprian, yet they judge that this custom of his had force in its own place and time.

XLV. From the consent of the Greeks, above all of Theodore the Studite.

Thus thought all the Greeks of old, among whom that Canonical Letter of Basil to Amphilochius, shining beyond the rest in the Greek code of canons, was always held in the highest honour. And specially Timothy the presbyter, a fragment of whom is related by Balsamon, where he enumerates three orders of those approaching the Church, who are received by baptism, by chrism, or by the sole abjuration of error: "And those indeed who are baptized are these: the Tascodrugi, Marcionites, Artotyrites, Saccophori, Apotactites, Valentinians, who are also called Basilidians and Hermeans, Nicolaitans, Montanists, Pepuzeni, Manichaeans, Eunomians, Paulianists, Photinians, Sabellians, Cerinthians, Menandrians, Ebionites, Simonians, Carpocratians, Saturnians, and those from the impious Marcus, those from Apelles, those from Theodotus the Tanner, the Helcesaites, those from Nepos, those from Pelagius and Caelestius, and the Melchisedechites. Moreover, those who are anointed with holy chrism are these: the Tetradites or Quartodecimans, the Novatians or Sabbatians, the Arians, Macedonians, Apollinarians." And a little after in the same place is subjoined this excerpt also from Letter 4 of Theodore the Studite to Naucratius: "As to the things which you asked of me, that I should answer one by one concerning sects and baptisms, etc., go to the sacred book of Epiphanius, etc. The consideration is divided threefold. Now there are baptized the Marcionites, Tascodrugi, Manichaeans, and those who are of the same order, even unto the Melchisedechites, twenty-five heresies. Moreover, there are anointed with sacred Chrism the Tetradites, Novatians, Arians, Macedonians, Apollinarians, five together. While those who are neither baptized nor anointed, but only anathematize their own and every other heresy, are the Meletians, Nestorians, Eutychians, etc." Which is almost a more lengthy interpretation of the seventh canon of the Constantinopolitan Synod. Now you see how hugely these things disagree with the custom of the Roman Church, which nevertheless never thereafter moved strife with the Greeks concerning that matter, content with having rejected that Constantinopolitan canon from her own code. You see how ignorant or unconcerned the Greeks were regarding that plenary council and the Canon of Arles concerning baptism celebrated by Augustine. You see how rightfully and deservedly the Canon of Arles is addressed to the Africans, whose own law it was to rebaptize.

XLVI. From Gennadius.

Thus thought, to betake myself again to the Latins, Gennadius, On Ecclesiastical Dogmas, chapter 52: "Those who have been baptized among heretics not with the invocation of the holy Trinity,

and come to us, we pronounce ought to be baptized, not rebaptized. For neither is it to be believed that those have been baptized who were not dipped in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit according to the rule laid down by the Lord: such as are the Pauliani, Procliani, Borborites, Siphori, who are now called Bonosiani, Photinians, Montanists, and Manichaeans, and various shoots of impiety, or the other pests of the origin or order of those which introduce two principles unknown to one another, like Cerdon and Marcion; or contrary ones, like Manichaeus; or three and barbarous ones, like Sethianus and Theodosius; or many, like Valentinus; or that Christ was a man without God, like Cerinthus, Ebion, Artemon, and Photinus. If any from among them, I say, shall come to us, it is not to be required of them whether they have been baptized or not, but this only, whether they believe the faith of the Church, and let them be baptized with ecclesiastical baptism." You will now be less astonished that the Greeks deviated from the Canon of Arles and from the rite of the Roman Church, when you see that the Churches adjacent both to the city of Arles and to the Roman city equally deflected from them. For that many of those whom Gennadius commands to be dipped again were received in the Roman Church without a new baptism, Jerome expressly admonished us above. I pass over in silence that in this our age upstart heretics have by many Catholics been rebaptized conditionally, and that this had to be forbidden in the Councils of Rouen in the year 1581, of Rheims in the year 1583, of Aix in the year 1585, of Toulouse in the year 1590, and of Narbonne in the year 1609. For so Pius V had defined, as is reported in the Synod of Évreux in the year 1576 in Bouchel, page 141.

XLVII. From Augustine.

Thus finally thought Augustine himself, six hundred times calling this a custom, both in the passages alleged above and in innumerable others, which I forbear to heap together here. I add this one passage, in the book On the One Baptism against Petilian, chapter 13: "Now as for me, to say briefly what I think concerning this matter: to rebaptize heretics, which those men are said to have done, was then a matter of human error; but to rebaptize Catholics, which these men still do, is always a matter of diabolical presumption." Therefore that was the proper and heretical perversity of the Donatists, that they rebaptized those who had already been washed in the sacred font in the Catholic Church.

XLVIII. Augustine frequently requires plenary councils for ordering customs.

Moreover, that the authority of a plenary council was desired by Augustine, not for reconciling the unity of faith, but that of custom and discipline for the universal Church, because custom, of its own accord free and indifferent, is thus more conveniently bound to one rite everywhere, is clear from Letter 118: "Now those things which we keep not as written, but as handed down, which indeed are observed throughout the whole world, are given to be understood as retained because commended and established either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary councils, whose authority in the Church is most wholesome,

such as that the passion of the Lord, and His resurrection, and ascension into heaven, and the coming of the Holy Spirit from heaven are celebrated with an anniversary solemnity, and if anything else of the sort occurs which is observed by the universal Church wheresoever she spreads herself abroad. But other things which are varied through the places and regions of the world, even as that some fast on the Sabbath, while others do not, etc., this whole class of things has free observances. Nor is there any better discipline in these things for a grave and prudent Christian than to act in that manner in which he sees the Church act, to whatsoever Church he may perchance have come." Where it is clear that discipline and customs do not, like faith, necessarily have to be restricted and united to one formula in every Church; but that in the former all agree, while in the latter some Churches differ from others most blamelessly; yet that if anywhere some custom also either obtains or ought to obtain in every Church, this law proceeds either from the Scriptures, or from apostolic tradition, or from plenary councils. And book 4, On Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 24: "That which the universal Church holds, and which was not instituted by councils, but has always been retained, is most rightly believed to have been handed down by none save apostolic authority." And book 2, chapter 7: "Which custom of not rebaptizing heretics I believe comes from apostolic tradition, even as many things are not found in their letters, nor in the councils of later men, and yet because they are kept throughout the universal Church, are believed to have been handed down and commended by none save [the apostles] themselves." And again the same Augustine, book 2, Against the Letter of Parmenian, chapter 13: "And this indeed is another question, whether baptism can be given by those also who have never been Christians. Nor must anything be rashly affirmed thence, without the authority of a council so great as may suffice for so great a matter." And book 7, On Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 53, inquiring whether baptism conferred by a pagan, or in jest, or in a play, is valid: "For us, says he, it is safe not to advance with any rashness of opinion into those things which have been begun in no Catholic regional council, and terminated in no plenary council." And Letter 119, chapter 15: "For keeping Easter, because it is already manifest from the Gospel on what day the Lord rose again, the observance of those very days also was adjoined through the councils of the Fathers; and the whole Christian world was persuaded that Easter ought to be celebrated in that manner." In the dogmas of faith, however, you will scarcely ever find Augustine thus hanging doubtful in mind upon the definition of councils. Add Epiphanius, cited above, opining that whether those whom the Arians had dipped ought to be expiated again in the purifying font must be determined by an oecumenical council. Add Basil, similarly boiling with the desire of a council in that wavering concerning the baptism of heretics: whereas against the Origenists and so many other heresies then raging, neither Epiphanius nor Basil burned with so great a desire for a council. Finally, that oecumenical constitution of theirs, as it is called by Cyril of Jerusalem in Catechesis 18, the apostles published synodically, not

concerning heads of faith, but concerning heads of discipline: and provincial synods had of old to be assembled once and again every year, not so much that they might decree anything concerning faith, as that they might guard the purity of discipline. Even now assuredly concerning confirmation, concerning order, concerning absolution, concerning matrimony not a few things are disputed among the chief men of the school, and some things differ among the Churches themselves, which to these seem valid, to those invalid: yet this conflict is moderate and tempered to the character of discipline; even though concerning these things, as concerning several others, definitions could be forged and drawn to the necessity of faith. And yet, so long as the struggle is carried on with opinions and customs diverse on this side and on that, it is not allowable to applaud both equally. For the one opinion must be far preferred, for example that of those who do not repeat the baptism of heretics, inasmuch as it is agreeable both to the dignity of the sacrament, and to ecclesiastical tradition, and to the definition of the Pontiffs. Yet out of the connivance and dispensation of the Church and of the Pontiffs before a universal synod, those who think and do otherwise may meanwhile seem to labour under some error indeed, yet only a material one, as they say. Moreover, that the Church and the Pontiff use this indulgence somewhat amply, Bellarmine does not disapprove, book 1, On Councils, chapter 10: "It is probable that by the authority of the Apostolic See that question had been finished among all Catholics; yet even if the question had not been finished until the determination of a plenary council, as Augustine says, nevertheless one ought not to gather thence that it could not have been finished. For although the authority to finish that controversy was not lacking to the Apostolic See with the provincial councils cooperating, nevertheless those holy Pontiffs preferred to defer to another more opportune time the absolute determination of that question, rather than to separate so many great men from the Church." Assuredly in Act 1 of the Seventh Synod Eustochius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, is praised, because to the monks who embraced the ravings of Origen he had granted eight months of truce to come to their senses and subscribe to the Fifth Oecumenical Synod.

