Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 25 part 10/16

And therefore not all who hold baptism hold the Church too, just as not all who hold the Church hold eternal life too. Or if we say that none hold the Church except those who keep the divine commandments, we grant that there are already many who hold baptism and do not hold the Church. Wherefore the heretic does not preoccupy baptism, since he took it from the Church, nor could he lose it when he departed—that baptism which we say the Church no longer has, and which nevertheless we grant that he has. Nor does anyone detract from himself the primacy and attribute it to the heretic, because he says that the heretic carried off with himself that which he would not give lawfully but nevertheless would give as lawful, and which he would no longer have lawfully but would have as lawful.

But primacy exists only in holy conversation and a good life, to which all those pertain of whom, as of members, that bride consists who has no spot nor wrinkle, and that dove which groans amid the wickedness of many crows; unless perhaps, seeing that Esau lost his primacy on account of a craving for lentils, defrauders, robbers, usurers, the envious, drunkards, and others of this kind—such as Cyprian even in his letters lamented were in the Church of his time—are to be thought to hold primacy.

Wherefore, either to hold the Church is not the same as to hold primacy in divine things; or, if everyone who holds the Church also holds primacy, then all those unjust ones do not hold the Church—those who nevertheless seem to be within, and are by none of us denied to give and to have baptism. For who would say that they have primacy in divine things, except one who has no taste for anything divine? But now we have arrived at those peaceful words of Cyprian—that is, at the end of the letter, all things having been considered and examined—words which, as I read them and often repeat them, do not satiate me. So great a delight of brotherly love breathes forth from them, so great a sweetness of charity abounds.

'These things,' he says, 'we have written back to you very briefly according to our mediocrity, dearest brother, prescribing to no one nor prejudging, so as to prevent each of the bishops from doing what he thinks best, having free power of his own judgment. We, as far as in us lies, do not contend with our colleagues and fellow-bishops on account of the heretics, with whom we hold divine concord and the Lord's peace, especially since the Apostle also says: But if anyone seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Church of God. Patiently and gently is charity of soul preserved by us, the honor of our fellowship, the bond of faith, the concord of the priesthood.'

'For this reason also I have written, as far as our mediocrity availed, with the Lord permitting and inspiring, a little book on the good of patience, which I have sent to you out of our mutual affection.' In these words many things are to be considered, in which, in this man who loved the beauty of the house of the Lord and the place of the tabernacle of his dwelling, the splendor of Christian charity shines forth:

First, because he did not keep silent about what he thought; next, because he set it forth so gently and peaceably; because with those who thought otherwise he kept the peace of the Church; because he understood how great a wholesomeness there is in the bond of unity; because he loved that unity so greatly and guarded it soberly; because he saw and perceived that even those who think differently can hold their views while charity remains unharmed — for he would not have said that he kept divine concord and the Lord's peace together with wicked men;

For a good man can indeed have peace toward the wicked, but he cannot keep with them a peace which they themselves do not keep — and lastly, because, prescribing to no one and prejudging no one, so that each of the bishops, possessing the free power of his own judgment, might do what he thinks right, he granted even to us, of whatever sort, a place to treat of these matters peaceably with him. For he is present not only through his letters, but also through that very charity which flourished most greatly in him and could never die.

Desiring therefore to cleave and be joined to this man, if I be not hindered by the unfitness of my sins, aided by his prayers I shall learn, if I am able, through his letters with how great peace and how great consolation the Lord governed His Church through him; and, clothed in the bowels of humility through the affection of his discourse, if I perceive anything more truly in agreement with the whole world, I will not set my own heart above his — not even in this very matter, wherein, though thinking differently, he was nevertheless not cut off from the whole world.

For a greater strength of virtue shone forth in him, in that, while this question was still wavering and undiscussed, though thinking otherwise than many of his colleagues, he maintained such moderation that he never severed the holy fellowship of God's Church by any stain of schism — a greater strength than if he had held all things not only truly but also unanimously, yet without this virtue. For he does not please me if I should aim to prefer his genius, his gift of eloquence, and his richness of doctrine to the holy council of all nations, in which he assuredly took part through the unity of the Spirit — especially now that he is set in such a light of truth, where he most surely discerns what here he sought most peaceably. For out of that richness he laughs at these utterances of ours, which seem but as the rudimentary babblings of infants.

