Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 25 part 14/16

For when he was speaking of the magi, he says: 'Yet the chief of them, Ostanes, both denies that the form of the true God can be beheld, and says that true angels stand by His throne. In which Plato likewise agrees on the same principle, and, keeping one God, calls the rest angels or demons. Hermes Trismegistus too speaks of one God, and confesses Him to be incomprehensible and inestimable.' If, therefore, these men had come to receive Christian salvation, it would certainly not be said to them: 'You have this evil' or 'You have this false thing,' but rightly and deservedly it would be said:

'This thing you have, although whole and true, would nevertheless profit you nothing, unless you were to come to the grace of Christ.' If, therefore, even in the heathen themselves something divine can be found and rightly approved — although salvation is still to be bestowed upon them by Christ — we ought not to be so moved, even if heretics be worse, as to wish to correct in them what is their own evil, and yet be unwilling to acknowledge what in them is the good of Christ. But now we shall take up the remaining sentences of this council to be treated from another beginning. BOOK SEVEN. Let us not be troublesome to our readers, if we discuss the same matters variously and often.

For although the holy Catholic Church throughout all nations is fortified by the authority of ancient custom and of a plenary council against those things which, in this question concerning baptism—whether the very thing which exists in the Catholic Church can also exist among heretics or schismatics—cast some fog of obscurity; nevertheless, because to men not to be despised, and above all to Cyprian, it once seemed otherwise while yet within the very unity, those who are far removed from his charity attempt to use his authority against us. For this reason we are compelled, as the occasion for discussing and considering arises, to weigh all those things which…

…that we find in his council and its letters concerning this matter, turning this same question over somewhat longer, as it were, in our hands, and showing how much more truly it has pleased the universal Catholic Church that heretics or schismatics—who have already received the baptism of Christ there whence they come—should be admitted into Catholic communion, corrected from their error, rooted and grounded in charity, so that, as regards the sacrament of baptism, what was lacking should not be added, but what was already present should be made profitable. And the blessed Cyprian indeed—now that the body which is corrupted no longer weighs down the soul, nor the earthly dwelling depresses the mind that ponders many things—more serenely beholds the truth which he deserved to attain through charity.

Therefore may he aid us by his prayers, as we labour in the mortality of this flesh as in a fog-laden cloud, that by the Lord's gift we may imitate his good qualities as far as we are able.

But if he thought otherwise in some matter, and persuaded certain brethren and colleagues of it—a thing which now, revealed by Him whom he loved, he already perceives—let us, far unequal to his merits yet following, according to our weakness, the authority of the Catholic Church, of which he himself is a distinguished and most dear member, unravel the question against heretics or schismatics. These, cut off from the unity which he held, withering away from the charity by which he flourished, and fallen from the humility by which he stood, he all the more reproves and condemns, the more he knows that they wish to scrutinize what he wrote in order to lay snares, yet are unwilling, for the sake of making peace, to imitate what he did.

Just as those who call themselves Nazarene Christians and, after the Jewish manner, circumcise the foreskins of the flesh—heretics born from that very error into which Peter deviated and from which he was recalled by Paul—persist in this even to the present day. Therefore, just as those, when Peter had been crowned in the primacy of the apostles with the glory of martyrdom, remained cut off from the Church in their own perversity, so these, when Cyprian through the abundance of charity had been received into the lot of the saints by the renown of his passion, acknowledge themselves as exiles from unity, and against the fatherland of unity, on behalf of their slanders, set up a citizen of unity as their advocate. And so now let us examine the remaining opinions of that council by the same reasoning. Marcus of Mactaris said:

'It is no wonder if heretics, being enemies and assailants of the truth, claim for themselves a matter belonging to another's power and dignity. This is what is to be wondered at: that certain of our own people, betrayers of the truth, side with heretics and oppose Christians. Therefore we have decreed that heretics must be baptized.' To this we reply: Nay rather, it is far more to be wondered at, and to be proclaimed with great praise, that these men so loved unity that, though they judged them to be betrayers of the truth, in persevering with them in unity they did not fear to be defiled by them. For when he had said, 'This is what is to be wondered at, that certain of our own people, betrayers of the truth, side with heretics and oppose Christians,' he seemed about to say:

'therefore we decree that we must not be in communion with them.' He did not say this, but said: 'therefore we decree that heretics must be baptized,' preserving what the peaceable Cyprian had earlier laid down as a foundation, saying: 'judging no one, nor removing anyone from the right of communion if he holds a differing view.' Since therefore the Donatists slander us and call us traditors, if there should arise some Jew or pagan who, having read this council, should call both us and them, according to their own rules of unity, betrayers, I should like to know how, in refuting and dissolving so grave a charge, we must plead the common cause.

