Chapter 1.—1. We have the testimony of the blessed Cyprian, that the custom of the Catholic Church is at present retained, when men coming from the side of heretics or schismatics, if they have received baptism as consecrated in the words of the gospel, are not baptized afresh. For he himself proposed to himself the question, and that as coming from the mouth of brethren either seeking the truth or contending for the truth. For in
the course of the arguments by which he wished to show that heretics should be baptized again, which we have sufficiently considered for our present purpose in the former books, he says: "But some will say, What then will become of those who in times past, coming to the Church from heresy, were admitted without baptism?"1469
| 1469 Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. ad Jubaian. 23.
|
In this
question is involved the
shipwreck of the whole cause of the Donatists, with whom our contest is on this point. For if those had not really
baptism who were thus received on coming from
heretics, and their
sins were still upon them, then, when such men were admitted to
communion, either by those who came before Cyprian or by Cyprian himself, we must acknowledge that one of two things occurred,—either that the
Church perished then and there from the
pollution of
communion with such men, or that any one
abiding in
unity is not
injured by even the notorious
sins of other men. But since they cannot say that the
Church then
perished through the contamination arising from
communion with those who, as Cyprian says, were admitted into it without
baptism—for otherwise they cannot maintain the validity of their own origin if the
Church then
perished, seeing that the list of consuls
proves that more than forty years elapsed between the martyrdom of Cyprian and
the burning of the
sacred books,
1470
| 1470 See below, Book VII. c. 2, 3.
|
from which they took occasion to make a
schism, spreading abroad the
smoke of their calumnies,—it therefore is left for them to acknowledge that the
unity of
Christ is not polluted by any such
communion, even with known offenders. And, after this confession, they will be unable to
discover any reason which will
justify them in maintaining that they were bound to separate from the
churches of the whole
world, which, as we read, were equally founded by the
apostles, seeing
that, while the others could not have
perished from any admixture of offenders, of whatsoever
kind, they, though they would not have
perished if they had remained in
unity with them, brought
destruction on themselves in
schism, by separating themselves from their
brethren, and
breaking the
bond of
peace. For the
sacrilege of
schism is most clearly evident in them, if they had no sufficient cause for separation. And it is clear that there was no sufficient cause for separation, if even the
presence of notorious offenders cannot pollute the good while they
abide in
unity. But that the good,
abiding in
unity, are not polluted even by notorious offenders, we
teach on the
testimony of Cyprian, who says that "men in past times, coming to the
Church from
heresy, were admitted without
baptism;" and yet, if the
wickedness of their
sacrilege, which was still upon them, seeing it had not been
purged away by
baptism, could not pollute and
destroy the
holiness of the
Church, it cannot
perish by any infection from
wicked men. Wherefore, if they allow that Cyprian spoke the
truth, they are
convicted of
schism on his
testimony; if they maintain that he does not speak truth, let them not use his testimony on the question of baptism.
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