There he sees by what rule of piety he acted here, that nothing was dearer to him in the Church than unity. There too he contemplates with unspeakable delight with how provident and most merciful a dispensation the Lord, in order to heal our swellings of pride, chose the foolish things of the world that He might confound the wise, and in the ranks of the members of His Church disposed all things so wholesomely — lest men should say that they had been chosen as helpers of the Gospel because of their own genius or learning (whose gift they did not yet acknowledge as the source of what they possessed), and thereby be puffed up with pestilent pride.

How Cyprian rejoices, with how much more serene a gaze he contemplates in that light for how great a salvation of the human race it was brought about, that something should be found which might deservedly be censured — even in the Christian and pious writings of the orators — and yet not be found in the writings of the fishermen!

Concerning this joy of that holy soul I am wholly assured; and in no way do I dare either to think or to say that my own writings are free from every error, nor do I set my own opinion above his in that view of his, in which it seemed good to him that those coming from the heretics should be received otherwise than they either were received in the past — as he himself testifies — or are now received, as by the plenary council of the whole Christian world a reasonable custom has been established. But I set my opinion below that of the holy Catholic Church, which he so loved and loves, in which he bore fruit so abundantly with patience, whose universality he himself was not, but in whose universality he abode; whose root he never forsook, but in whose root, that he might be more fruitful, he was pruned by the heavenly Husbandman; for whose peace and salvation, lest the wheat be uprooted together with the tares, he both rebuked so great evils of men established with him in unity, in the liberty of truth, and bore with them in the virtue of charity.

Whence this same man himself most abundantly admonishes us that many, dead in their offences and sins — though not belonging to the fellowship of Christ nor to the members of that one, innocent, and simple dove (who, if she alone baptized, they assuredly would not baptize) — are nevertheless in outward appearance seen within, and are baptized and baptize; and that in them, though dead, there lives that baptism of Him who dies not, and over whom death shall no longer have dominion.

Since therefore there are dead men both within and not hidden — for Cyprian would not have said so much about hidden ones — who either do not belong or do not yet belong to that living dove, and there are dead men without who more manifestly either do not belong or do not yet belong to her, and since it is true that one who himself does not live cannot be made alive by another, it is manifest that those who within are baptized by such men, if they come with a true conversion of heart, are made alive by Him whose the baptism is; but if they renounce the world in words and not in deeds — such as Cyprian testifies exist even within — they are not themselves made alive unless they be converted, yet they truly have baptism even if they be not converted;

whence it is likewise manifest that even the dead who are outside, although they neither live nor make alive, nevertheless have a living baptism which may then profit them unto life, if they be converted to peace. Wherefore those who at that time received men coming from the heresies in that same baptism of Christ which they had received outside, and said that they were following the ancient custom (as even now the Church receives them), were vainly opposed by the ancients with the argument that heresies and schisms were then still in their first beginnings, so that those men were there who withdrew from the Church and had been baptized here first, whom, when they returned to the Church and did penance, it was not necessary to baptize.

For immediately, as soon as any heresy arose and went out from the congregation of Catholic communion, it could — I do not say on another day, but even on that very day — baptize any who rushed into it. And therefore, if this was the ancient custom, that they should be so received (which not even those who argued to the contrary were able to deny), it cannot be doubted by anyone who attends a little more carefully that those too were so received who were baptized outside in the heresies.

But I do not see what reason there is in this: that one who, seeking Christian salvation, falls into the error of heretics and happens to be baptized among them should not yet be called a straying sheep, while one who within the Catholic Church itself renounced the world in words alone and not in deeds, and received baptism in that falsity of heart, should be called a sheep already made. Or if such a one too does not become a sheep except when he turns to God with a true heart — just as this latter is not baptized when he becomes a sheep, if he was already baptized, but was not yet a sheep — so likewise the one who comes from the heretics that he may become a sheep is not then to be baptized, if among them he had already been baptized with the same baptism, although he was not yet a sheep.