These men call those traditors whom they could neither convict at that time nor now can prove guilty; and rather they themselves are shown to be guilty of the same crime. But what is that to us? Concerning these betrayers, at any rate, what shall we say? For if we, though falsely, are for this reason called traditors—because they charge us with having succeeded traditors in the same communion—then we have all succeeded those betrayers, since the party of Donatus had not yet divided itself from unity in the times of blessed Cyprian. For indeed, after his passion, when forty years and something more had elapsed, the surrender of the sacred books took place, whence they began to be called traditors.

If therefore we are traditors because we sprang from traditors, as they suppose or fabricate, then both parties derive our origin from those betrayers. For it cannot be said that these men were not in communion with them, since the council—which they themselves most of all put forward—calls them their own. 'Certain of our own people,' it says, 'betrayers of the truth, side with heretics.' There is added also the testimony of Cyprian, sufficiently demonstrating that he remained in their communion, by saying: 'judging no one, nor removing anyone from the right of communion if he holds a differing view.'

For it was they themselves who held the differing view, whom this man calls betrayers—namely, because they sided with heretics by receiving them into the Church without baptism. That this too was the custom, that they should be so received, both Cyprian himself in many places and several bishops in this council make plain. Whence it appears that, if heretics do not have baptism, the Church of Christ of those times was full of betrayers, who, siding with them, received them thus. Let therefore the common cause be pleaded against the crime of prevarication which they cannot deny; and there our cause shall be pleaded against the crime of surrender which they were unable to prove. But let us plead as though they had proved it.

Whatever we shall have replied to those who object to us the prevarication of our forefathers, this we shall reply to those who object to us the surrender of our forefathers. For if, through the surrender of our forefathers, from whom these men separated themselves, we are dead, then likewise, through the prevarication of the forefathers who were parents both of ours and of theirs, both we and they are dead. But because they say they live, they believe that that prevarication does not pertain to them; therefore neither does that surrender pertain to us. And that prevarication, indeed, according to them, is certain; but according to us neither is the former prevarication true—since we say that even heretics can have the baptism of Christ—nor the latter surrender, since in that cause they themselves have been vanquished.

These men therefore have no reason to be separated from us by the wicked crime of schism; because our forefathers, if they were not traditors, as we say, then there is nothing that pertains to us at all; but if they were traditors, as these men say, then it pertains to us just as those prevaricators pertain neither to us nor to them. And by this, since from the iniquity of our forefathers there is no crime of ours, from their own schism the crime of these men is certain. Satius of Sicilibba said: 'If sins are forgiven to heretics in the baptism they have received, without cause do they come to the Church. For since it is on the day of judgment that sins are punished, there is nothing that heretics can fear concerning the judgment of Christ, if they have obtained remission of sins.'

And this could even be our own opinion; but let its author see with what mind it was spoken. Yet it is so qualified in its wording that I am not loath to assent and subscribe to it with that mind wherein I too hold that heretics can indeed have the baptism of Christ, but not the remission of sins. For he does not say, 'if heretics baptize or are baptized,' but says: 'if sins are forgiven to heretics in their own baptism, without cause do they come to the Church.' For let us put in place of heretics those whom Cyprian knew in the Church to renounce the world by words alone and not by deeds: in the very same words we too can most truly state this opinion:

'If sins are forgiven in their own baptism to those falsely converted, without cause are they afterwards led to a true conversion. For since it is on the day of judgment that sins are punished, there is nothing that those who renounced the world by words alone and not by deeds can fear concerning the judgment of Christ, if they have obtained remission of sins.' But this reasoning is completed by such a connection that we add, saying: 'yet they ought to fear the judgment of Christ and be at length truly converted; and when they have done this, there is certainly no need for them to be baptized again.' They could therefore receive baptism and not receive the remission of sins, or, their sins being remitted, be immediately burdened again. So then also with heretics. Victor of Gor said:

'Since sins are not remitted except in the baptism of the Church, whoever admits a heretic to communion without baptism does both things against reason: he neither cleanses the heretic nor keeps Christians unstained.' To this we reply that the baptism of the Church exists even among heretics—though they themselves are not in the Church—just as the water of paradise exists in the land of Egypt, though that water is not in paradise. We do not, then, admit heretics to communion without baptism; and because they come corrected from their own perversity, we receive not their sins but the sacraments of Christ; while concerning the remission of sins we say here what we said above. But that which he put at the end, saying, 'he does both things against reason:

he neither cleanses the heretic nor keeps Christians unstained'—this Cyprian himself first and foremost rejected, together with his colleagues who agreed with him. For he did not believe himself to be stained, when he decreed that communion must be kept with such men for the bond of peace, saying: 'judging no one, nor removing anyone from the right of communion if he holds a differing view.' Or if heretics stain those with whom they are admitted to communion when they are not baptized, then the whole Church was stained through that custom which is so often here recalled. And just as these men call us traditors on account of our forefathers—in whom, when they made the charge, they could prove no such thing—if everyone becomes what he is with whom he has communion, then all were made heretics.

But if whoever says this is out of his mind, then what this man says is false: 'he who admits a heretic to communion without baptism neither cleanses the heretic nor keeps Christians unstained.' Or if this is true, then they were not admitted without baptism, but had the baptism of Christ, though given and received among heretics—they who, according to that custom of which these men confess, were thus admitted; and by this, rightly even now they are thus admitted. Aurelius of Utica said: 'Since the Apostle says that we are not to have communion with the sins of others, what else than others' sins does he have communion with, who has communion with heretics without the baptism of the Church? And therefore I judge that heretics must be baptized, that they may receive remission of sins, and thus communion be given them.'

Cyprian, then, and all these men had communion with the sins of others, because they remained in communion with such men, when they removed no one who held a differing view from the right of communion. Where then is the Church? Furthermore, to say nothing of heretics, since the words of this opinion can be said of other sinners as well—such as Cyprian saw with him in the Church, groaned over, rebuked, and bore with—where is the Church, which according to these words is supposed to have already then perished by the contagion of sins? But if, as the most firm truth holds, the Church has remained and remains, then the communion of sins which the Apostle forbids is to be understood only as consent.

But let heretics be baptized again, that they may receive remission of sins—if the perverse and envious are baptized again, who, when they renounced the world by words and not by deeds, could indeed receive baptism, but did not obtain remission of sins, the Lord saying: 'If you do not forgive, neither will your Father forgive you.' Iambus of Germaniciana said: 'Those who approve the baptism of heretics disapprove our own, in maintaining that those who, outside the Church, are—I will not say washed, but befouled—ought to be baptized in the Church.' To this it is answered that none of us approves the baptism of heretics, but the baptism of Christ, though it be among heretics as among outer chaff, just as it is among other wicked men as among inner chaff.

For if those who are baptized outside the Church are not washed but befouled, then assuredly those who are baptized outside the rock upon which the Church is built are not washed but befouled. But all who hear the words of Christ and do not do them are outside that same rock. Or if they are indeed washed by baptism, but remain befouled by their own iniquities from which they were unwilling to be changed for the better, so too are heretics. Lucian of Rucuma said: 'It is written: And God saw the light, that it was good, and He divided between the light and the darkness. If light and darkness can agree, then something can be common to us and to heretics; therefore I judge that heretics must be baptized.' To this it is answered:

If light and darkness can agree, then something can be common to the just and the unjust. Let him therefore judge that those unjust men, whom Cyprian rebuked within the Church itself, must be baptized anew; or if those who renounce the world by words and not by deeds are not unjust, let him say so who can. Pelagianus of Luperciana said: 'It is written: Either God is God, or Baal is god. So too now, either the Church is the Church, or heresy is the Church. Further, if heresy is not the Church, how can the baptism of the Church exist among heretics?' To this we can thus reply: Either paradise is paradise, or Egypt is paradise. Further, if Egypt is not paradise, how can the water of paradise exist in Egypt? But it will be said to us:

'it reaches thither too by flowing out'; so then baptism reaches heretics. Likewise we say: 'Either the rock is the Church, or the sand is the Church. Further, since the sand is not the Church, how can baptism exist among those who build upon the sand by hearing the words of Christ and not doing them? And yet it does exist; so then also among heretics.' Iader of Midila said: 'We know there is only one baptism in the Catholic Church, and therefore we ought not to admit a heretic unless he has been baptized among us, lest he think himself baptized outside the Catholic Church.' To this it is answered that if this were said of those unjust men who are outside the rock, it would surely be said falsely; so then also of heretics. Likewise Felix of Marazana said:

'One faith, one baptism, but of the Catholic Church, to whom alone it is permitted to baptize.' To this it is answered: What if another should say thus: 'One faith, one baptism, but of the just alone, to whom alone it is permitted to baptize'? Just as these words would be refuted, so let that opinion also be refuted. Or do even the unjust—not changed in baptism itself, while they renounce the world by words alone and not by deeds—belong to the members of the Church? Let them consider whether she herself is that rock, whether she is the dove, whether she is the bride without spot or wrinkle. Paulus of Obba said: 'It does not move me, if someone does not vindicate the faith and truth of the Church, since the Apostle says: What then? because certain of them have fallen away from the faith?

Shall their unbelief make void the Catholic faith of God? God forbid. For God is truthful, but every man a liar. But if God is truthful, how can the truth of baptism exist among heretics, among whom God is not?' To this it is answered: What? Among the covetous, is God not present? And yet baptism is present. So too among heretics. For among whom God is present, they are the temple of God. But what agreement has the temple of God with idols? Now Paul reckons covetousness to be idolatry, Cyprian agrees, and he himself likewise dwells among his colleagues who were plunderers and yet baptizers, with the great reward of forbearance. Pomponius of Dionysiana said:

'It is manifest that heretics cannot baptize and give remission of sins, since they have not the power either to loose or to bind anything on earth.' It is answered: This power not even murderers have—that is, those who hate their brethren. For it was not to such that it was said: 'If you forgive anyone their sins, they shall be forgiven them; if you retain anyone's, they shall be retained'; and yet they baptize, and both Paul tolerates them in the same communion of baptism and Cyprian acknowledges them. Venantius of Tinisa said: 'If a husband, going abroad, had entrusted his wife to a friend of his to be kept safe, that friend would guard her, entrusted to him, with all possible diligence, lest her chastity and holiness be adulterated by anyone.

Christ our Lord and God, going to the Father, entrusted His bride to us: do we guard her uncorrupted and inviolate, or do we betray her integrity and chastity to adulterers and corrupters? For whoever makes the baptism of the Church common with heretics betrays the bride of Christ to adulterers.' We reply: What? Do not those who, when they are baptized with their lips, are not converted to God in their heart, bear an adulterous mind? Are not they themselves lovers of the world, who renounced not by deeds but by words, and therefore corrupt good morals by evil conversations, saying: 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die'? Did not the apostolic word also keep watch against these, where it said:

'But I fear, lest as the serpent seduced Eve by his cunning, so your minds also be corrupted from the chastity which is in Christ'? Since therefore Cyprian had the baptism of Christ in common with such men, did he on that account betray the bride of Christ to adulterers, and not rather recognize the bridegroom's necklace even upon an adulteress? Aymnus of Ausvaga said: 'We have received one baptism, and that same we practice. But he who says that heretics too are permitted to baptize makes two baptisms.' To this it is answered: Why does not he also make two baptisms who says that the unjust too baptize?

For since the just and the unjust are contrary to each other, the baptism which the just give—such as Paul was, or even such as Cyprian was—is not contrary to the baptism which those unjust men gave who hated Paul, whom Cyprian understands to be not heretics, but bad Catholics. And though the continence which was in Cyprian and the covetousness which was in Cyprian's colleagues are contrary to each other, yet the baptism which Cyprian gave was not contrary to the baptism which they gave, but one and the same, because He baptizes of whom it was said: 'It is He who baptizes.' Saturninus of Victoriana said:

'If heretics are permitted to baptize, they are excused and defended in doing unlawful things, and I do not see why either Christ should have called them His adversaries or the Apostle called them antichrists.' To this it is answered: We say that it is not permitted to heretics to baptize in the same way as we say it is not permitted to defrauders to baptize. For it is not to the heretic only, but to the sinner, that the Lord says: 'Why do you declare My statutes and take up My covenant in your mouth?' To this same one He surely said: 'If you saw a thief, you ran with him.' How much worse, then, are those who did not run with thieves, but themselves seized estates by treacherous frauds!