XLIX. By no means for questions of faith.

Now that in questions of faith there is by no means need for oecumenical or plenary synods to be assembled, and by no means lawful for them to be appealed to, see how the same Augustine teaches us. For in book 1, Against Julian, chapter 4, when he had drawn forth the authorities of the Latin Fathers, he says: "Do you think that they are to be despised on this account, because they are all of the Western Church, nor has any bishop of the East been mentioned among them by us? What therefore shall we do, since they are Greeks, and we Latins? I think that that part of the world ought to suffice for you wherein the Lord willed to crown the first of His apostles with a most glorious martyrdom. Had you been willing to hear blessed Innocent, who presided over that Church, you would already then have freed your perilous youth from the Pelagian snares. For what could that holy man answer to the African councils, save what from of old the Apostolic See and the Roman Church with the rest perseveringly

holds?" And below: "There is no reason therefore why you should appeal to the prelates of the East, because they themselves also are assuredly Christians, and of both parts of the world that faith is one, because that faith is also the Christian faith; and assuredly the Western land begot you, the Western Church regenerated you." Because therefore the faith is not one thing in one place and another in another, like the discipline of customs, but is one everywhere on earth, and therefore is the same in the East as in the West, namely the one Christian faith, it is not lawful to appeal to the prelates of the East or to an oecumenical synod; but each one must hearken to the bishops of his own Church, and above all must hearken to the Roman pontiff dictating the ancient faith of his Church. And in book 4, To Pope Boniface, the last chapter: "Or was there indeed need of the assembly of a synod, that an open pestilence might be condemned? As though no heresy had ever been condemned save by the assembly of a synod! Whereas rather very rarely are any found for the condemning of which such a necessity arose; and there are far and incomparably more which, where they arose, there deserved to be disapproved and condemned, and thence could become known through the rest of the lands as to be shunned. But the pride of those men is understood to catch at this glory also, that on their account a synod of the East and of the West should be assembled. For since, with the Lord resisting them, they cannot pervert the Catholic world, they endeavour at least to throw it into commotion." Here not customs, but heresies resound, faith is redoubled, and therefore the necessity of an oecumenical synod is denied to be impending, since by far the most heresies have been choked without synods of that sort.

L. Sum of this latter controversy.

In vain therefore do they yelp that by the example of Firmilian, Dionysius, and Cyprian, one does not necessarily have to stand by the definitions of the Apostolic See. For on the contrary, as is established from what goes before: 1. Those who did not yield to them have been demonstrated to have erred, and to have had to wash away this error by some martyrdom, either bloody or unbloody. 2. That Cyprian yielded, Augustine accounted not unlikely. 3. Those who did not obey Stephen complied neither with apostolic tradition nor with the authority and custom of the universal Church: from their opinion therefore it is not lawful to draw anything into a precedent. 4. Neither did those men themselves or their posterity afterwards hearken to the Council of Arles or of Nicaea. That of Arles perchance they did not know; that of Nicaea they interpreted accommodate to their own former opinion, as we saw in the case of Basil above. And yet it is not lawful from this to rise up against general synods. 5. Stephen was not carried beyond threats, and he himself acquiesced, for the sake of dispensation and of guarding unity, in communicating with those who both thought and acted differently. Wherein he outstripped Cyprian by no small interval. For the latter wiped away his error by the abundance of his charity and the expenditure of his blood; the former did not deflect a nail's breadth from the path of right: he studied strict right first, as is fitting; when he perceived that the danger of schism was impending, he used a tempered course. 6. Although this question could be drawn to

faith, like very many other heads of customs, yet at that time it was agitated moderately, as a portion of discipline. Neither by Cyprian nor by Stephen at first, nor afterwards by the Nicene or the Constantinopolitan Council, nor by Basil, or by the later Greeks or Romans, even though somewhat disagreeing, was an anathema hurled against their adversaries. Since therefore in matters of this sort the Roman Prelates profess that diverse customs of the Churches are either praised, or not blamed, or tolerated by them, what wonder if the rest of the prelates use this liberty, or abuse it? Gregory in the Letter to Augustine, Bishop of the English: "It pleases me that whether in the Roman, or in the Gallican, or in any church whatsoever you have found anything which may be more pleasing to almighty God, you carefully choose it." And that you may not doubt that these things look in some measure to the sacraments also,

Alexander III in the Appendix to the Lateran Council, chapter 2, On the Frigid, says: "Although the Roman Church has not been accustomed on account of sorceries to separate those lawfully joined; yet if the general custom of the Gallican Church holds that matrimony of this sort be dissolved, we will patiently tolerate it." Six hundred other examples will be noted below in their proper places, how the Roman Pontiffs exhort all to harmony of customs also, and meanwhile tolerate dissonance. Finally, here Augustine himself, who had inculcated that there had been need of a general council, restricted this necessity of synods to customs, not to the condemning of heresies.