Wherefore, since all the wicked even within — the covetous, the envious, the drunkards, and those living against Christian discipline — can deservedly be called both liars and men of darkness and dead and antichrists, do they nevertheless on that account not baptize, because there can be nothing common to lying and truth, to darkness and light, to death and immortality, to antichrist and Christ? Not therefore from custom alone, but also from the reasoning of truth, does he presume who says that the sacrament of God, which is declared to be present even in the perverse, is not made perverse by the perversity of any men. Surely the apostle John says most plainly: He who hates his brother is in darkness even until now; and again: He who hates his brother is a murderer.

Why then do such men, whom Cyprian himself records to have been in malevolent envy, baptize within? How does a murderer cleanse and sanctify the water? How does darkness bless the oil? But if God is present in His sacraments and words, by whatsoever men they are administered, then both God's sacraments are everywhere right, and the wicked men, to whom they profit nothing, are everywhere perverse. But what is this, that a heretic should on that account be thought not to have baptism because he does not have the Church? And surely when he is baptized he is also questioned concerning the holy Church. As though indeed the one who within renounces the world not in deeds but in words is not questioned about this in his baptism.

As therefore the false answer of the latter does not bring it about that the baptism he receives is no baptism, so also the false answer of the former concerning the holy Church does not bring it about that the baptism he receives is no baptism; and as the latter, if he afterward truly fulfil what he had falsely answered, does not have baptism repeated to him but has his life corrected, so also the former, if he afterward come to the Church concerning which, when questioned, he had answered falsely (because he thought he had her when he did not), is given the very Church which he did not have, and what he had received is not reiterated. But why God can nevertheless sanctify oil at the words which proceed from the mouth of a murderer, and cannot [sanctify it] on the altar which heretics have set up, I do not know — unless perchance the man whose heart falsely converted does not hinder Him within, is hindered by wood falsely set up without, so that He should not deign to be present at His sacraments, hindered by no falsehoods of men.

If therefore that which is said in the Gospel, God does not hear a sinner, avails to this — that sacraments should not be celebrated through a sinner — how does He hearken to a murderer when he prays either over the water of baptism, or over the oil, or over the Eucharist, or over the heads of those on whom hands are laid? All which things nevertheless both are done and are valid even through murderers, that is, through those who hate their brethren, even within the Church itself. Since no one can give what he does not have, how does a murderer give the Holy Spirit? And yet even within he himself baptizes: God therefore gives the Holy Spirit even while he baptizes. But as to what he says:

He who comes to the Church must be baptized and renewed, that within he may be sanctified through the holy — what will he do, if within too he fall in with those who are not holy? Or is a murderer perchance holy? And if for this reason a man is baptized in the Church, that he may lay aside even this very thing — that a man, coming to God while he seeks a priest, fell by the deceit of error into a sacrilegious man — where shall he afterward lay it aside, if perchance within the Church itself, while he seeks a man of God, he fall by the deceit of error into a murderer? If there cannot be in a man something empty and something prevailing, why can there be in a murderer a holy sacrament and not a holy heart? If whoever cannot give the Holy Spirit cannot baptize either, why does a murderer baptize within?

Or how does a murderer have the Holy Spirit, since everyone who has the Holy Spirit is enlightened, but he who hates his brother is in darkness even until now? If, because there is one baptism and one Spirit, therefore they cannot have one baptism who do not have one Spirit, why do the innocent man and the murderer within have one baptism and not have the same Spirit? Thus therefore the heretic and the Catholic can have one baptism and not have one Church, just as within the Catholic Church the innocent man and the murderer can have one baptism and not have one Spirit — because as there is one baptism, so there is one Spirit and one Church. So it comes about that in each man that which he has is to be acknowledged, and that which he does not have is to be given him.

If nothing can be ratified and firm before the Lord which those men do whom the Lord declares to be His enemies and adversaries, why is the baptism firm which murderers deliver? Or do we not call murderers enemies and adversaries of the Lord? But he who hates his brother is a murderer. How then did those baptize who hated Paul the servant of Christ Jesus, and through this hated Jesus also — who said to Saul himself, Why do you persecute Me, when he was persecuting His servants, and at the end will Himself say, When you did it not to one of the least of Mine, you did it not to Me?

Wherefore all who go out from us are not of us, but not all who are with us are of us — just as, when the threshing-floor is threshed, whatever flies off from there is not wheat, but not whatever is there is wheat. And therefore John also says: They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would surely have remained with us. Wherefore God gives the sacrament of grace even through the wicked, but grace itself only through Himself or through His saints. And therefore He works the remission of sins either through Himself or through the members of that dove, to whom He says: If you remit the sins of any, they shall be remitted; if you retain the sins of any, they shall be retained.

But baptism, which is the sacrament of the remission of sins — since it is doubtful to no one that even murderers who are in darkness until now can have it, because from their hearts fraternal hatred has not been cast out (whether no sins have been remitted to them, if they were baptized with a heart not changed for the better, or whether the sins immediately returned) — this baptism we recognize to be holy through Himself, because it is God's, and, whether it be delivered or received by such men, to be violated by the perversity of none, whether within or without.

Accordingly, we agree with Cyprian that heretics cannot give remission, but that they can give baptism — which indeed avails, both for those giving and those receiving it, unto destruction, as men making evil use of so great a gift of God — just as also the malevolent and envious, whom he himself testifies to be even within, cannot give the remission of sins, although we all confess that they can give baptism. For if concerning those who had sinned against us it was said:

If you do not forgive men their sins, neither will your Father forgive you your sins — how much more is it impossible that sins should be forgiven to those who hate the brethren by whom they are loved, and are baptized in that very hatred! Yet to these, when afterward corrected, baptism is not given again, but that very pardon which they could not then merit to receive is bestowed upon them in true conversion.

And therefore those things also which Cyprian wrote to Quintus, and those which, together with his colleagues Liberalis, Caldonius, Junius, and the rest, he wrote to Saturninus, Maximus, and others, when well considered, are in no way to be brought forth against the consent of the whole Catholic Church, of which they rejoiced to be members, and from which they neither themselves cut themselves off nor suffered those who thought differently to be cut off, until at length, in the Lord's will, through a plenary council — albeit after many years — it should shine forth what was more right, no novelty being instituted, but antiquity being strengthened.

Cyprian also wrote to Pompeius about this same matter, where he openly indicates that Stephen — whom we have learned to have then been bishop of the Roman Church — not only did not agree with him on these points, but had even written to the contrary and given orders. This Stephen assuredly did not communicate with heretics merely because he did not dare to reject the baptism of Christ, which he knew had remained intact in their perversity. For if those who think wrongly about God do not have baptism, that this can happen even within has, as I think, already been sufficiently discussed.

But the apostles indeed gave no command about this; yet that custom, which was set against Cyprian, is to be believed to have taken its beginning from their tradition — just as there are many things which the whole Church holds, and which for that reason are rightly believed to have been commanded by the apostles, although they are not found written. 'But it is written of heretics that they are condemned of themselves.' What then? Were not those also condemned of themselves to whom it was said: For in that in which you judge another you condemn yourself? For to these the apostle says: You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal? and the rest.

And such assuredly were those men who, although they were bishops and established with Cyprian himself in Catholic unity, seized estates by treacherous frauds, while surely preaching to the people the words of the apostle who says: Nor shall the rapacious possess the kingdom of God. Wherefore I shall not delay to run briefly through the other opinions of that very letter which was written to Pompeius, by these same rules. That it is against God's command that those coming from the heretics, if they have already received there the baptism of Christ, should not be baptized — by what of the holy Scriptures is this shown?

But it is plainly shown that many pseudo-Christians, although they do not have the same charity as the saints (without which whatever holy things they might possess profit nothing), nevertheless have baptism in common with the saints — which has already been sufficiently and most abundantly demonstrated. He said that the Church and the Spirit and baptism cannot be separated from one another, and therefore he would have those who are separated from the Church and from the Holy Spirit to be understood as separated also from baptism. But if this be so, then when anyone has received baptism in the Catholic Church, he remains in it as long as he himself also remains in the Church; but if he depart thence, he departs from baptism. Which is not so. For it is not restored to him who returns, precisely because when he departed he did not lose it.

But just as the sons of malice do not have the Holy Spirit as the beloved sons have Him, and yet they have baptism, so also heretics do not have the Church as Catholics have her, and yet they have baptism. For the holy Spirit of discipline will flee the deceitful, yet baptism will not flee him. And so, just as there can be baptism where the Holy Spirit withdraws Himself, so there can be baptism where the Church is not. But the imposition of hands, if it were not applied to one coming from a heresy, he would be judged to be as it were outside all fault. Yet on account of the joining of charity, which is the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit, without which whatever other holy things there may be in a man do not avail unto salvation, the hand is laid upon heretics who have been corrected.

Now concerning the temple of God, and how it is to be understood, As many of you as were baptized in Christ have put on Christ — I remember to have discussed this sufficiently. For the covetous are not the temple of God, since it is written: What fellowship has the temple of God with idols? and Cyprian took up Paul's testimony that covetousness is idolatry. But men put on Christ sometimes even to the reception of the sacrament, sometimes even to the sanctification of life. And that first can be common to both good and bad, but that other is proper to the good and pious.

Wherefore, if baptism cannot exist without the Spirit, then heretics too have the Spirit, but unto destruction, not unto salvation — as Saul had it; for through the name of Christ demons are cast out in the Holy Spirit, which even that man could do who was outside the Church, of whom the disciples informed the Lord — just as the covetous have it, who nevertheless are not the temple of God, since what fellowship has the temple of God with idols? But if the covetous do not have the Spirit of God and yet have baptism, then baptism can exist without the Spirit. But if heresy cannot beget sons to God through Christ, because it is not the spouse of Christ, then neither can that crowd of the wicked established within, because it too is not the spouse of Christ.

For the spouse of Christ is designated as without spot or wrinkle. Therefore either not all the baptized are sons of God, or even a non-spouse can beget sons of God. But just as it is asked whether one is spiritually born who received the baptism of Christ among heretics, so it can be asked whether one is spiritually born who received the baptism of Christ in the Catholic Church without being converted to God with a true heart — and yet he did not on that account fail to receive baptism. Now those things which he poured out, provoked against Stephen, I am unwilling to review, both because there is no need. For the very same things are said which have already been sufficiently discussed, and it is better to pass over those which had the danger of a pernicious dissension.

For Stephen had thought that even those should be shunned who tried to overthrow the ancient custom concerning the receiving of heretics; but the other, moved by the difficulty of the very question and most richly endowed with the holy bowels of charity, thought that one should remain in unity with those who thought differently. Thus, although he was somewhat too excitedly, yet fraternally, indignant, nevertheless the peace of Christ conquered in their hearts, so that in such a dispute no evil of schism arose among them. But from this heresies and schisms did not more abundantly spring up, because that which is of Christ in them is approved, while that which is their own is disapproved. For rather those who held to this law of rebaptizing were cut up into many fragments.

But now when he says that a bishop ought to be teachable, and adds: Now he is teachable who is gentle and meek unto patience in learning. For bishops ought not only to teach, but also to learn, because he too teaches better who daily grows and advances by learning better things — by these words assuredly the holy man, endowed with pious charity, sufficiently indicates that his letters are not to be so feared in the reading, that, if the Church has afterward confirmed anything ascertained by many and longer inquiries, we should not doubt it; because, just as there were many things which the learned Cyprian might teach, so there was also something which the teachable Cyprian might learn.

But as to his admonishing us to have recourse to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence to direct the channel into our own times — this is most excellent and without doubt to be done. It has therefore been handed down to us from the apostles, as he himself records, that there is one God and one Christ and one hope and one faith and one Church and one baptism.

Since therefore in the very times of the apostles we find that there were certain persons who did not have one hope and yet had one baptism, from that very fountain truth is so conducted to us that it appears it can come about that, though there is one Church, as there is one hope and one baptism, nevertheless those who do not have one Church may have one baptism — just as in those times too it could come about that those who did not have one hope had one baptism. For how did those have one hope with the saints and the just who said, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die, saying that there was no resurrection of the dead? And yet among them were those to whom the same apostle says, Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

For he writes most plainly to them, saying: How do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? And as to the fact that in the Song of Songs the Church is thus described: A garden enclosed, my sister spouse, a fountain sealed, a well of living water, a paradise with the fruit of apple-trees — this I dare not understand except of the holy and the just, not of the covetous and the defrauders and the plunderers and the usurers and the drunkards and the envious, who nevertheless had baptism in common with the just (with whom they did not, however, have charity in common), as from Cyprian's own letters, as I have often recalled, we more abundantly learn and teach.