But Cyprian did not run with them, though he tolerated them in the Catholic crop, lest the wheat be rooted up along with them. And yet even the baptism which they gave was itself the very same baptism, because it was not theirs but Christ's. Just as these men, therefore, although the baptism of Christ be acknowledged in them, are nevertheless not excused and defended in doing unlawful things, and Christ rightly calls them His adversaries—because, persevering in such things, they shall hear: 'Depart from Me, you who work iniquity' (whence they are called antichrists, because they are contrary to Christ, since they live against what He commands)—so too are heretics. Another Saturninus, of Tucca, said: 'The Gentiles, although they worship idols, yet know and confess the supreme God, the Father, the Creator.

Against Him Marcion blasphemes, and certain men are not ashamed to approve the baptism of Marcion. In what manner do such priests preserve or vindicate the priesthood of God, who do not baptize the enemies of God, and yet have communion with them?' Truly, when such things are said, measure is exceeded, and it is not considered that they themselves also had communion with such men, judging no one nor removing anyone from the right of communion if he held a differing view. But this man has, in this very opinion of his, that whereby he might be admonished, if he would notice that in each man what is depraved is to be corrected, but what is right is to be approved—since he says: 'the Gentiles, although they worship idols, yet know and confess the supreme God, the Father, the Creator.'

If therefore some such Gentile came to him, would he wish to correct and change in him the fact that he confessed and knew God the Father, the Creator? But he would amend in him the idolatry which he had as an evil, and would hand over to him the Christian sacraments which he did not have; and if he found anything right in him, he would approve it; if he found anything perverse, he would amend it; if anything were lacking, he would supply it. So too in a Marcionist heretic he would acknowledge the integrity of baptism, correct his perversity, and teach him the Catholic truth. Marcellus of Zama said: 'Since sins are not remitted except in the baptism of the Church, he who does not baptize a heretic has communion with a sinner.' What? Does not he who has communion with the one doing this have communion with a sinner?

But what else were all of them doing—judging no one and removing no one who held a differing view from the right of communion? Where then is the Church? Or do these things not harm those who endure, and who bear with the tares lest the wheat be rooted up? Let these men learn, then, who by vainly separating themselves from the whole world have committed the sacrilege of schism. Why do they have in their mouth the opinion of Cyprian, who have not in their heart the patience of Cyprian? But to this Marcellus it is answered from those things which were said above concerning baptism and concerning the remission of sins—how baptism can exist in a man, although in him there is no remission of sins. Irenaeus of Ulula said: 'If the Church does not baptize a heretic for the reason that he is said to be already baptized, the heresy is the greater.'

In this manner it can be said: If the Church does not baptize a covetous man for the reason that he is said to be already baptized, covetousness is the greater. But this is false; so then is that also. Donatus of Cibaliana said: 'I know one Church and one baptism of hers. If there is anyone who says that the grace of baptism exists among heretics, it is first necessary that he show and prove that the Church is there.' To this it is answered: If you say that the grace of baptism is that which baptism is, then it exists among heretics; but if baptism is the sacrament of grace, while grace itself is the abolition of sins, then the grace of baptism does not exist among heretics. But baptism is one and the Church is one in the same way as hope is one.

For just as the good and the evil, not having one hope, can nevertheless have one baptism, so those to whom the Church is not common can have baptism in common. Zosimus of Tarassa said: 'When the truth has been revealed, let error yield to truth, since Peter also, who formerly circumcised, yielded to Paul preaching the truth.' This opinion too can be ours, and so it was done in this question concerning baptism. For when the truth was afterward more clearly revealed, error yielded to truth, when that most salutary custom was confirmed even by the authority of a plenary council. Yet it is well that they so often recalled that even Peter, the first of the apostles, could think otherwise than the truth demanded.

That this happened even to Cyprian, without any reproach to him, we who love Cyprian believe—whoever we are who love him—because it is not lawful for him to be loved with a greater charity than Peter. Julianus of Telepte said: 'It is written: No one can receive anything unless it be given him from heaven. If heresy is from heaven, it can give baptism.' Let him hear another also saying: 'if covetousness is from heaven, it can give baptism.' And yet the covetous do give; so then also do heretics. Faustus of Timida Regia said: 'Let not those flatter themselves who patronize heretics. He who intercedes on behalf of heretics for the ecclesiastical baptism makes them Christians and us heretics.' To this it is answered: