BOOK 1.

PREVIOUS CHAPTER - NEXT CHAPTER - HELP     

Bible Library

Forex Trading

Store Items

Audio Bible

eBook Business

ANTE-NICENE COUNCILS.

CHAPTER 1.

COUNCILS OF THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES.

THE first Christian Council, the type and model of all It. the others, was held at Jerusalem by the apostles between the years 50 and 52 A.D. in order to solve the question of the universal obligation of the ancient law. No other councils were probably held in the first century of the Christian era; or if they were, no trace of them remains in history. On the other hand, we have information of several councils in the second century.

The authenticity of this information is not, it is true, equally established for all; and we can acknowledge as having really taken place only those of which Eusebius Pamphili, the father of Christian Church history, speaks, or other early and trustworthy historians. To these belong, first of all: — SEC. 1. SYNODS RELATIVE TO MONTANISISM.

Eusebius has given us, in his Church History, a fragment of a work composed by Apollinaris Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, in which the following words occur: “The faithful of Asia, at many times and in many places (polla>kiv kai< pollach~| th~v jAsi>av ), came together to consult on the subject of Montanus and his followers; and these new doctrines were examined, and declared strange and impious.” This fragment unfortunately gives no other details, and does not point out the towns at which these synods were held; but the Libellus Synodicus of Pappus tells us that Apollinarus, the holy Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia, and twenty-six of his colleagues in the episcopate, held a provincial council at Hierapolis, and there tried and condemned Montanus and Maximilia the false prophets, and at the same time Theodotus the currier (the celebrated anti- Trinitarian). Further on he adds: “A holy and particular (merikh> ) synod, assembled under the very holy Bishop Sofas of Anchialus (in Thrace, on the Black Sea), and consisting of twelve other bishops, convicted of heresy the currier Theodotus, Montanus, and Maximilia, and condemned them.”

The Libellus Synodicus , to which we are indebted for these details, it is true, can lay claim to no very early origin, as it was compiled by a Greek towards the close of the ninth century. But this Greek derived his statements from ancient authentic sources; and what he says of the two synods agrees so perfectly with the statement of Eusebius, that in this passage it is worthy of all confidence. We read in Eusebius’ Church History (book 5, cc. 16 and 19), that Apollinaris of Hierapolis, and Sofas of Anchialus, contemporaries of Montanus, zealously opposed his errors, and wrote and preached against him. Sofas even wished to exorcise, the evil spirit from Priscilla, a companion of Montanus; but these hypocrites, adds Eusebius, did not consent to it. f367 The strong opposition which these two bishops made to Montanus makes it probable that they gave occasion to several of the numerous synods in which, according to the summaries of Eusebius, the Church rejected Montanism.

The date of these synods is nowhere exactly pointed out. The fragment which is given in Eusebius proves that they were held shortly after the commencement of the Montanist agitations; but the date of the rise of Montanism itself is uncertain. The Chronicle of Eusebius gives 172; S.

Epiphanius 126 in one place, and 156 or 157 in another. He says, besides, that Maximilia died about A.D. 86. In this there is perhaps an error of a whole century. Blondel, relying on these passages, has shown that Montanus and his heresy arose about 140 or 141; and, more recently, Schwegler of Tiibingen has expressed the same opinion. Pearson, Dodwell, and Neander, on the contrary, decide for 156 or 157; Tillemont and Walch for 171. As for our own opinion, we have adopted Blondel’s opinion (the year 140), because the Shepherd of Hermas , which was certainly anterior to 151, and was written when Pius I. was Pope, seems already to oppose Montanism. In this case, the synods with which we are occupied must have taken place before 150 of the Christian era. The Libellus Synodicus gives a contrary decision to this, although it attributes to the same synods the condemnation of the currier Theodotus, whose apostasy can only be fixed at the time of the persecution by M. Aurelius (160-180). In reality, Theodotus was excommunicated at Rome by Pope Victor towards the close of the second century (192-202). In allowing that sentence of condemnation had been pronounced against him before that time in certain synods of Asia Minor and of Thrace (he was living at Constantinople at the time of his apostasy), those synods which, according to the Libellus Synodicus , have also condemned Montanism could not have been held before M. Aurelius: they must therefore have been held under that Emperor. The supposition that Theodotus and Montanus were contemporary would oblige us to date these councils between A.D. and 180; but to us it appears doubtful whether these two were contemporaries, and the conclusion that they were so seems to result from a confusion of the facts. In reality, the author of the ancient fragment given us by Eusebius speaks also of a Theodotus who was one of the first followers of Montanus, and shared his fate, i.e. was anathematized in the same synods with Montanus and Maximilia. He depicts him as a wellknown man. The author of the Libellus Synodicus having read this passage, and finding that the ancient Synods of Hierapolis and Anchialus had condemned a Theodotus, easily identified the currier Theodotus with the Theodotus whom the author of the fragment declared to be celebrated in his time. If this is so, nothing will hinder our placing the rise of Montanism and the Synods of Hierapolis and Anchialus before A.D. 150.

SEC. 2. SYNODS CONCERNING THE FEAST OF EASTER.

The second series of councils in the second century was caused by the controversy regarding the time of celebrating Easter. It is not quite correct to regard the meeting of S. Polycarp of Smyrna, and Anicetus Bishop of Rome, towards the middle of the second century, as a synod properly so called; but it is certain that towards the close of the same century several synods were occasioned by the Easter controversy. Eusebius, in the passage referred to, only shows in a general way that these synods were held in the second half of the second century; but S. Jerome gives a more exact date, he says in his Chronicle , under the year 196: “Pope Victor wrote to the most eminent bishops of all countries, recommending them to call synods in their provinces, and to celebrate in them the feast of Easter on the day chosen by the Church of the West.”

Eusebius here agrees with S. Jerome; for he has pre-served to us a fragment of a letter written by Polycarp from Ephesus, in which this bishop says that Victor had required him to assemble the bishops who were subordinate to him; that he had done so, but that he and all the bishops present at this synod had pronounced for the practice of the Quarto- decimans or of S. John; that these bishops, the number of whom was considerable, had approved of the synodical letter which he had drawn up, and that he had no fear (on account of the threats of Victor), “because we must obey God rather than man.” We see from this fragment, that at the moment when the synods convoked at the request of Victor in Palestine pronounced in favor of the Western practice in Palestine, Pontus, Gaul, and Osrhoene, a great synod of bishops from Asia Minor, held at Ephesus, the see of Polycarp, had formally declared against this practice; and it is precisely from the synodical letter of this council that we have the fragment given above.

Bishop Victor then wished to exclude the bishops of Asia Minor from the communion of the Church; but other bishops turned him from his purpose.

S. Irenaeus, in particular, addressed a letter to him on this occasion, in the name of the bishops of Gaul, over whom he presided; a letter in which, it is true, he defended,the Western custom of celebrating Easter, but in which also he prayed Victor not to excommunicate “a great number of churches, who were only guilty of observing an ancient custom,” etc. This fragment has also been preserved to us by Eusebius; and we may consider it as a part of the synodical letter of the bishops of Gaul, since, as Eusebius makes him remark, Irenaeus expressly declared “that he wrote in the name of his brethren of Gaul, over whom he presided.” It may be asked if the synod here spoken of is the same as that mentioned by Eusebius in another place, and which we mentioned above. If it be the same, it must be admitted that, at, the request of Victor, there was at first a synod of the Quartodecimans in Asia Minor, and that it was only later on, when the result was known, that other councils were also assembled, and especially in Gaul. It may be also that S. Irenaeus presided over two successive councils in Gaul, and that in the first he declared himself for the Western practice regarding Easter, in the second against the threatening schism.

This is the opinion of the latest biographer of S. Irenaeus, the Abbe J. M.

Prat. The Synodicon (Libellus Synodicus ) only speaks of one synod in Gaul, presided over by Irenaeus, on the subject of the Easter controversy; and he adds that this synod was composed of Irenaeus and of thirteen other bishops.

The Libellus Synodicus also gives information about the other councils of which Eusebius speaks, concerning the question of Easter. Thus: a. From the writing of the priests of Rome of which we have spoken, and which was signed by Pope Victor, the Libellus Synodicus concludes, as also does Valesius in his translation of the Eccles. Hist . of Eusebius, f380 that there must have been a Roman synod at which, besides Victor, fourteen other bishops were present. This is opposed by Dom Constant in his excellent edition of the Epistolae Pontif . p. 94, and after him by Mosheim in his book De Rebus Christianorum ante Constant . M .p. 267, who remarks that Eusebius speaks of a letter from the Roman priests and Pope Victor, and not of a synod. But it has often happened, especially in the following centuries, that the decrees of the synods, and in particular of the Roman synods, have only been signed by the president, and have been promulgated by him under the form of an edict emanating from him alone.

This is what is expressly said by a Roman synod held by Pope Felix II. in 485. f381 b. According to the Synodicon, two synods were held in Palestine, on the subject of the Easter controversy: the one at Jerusalem, presided over by Narcissus, and composed of fourteen bishops; and the other at Caesarea, comprising twelve bishops, and presided over by Theophilus. c. Fourteen bishops were present at the Asiatic Synod of Pontus, under the presidency of Bishop Palmas, whom the Synodicon calls Plasmas. d. Eighteen bishops were present at that of Osrhoene; the Libellus Synodicus does not mention who presided. e. It speaks also of a synod held in Mesopotamia, on the subject of Easter, which also counted eighteen bishops (it is probably the same synod as that of Osrhoene). f. And, lastly, of a synod at Corinth, presided over by Bishop Bacchyllus; whilst Eusebius says expressly that Bacchyllus of Corinth did not publish any synodical letter on the subject of the celebration of Easter, but simply a private letter.

SEC. 3. DOUBTFUL SYNODS OF THE SECOND CENTURY.

The anonymous author of the Praedestinatus speaks of three other synods of the second century. According to him, a. In A.D. 125 a synod was held of all the bishops of Sicily, presided over by Eustathius of Libybaeum and Theodorus of Palermo. This synod considered the cause of the Gnostic Heraclionites, and sent its acts to Pope Alexander, that he might decide further in the matter. f383 b. In 152 the heresy of the Colarbasians, another Gnostic sect, was anathematized by Theodotus Bishop of Pergamum in Mysia, and by seven other bishops assembled in synod. f384 c. In 160 an Eastern synod rejected the heresy of the Gnostic Cerdo. f385 The Libellus Synodicus mentions, besides: a. A synod held at Rome, under Pope Telesphorus (127-139), against the currier Theodotus, the anti-Trinitarian. b. A second synod at Rome, held under Pope, Anicetus, upon the Easter question, at the tune when Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna visited the Pope. c. A third Roman synod under Victor, and which condemned Theodotus, Ebion, and Artemon. d. A fourth Roman synod, also held, under Victor, and which anathematized Sabellius and Noetus. e. Finally, a synod of the confessors of Gaul, who declared against Montanus and Maximilla in a letter addressed to the Asiatics. f386 These eight synods mentioned by the author of Praedestinatus and by the Libellus Synodicus are apparently imaginary: for, on one side, there is not a single ancient and original document which speaks of them; and on the other, the statements of these two unknown authors are either unlikely or contrary to chronology. We will instance, for example, the pretended Roman synod, presided over by Victor, which anathematized Sabellius. In admitting that the usual date, according to which Sabellius would have lived a full half-century later (about 250), may be inexact, as the Philosophoumena recently discovered have proved, yet it is clear from this document that Sabellius had not yet been excluded from the Church under Pope Zephyrinus (202-218), the successor of Victor, and that he was not excommunicated until the time of Pope Calixtus. f387 It is also impossible that Theodotus the currier should have been condemned by a Roman synod held under Telesphorus, since Theodotus lived towards the close of the second century. It is the same with the pretended Sicilian Council in 125. According to the information afforded to us by the ancients, especially S. Irenaeus and Tertullian, Heracleon changed the system of Valentine. He could not then have flourished till after 125. As to Pope Alexander, to whom this synod is said to have rendered an account of its acts in 125, he died a martyr in 119.

It is also by mistake that we have been told of a synod in which Pope Anicetus and Polycarp both took part. The interview of these two bishops has been confounded with a synod: it is the same with the pretended Synod of Gaul, held against Montanus.

The author of the Libellus Synodicus has evidently misunderstood Eusebius, who says on this subject: “The news of what had taken place in Asia on the subject of Montanus (the synod) was known to the Christians of Gaul. The latter were at that time cruelly persecuted by Marcus Aurelius; many of them were in prison. They, however, gave their opinion from their prison on the matter of Montanus, and addressed letters to their brethren of Asia, and to Eleutherus Bishop of Rome.” It will be seen that the question here is not of a synod, but of letters written by confessors (the Libellus Synodicus also mentions confessors).

Finally, a ninth council, which is said to have conveyed to the Bishop of Seleucia a patriarchal right over the whole of Assyria, Media, and Persia, is evidently an invention; and the mention of a Patriarchate on this occasion is a patent anachronism, as has been proved by Assemani in his Bibliotheque Orientale . f402 CHAPTER 2. The Synods Of The Third Century.

SEC. 4. FIRST HALF OF THE THIRD CENTURY.

THE series of synods of the third century opens with that of Carthage, to which Agrippinus bishop of that city had called the bishops of Numidia and of proconsular Africa. S. Cyprian speaks of this Synod in his seventy-first and seventy — third letters, saying that all the bishops present declared baptism administered by heretics to ‘be void; and he supports his own view on this subject by what had passed in this ancient Synod of Carthage. This Synod was probably the most ancient of Latin Africa; for Tertullian, who recalls the Greek synods as a glory, tells not of one single council being held in his country. According to Uhlhorn it was about 205, according to Hesselburg about 212, that the work of Tertullian, de Jejuniis, was composed; therefore the Synod in question must have been held either after 205 or after 212. It has not been possible up to this time to verify this date more exactly. But the newly-discovered filosofou>mena , falsely attributed to Origen, and which were probably written by Hippolytus, have given more exact dates; and Do11inger, relying upon this document, has placed the date of this Synod of Carthage between 218 and 222. The Philosophoumena relate, indeed, that the custom of rebaptizing — that is to say, of repeating the baptism of those who had been baptized by heretics — was introduced under the Bishop of Rome, Callistus (in some churches in communion with him). One can scarcely doubt but that this passage referred to Bishop Agrippinus and his Synod at Carthage; for S. Augustine and S. Vincent of Lerins say expressly that Agrippinus was the first who introduced the custom of re-baptism. The Synod of Carthage, then, took place in the time of Pope Callistus I., that is to say, between 218 and 222. This date agrees with the well-known fact that Tertullian was the first of all Christian writers who declared the baptism of heretics invalid; and it may be presumed that his book de Baptismo exerted a certain influence upon the conclusions of the Council of Carthage. It is not contradicted by the forty-sixth (forty-seventh) apostolic canon, which orders bishops, under pain of deposition, to rebaptize those who had been baptized by a heretic; for it is known that these so-called apostolic canons were composed some centuries later.

S. Cyprian speaks, in his sixty-sixth letter, of a synod held long before (jampridem) in Africa, and which had decided that a clergyman could not be chosen by a dying person as a guardian; but nothing shows that he understood by that, the synod presided over by Agrippinus, or a second African council.

The great Origen gave occasion for two synods at Alexandria. About the year 228, being called into Achaia on account of the religious troubles reigning there, Origen passed through Palestine, and was ordained priest at Caesarea by his friends Alexander Bishop of Jerusalem and Theoctistus Bishop of Caesarea, although there were two reasons for his nonadmission to holy orders: first; that he belonged to another diocese; and secondly, that he had castrated himself. It is not known what decided him or the bishops of Palestine to take this uncanonical step. Demetrius of Alexandria, diocesan bishop of Origen, was very angry with what had been done; and if we regard it from the ecclesiastical point of view, he was right. When Origen returned to Alexandria, Demetrius told him of his displeasure, and reproached him with his voluntary mutilation. But the principal grievance, without doubt, had reference to several false doctrines held by Origen: for he had then already written his book de Principiis and his Stromata, which contain those errors; and it is not necessary to attribute to the Bishop of Alexandria personal feelings of hatred and jealousy in order to understand that he should have ordered an inquiry into Origen’s opinions under the circumstances. Origen hastened to leave Alexandria of his own accord, according to Eusebius; whilst Epiphanius says, erroneously, that Origen fled because, shortly before, he had shown much weakness during a persecution. His bitterest enemies have never cast a reproach of this nature at him. Demetrius, however, assembled a synod of Egyptian bishops and priests of Alexandria in 231, who declared Origen unworthy to teach, and excluded him from the Church of Alexandria. Demetrius again presided over a second synod at Alexandria, without this time calling his priests, and Origen was declared to be deprived of the sacerdotal dignity. An encyclical letter published by Demetrius made these resolutions known in all the provinces. According to S. Jerome and Rufinus, a Roman assembly, probably called under Pope Pontian, shortly after deliberated upon this judgment; and Origen after that sent to Pope Fabian (236-250) a profession of faith, to explain and retract his errors. Several writers have thought that the word senatus must not be understood in the sense of a synod, and that we are to consider it only as an assembly of the Roman clergy. Do11inger, on the contrary, presumes that Origen had taken part in the discussions of the priest Hippolytus with Pope Callistus and his successor (Origen had learned to know Hippolytus at Rome, and he partly agreed with his opinions), and that for this reason Pontian had held a synod against Origen. A little before this period, and before the accession, of Pope Fabian, a synod was certainly held at Iconium in Asia Minor, which must have been of great authority in the controversy which was soon to begin on the subject of the baptism of heretics. Like the Synod of Cartilage, presided over by Agrippinus, that of Iconium declared every baptism conferred by a heretic to be invalid. The best information upon this Council has been furnished us by the letter which Bishop Firmilian of Caesarea in Cappadocia, who showed himself so active in this controversy, addressed to S. Cyprian. It says: “Some having raised doubts upon the validity of baptism conferred by heretics, we decided long ago, in the Council held at Iconium in Phrygia, with the Bishops of Galatia, Cilicia, and the other neighboring provinces, that the ancient practice against heretics should be maintained and held firm (not to regard baptism conferred by them).” Towards the end of the letter we read; “Among us, as more than one Church has never been recognized, so also have we never recognized as holy any but the baptism of that Church. Some having had doubts upon the validity of baptism conferred by those who receive new prophets (the Montanists), but who, however, appear to adore the same Father and the same Son as ourselves, we have assembled in great number at Iconium: we have very carefully examined the question (diligentissime tractavimus), and we have decided that all baptism administered outside the Church must be rejected.” This letter then speaks of the Council of Iconium as of a fact already old; and it says also, that it was occasioned by the question of the validity of baptism administered by Montanists. Now, as Firmilian wrote this letter about the middle of the third century, it follows that the Council of Iconium, of which he often speaks as of an ancient assembly held long before (jampridem), took place about twenty years before the writing of his letter Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, about the middle of the third. century, also says: “It is not the Africans (Cyprian) who have introduced the custom of re-baptizing heretics: this measure had been taken long before Cyprian (pro< pollou~ ), by other bishops at the Synod of Iconium and of Synnada.” In these two passages of his letter to S. Cyprian, Firmilian gives us a fresh means of fixing the date of the Synod of Iconium, saying formally several times: “We assembled ourselves at Iconium; we have examined the question; we have decreed,” etc. It results from this, that he was himself present at this Synod. On the other side, the jampridem and other similar expressions justify us in placing this Synod in the first years of Firmilian’s episcopate. Now we know from Eusebius that Firmilian flourished so early as in the time of the Emperor Alexander Severus (222-235) as Bishop of Caesarea; so that we can, with Valesius and Pagi, place the celebration of the Synod of Iconium in the years 230-235. Baronius, by a very evident error, assigns it to the year 258.

According to all probability, we must refer to the Synod of Iconium a short passage of S. Augustine, in the third chapter of his third book against Cresconius, in which he speaks of a synod composed of fifty Eastern bishops.

Dionysius the Great, Bishop of Alexandria, speaks, we have seen, not only of the Synod of Iconium, but also of a Synod of Synnada, a town also situated in Phrygia. In this Synod, he says, the baptism by heretics was also rejected. We may conclude from his words that the two assemblies took place about the same time. We have no other information on this subject. We know very little about the concilium Lambesitanum, which, says S.

Cyprian, in his fifty-fifth letter to Pope Cornelius, had been held long before in the Lambesitana Colonia (in Numidia) by ninety bishops, and condemned a heretic named Privatus (probably Bishop of Lambese) as guilty of several grave offenses.” The Roman priests also mention this Privatus in their letter to S. Cyprian; but they do, not give any further information concerning him.

A better known council was that which was held about the year 244, at Bostra in Arabia Petraea (now Bosrah and Bosserat), on account of the errors of Beryllus, bishop of this town. It is known that Berylhs belonged to the party of the Monarchians, generally called Patripassianists. This bishop held other erroneous opinions, which were peculiar to himself, and which it is now very difficult to distinguish. The attempt made by the Arabian bishops to bring back Beryllus from his errors having failed, they called in Origen to their aid, who then lived at Caesarea in Palestine. Origen came and conversed with Beryllus, first in private, then in presence of the bishops. The document containing the discussion was known to Eusebius and S. Jerome; but it was afterwards lost. Beryllus returned to the orthodox doctrine, and later expressed, it is said, his gratitude to Origen in a private letter. Another controversy was raised in Arabia about the soul, as to whether it passed away (fell asleep) with the body, to rise (awake) at the resurrection of the body. At the request of one of the great Arabian synods, as Eusebius remarks, Origen had to argue against these Hypnopsychites, and he was as successful as in the affair of Beryllus. The Libellus Synodicus adds that fourteen bishops were present at the Synod, but it does not mention, any more than Eusebius, the place where it was held.

About the same period must also have been held two Asiatic synods, on the subject of the anti-Trinitarian (Patripassian) Noetus; S. Epiphanius is the only one to mention them, and he does so without giving any detail, and without swing where they took place. The assertion of the author of Praedestinatus, that about this time a synod was held in Achaia against the Valesians, who taught voluntary mutilation, is still more doubtful, and very probably false. The very existence of this sect is doubtful.

We are on more solid historical ground when we approach the tolerably numerous synods which were celebrated, chiefly in Africa, about the middle of the third century. The letters of S. Cyprian especially acquaint us with them. He first speaks, in his sixty-sixth letter, of an assembly of his colleagues (the bishops of Africa), and of his fellow-priests (the presbyters of Carthage), and so of a Carthaginian Synod, which had to decide upon a particular case of ecclesiastical discipline. A Christian named Geminius Victor, of Furni in Africa, had on the approach of death appointed a priest named Geminius Faustinus as guardian to his children.

We have seen above, that an ancient synod of Africa, perhaps that held under Agrippinus, had forbidden that a priest should be a guardian, because a clergyman ought not to occupy himself with such temporal business. The Synod of Cartilage, held under S. Cyprian, renewed this prohibition, and ordained, in the spirit of that ancient council, that no prayers should be said or sacrifices (oblationes) offered for the deceased Victor, as he had no claim to the prayers of priests who had endeavored to take a priest from the holy altar. In the letter of which we speak, S. Cyprian gave an account of this decision to the Christians of Furni. The Benedictines of Saint Maur presume that this letter was written before the outbreak of the persecution of Decius, which would place this Synod in the year 249.

SEC. 5. FIRST SYNODS AT CARTHAGE AND ROME ON ACCOUNT OF NOVATIANISM AND THE “LAPSI” (251).

The schism of Felicissimus and the Novarian controversy soon afterwards occasioned several synods. When, in 248, S. Cyprian was elected Bishop of Carthage, there was a small party of malcontents there, composed of five priests, of whom he speaks himself in his fortieth letter. Soon after the commencement of the persecution of Decius (at the beginning of the year 250) the opposition to Cyprian became more violent, because in the interest of the discipline of the Church he would not always regard the letters of peace which some martyrs without sufficient consideration gave to the lapsi. He was accused of exaggerated severity against the fallen, and his own absence (from February 250 until the month of April or May 251) served to strengthen the party which was formed against him. An accident caused the schism to break out. Cyprian had from his retreat sent two bishops and two priests to Carthage, to distribute help to the faithful poor (many had been ruined by the persecution). The deacon Felicissimus opposed the envoys of Cyprian, perhaps because he considered the care of the poor as an exclusive right of the deacons, and because he would not tolerate special commissioners from the bishop on such a business. This took place at the end of 250, or at the beginning of 251. Felicissimus had been ordained deacon by the priest Novatus unknown to Cyprian, and without his permission, probably during his retreat. Now, besides the fact that such an ordination was contrary to all the canons of the Church, Felicissimus was personally unworthy of any ecclesiastical office, on account of his deceitfulness and his corrupt manners. Cyprian, being warned by his commissioners, excommunicated Felicissimus and some of his partisans on account of their disobedience; but the signal for revolt was given, and Felicissimus soon had with him those five priests who had been the Old adversaries of Cyprian, as well as all those who accused the bishop of being too severe with regard to the lapsi, and of despising the letters of the martyrs. These contributed to give to the opposition quite another character. Till then it had only been composed of some disobedient priests; henceforth the party took for a war-cry the severity of the bishop with regard to the lapsi. Thus not only the lapsi, but also some confessors (confessores) who had been hurt by the little regard that Cyprian showed for the libelli pacis, swelled the ranks of the revolt. It is not known whether Novatus was in the number of the five priests who were the first movers of the party. By some it is asserted, by others denied. After having in vain recalled the rebels to obedience, Cyprian returned to Carthage, a year after the festival of Easter in 251; and he wrote his book de Lapsis as a preparation for the Synod which he assembled soon afterwards, probably during the month of May 251. The Council was composed of a great number of bishops, and of some priests and deacons: he excommunicated Felicissimus and the five priests after having heard them, and at the same time set forth the principles to be followed with regard to the lapsi, after having carefully examined the passages of Scripture treating of this question, All the separate decrees upon this subject were collected into one book, which may be considered as the first penitential book which had appeared in the Church; but unfortunately it is lost. Cyprian makes us acquainted with the principal rules in his fiftysecond letter: namely, that all hope must not be taken away from the lapsed, that, in excluding them from the Church, they may not be driven to abandon the faith, and to fall back again into a life of heathenism; that, notwithstanding, a long penance must be imposed upon them, and that they must be punished proportionally to their fault It is evident, continues Cyprian, that one must act differently with those who have gone, so to speak, to meet apostasy, spontaneously taking part in the impious sacrifices, and those who have been, as it were, forced to this odious sacrilege after long struggles and cruel sufferings: so also with those who have carried with them in their crime their wife, their children, their servants, their friends, making them also share their fall, and those who have only been the victims, who have sacrificed to the gods in order to serve their families and their houses; that there should no less be a difference between the sacrificati and the libellatici, that is to say, between those who had really sacrificed to the gods, and those who, without making a formal act of apostasy, had profited by the weakness of the Roman functionaries, had seduced them, and had made them give them false attestations; that the libellatici must be reconciled immediately, but that the sacrificati must submit to a long penance, and only be reconciled as the moment of their death approached; finally, that as for the bishops and priests, they must also be admitted to penance, but not again permitted to discharge any episcopal or sacerdotal function.

Jovinus and Maximus, two bishops of the party of Felicissimus, who had been reproved before by nine bishops for having sacrificed to the gods, and for having committed abominable sacrilege, appeared before the Synod of Carthage. The Synod renewed the sentence originally given against them; but in spite of this decree, they dared again to present themselves, with several of their partisans, at the Synod of Carthage, held the following year. Cyprian and the bishops assembled around him decided to send their synodical decisions of 251 to Rome, to Pope Cornelius, to obtain his consent with regard to the measures taken against the lapsi. It was the more necessary to understand each other on the subject of these measures, as the Roman Church had also been troubled by the Novatian schism. Pope Cornelius assembled at Rome in the autumn — probably in the month of October 251 — a synod composed of sixty bishops, without counting the priests and deacons. The Synod confirmed the decrees of that of Carthage, and excommunicated Novatian and his partisans. The two authors who have preserved these facts for us are Cyprian and Eusebius. It must be remarked that several editors of the acts of the councils, and several historians, misunderstanding the original documents, have turned the two Synods of Carthage and Rome (251) into four councils. The Libellus Synodicus also speaks of another council which must have been held the same year at Antioch, again on the subject of the Novatians; but one can hardly rely on the Libellus Synodicus when it is alone in relating a fact. The Novatian schism could not be extirpated by these synods. The partisans of Felicissinus and of Novatian made great efforts to recover their position. The Novatians of Carthage even succeeded in putting at their head a bishop of their party named Maximus, and they sent many complaints to Rome on the subject of Cyprian’s pretended severity, as, on the other side, the persecution which was threatening made fresh measures necessary with regard to the lapsi. Cyprian assembled a fresh council at Carthage on the Ides of May 252, which sixty-six bishops attended. It was probably at this council that two points were discussed which were brought forward by the African Bishop Fidus. Fidus complained rat first that Therapius Bishop of Bulla (near Hippo) had received the priest Victor too soon into the communion of the Church, and without having first imposed upon him the penance he deserved. The Synod declared that it was evidently contrary to the former decisions of the councils, but that they would content themselves for this time with blaming Bishop Therapius, without declaring invalid the reconciliation of the priest Victor, which he had effected. In the second place, Fidus enunciated the opinion that infants should be baptized, not in the first days after their birth, but eight days after; to observe, with regard to baptism, the delay formerly prescribed for circumcision. The Synod unanimously condemned this opinion, declaring that they could not thus delay to confer grace on the newborn. The next principal business of the Synod was that concerning the lapsi; and the fifty-fourth letter of S. Cyprian gives us an account of what passed on this subject. The Synod, he says, on this subject decided that, considering the imminent persecution, they might immediately reconcile all those who showed signs of repentance, in order to prepare them for the battle by means of the holy sacraments: Idoneus esse non potest ad martyrium qui ab Ecclesia non armatur ad praelium. In addressing its synodical letter to Pope Cornelius (it is the fifty-fourth of S. Cyprian’s letters), the Council says formally: Placuit nobis, sancto Spiritu suggerente, The heretic Privatus, of the colonia Lambesitana, probably bishop of that town, who, as we have seen, had been condemned, again appeared at the Council; but he was not admitted, Neither would they admit Bishops Jovinus and Maximus, partisans of Felicissimus, and condemned as he was; nor the false Bishop Felix, consecrated by Privatus after he became a heretic, who came with him. They then united themselves with the fallen bishop Repostus Saturnicensis, who had sacrificed during the persecution, and they gave the priest Fortunatus as bishop to the lax party at Carthage. He had been one of S. Cyprian’s five original adversaries.

A short tune after, a new synod assembled at Carthage on the subject of the Spanish bishops Martial and Basilides. Both had been deposed for serious faults, especially for having denied the faith. Basilides had judged himself to be unworthy of the episcopal dignity, and declared himself satisfied if, after undergoing his penance, he might be received into lay communion. Martial had also confessed his fault; but after some time they both appealed to Rome, and by means of false accounts they succeeded in gaining over Pope Stephen, who demanded that Basilides should be replaced in his bishopric, although Sabinus had been already elected to succeed him. Several Spanish bishops seem to have supported the pretensions of Basilides and Martial, and placed themselves, it appears, on their side; but the Churches of Leon, of Asturia, and of Emerita, wrote on this subject to the African bishops, and sent two deputies to them — Bishops Sabinus and Felix, probably the elected successors of Basilides and Martial. Felix Bishop of Saragossa supported them with a private letter. S.

Cyprian then assembled a council composed of thirty-seven bishops; and we possess the synodical letter of the assembly, in his sixty-eighth epistle, in which the deposition of Martial and Basilides is confirmed, the election of their successors is declared to be legitimate, and regular, the bishops who had spoken in favor of the deposed bishops are censured, and the people are instructed to enter into ecclesiastical communion with their successors. SEC. 6. SYNODS RELATIVE TO THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS (255-256).

To these synods concerning the lapsi, succeeded three African councils on the subject of baptism by heretics. We have seen that three former councils — that of Carthage, presided over by Agrippinus; two of Asia Minor, that of Iconium, presided over by, Firmilian, and that of Synnada, held at the same period — had declared that baptism conferred by heretics was invalid. This principle, and the consequent practice in Asia Minor, would appear to have occasioned, towards the end of the year 253, a conflict between Pope Stephen and the bishops of Asia Minor, Helenus of Tarus and Firmilian of Caesarea, sustained by all the bishops of Cilicia, of Cappadocia, and the neighboring provinces; so that Stephen, according to Dionysius the Great, threatened these bishops with excommunication because they repeated the baptism conferred by heretics. Dionysius the Great mediated with the Pope in favor of the bishops of Asia Minor; and the letter which he wrote prevented their being excluded from the Church. The first sentence of this letter would even allow it to be supposed that peace was completely re-established, and that the bishops of Asia Minor had conformed to the demand of the Pope. However, later on, Firmilian is again found in opposition to Rome.

The Easterns then stirred up the controversy on the baptism of heretics before S. Cyprian; and when Eusebius says, prw~tov tw~n to>te Kupriano>v k.t.l. , this passage must be thus understood: Cyprian was the most important, and in this sense the first, of those who demanded the rebaptism of heretics. Let us now turn our attention to Africa, and particularly to S. Cyprian.

Some African bishops being of the opinion that those who abandoned heretical sects to enter the Church must not be re-baptized, eighteen bishops of Numidia, who held a different opinion, and rejected baptism by heretics, asked of the Synod of Carthage of 255 if it were necessary to re-baptize those who had been baptized by heretics or schismatics, when they entered the Church. At this Synod, presided over by S. Cyprian, there were twenty-one bishops present: the seventieth epistle of Cyprian is nothing but the answer of the Synod to the eighteen Numidian bishops. It declares “that their opinion about the baptism of heretics is perfectly right; for no one can be baptized out of the Church, seeing there is only one baptism which is in the Church,” etc.

Shortly afterwards, Cyprian being again consulted on the same question by Quintus, bishop in Mauritania, who sent him the priest Lucian, sent in answer the synodical letter of the Council which had just separated; and besides, in a private letter joined to this official document, he stated his personal opinion on the validity of the baptism of heretics, and answered some objections. All the bishops of Africa were probably not satisfied with these decisions; and some time after, about 256, Cyprian saw himself obliged to assemble a second and larger council at Carthage, at which no fewer than seventy-one bishops were present. S. Cyprian relates that they treated of a multitude of questions, but the chief point was the baptism of heretics.

The synodical letter of this great assembly, addressed to Pope Stephen, forms S. Cyprian’s seventieth letter. The Council also sent to the Pope the letter of the preceding Synod to the eighteen Numidian bishops, as well as the letter of S. Cyprian to Quintus, and reiterated the assertion “that whoso abandoned a sect ought to be re-baptized;” adding, “that it was not sufficient (parum est) to lay hands on such converts ad accipiendum Spiritum sanctum, if they did not also receive the baptism of the Church.”

The same Synod decided that those priests and deacons who had abandoned the catholic Church for any of the sects, as well as those who had been ordained by the sectarian false bishops, on re-entering the Church, could only be admitted into lay communion (communio laicalis).

At the end of their letter, the Synod express the hope that these decisions would obtain Stephen’s approval: they knew, besides, they said, that many do not like to renounce an opinion which has once been. adopted; and more than one bishop, without breaking with his colleagues, will doubtless be tempted to persevere in the custom which he had embraced. Besides this, it is not the intention of the Synod to do violence to any one, or to prescribe a universal law, seeing that each bishop can cause his will to be paramount in the administration of his Church, and will have to render an account of it to God. “These words,” Mattes has remarked, “betray either the desire which the bishops of Africa had to see Stephen produce that agreement by his authority, which did not yet exist, and which was not easy to establish; or else their apprehensions, because they knew that there was a practice at Rome which did not accord with the opinion of Cyprian.”

This last was, in fact, the ease; for Pope Stephen was so little pleased with the decisions of the Council of Carthage, that he did not allow the deputies of the African bishops to appear before him, refused to communicate with them, forbade all the faithful to receive them into their houses, and did not hesitate to call S. Cyprian a false Christian, a false apostle, a deceitful workman (dolesus operarius). This is at least what Firmilian relates. Pope Stephen then pronounced very explicitly, in opposition to the Africans, for the validity of the baptism of heretics, and against the custom of repeating the baptism of those who had already received it from heretics.

The letter which he wrote on this occasion to Cyprian has unfortunately been lost, and therefore iris complete argument is unknown to us; but Cyprian and Firmilian have preserved some passages of the letter of Stephen in their writings, and it is these short fragments, with the comments of Cyprian and Firmilian, which must serve to make known to us with some certainty the view of Stephen on the baptism of heretics.

It is commonly admitted that S. Cyprian answered this violence of Stephen’s by assembling the third Council of Carthage; but it is also possible that this assembly took place before the arrival of the letter from Rome. It was composed of eighty-seven bishops (two were represented by one proxy, Natalis Bishop of Oea) from proconsular Africa, from Numidia, and from Mauritania, and of a great number of priests and of deacons. A multitude of the laity were also present at the Synod. The acts of this Synod, which still exist, inform us that it opened on the 1st September, but the year is not indicated. It is probable that it was in 256. First was read the letter of the African Bishop Jubaianus to Cyprian on the baptism of heretics, and. the answer of Cyprian; then a second letter from Jubaianus, in which he declared himself now brought to Cyprian’s opinion. The Bishop of Carthage then asked each bishop present freely to express his opinion on the baptism of heretics: he declared that no one would be judged or excommunicated for differences of opinion; for, added he, no one in the assembly wished to consider himself as episcopus episcoporum, or thought to oblige his colleagues to yield to him, by inspiring them with a tyrannical fear (perhaps this was an allusion to Pope Stephen). Thereupon the bishops gave their votes in order, Cyprian the last, all declaring that baptism given by heretics was invalid, and that, in order to admit them into the Church, it was necessary to re-baptize those who had been baptized by heretics.

About the same time Cyprian sent the deacon Rogatian with a letter to Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea, to tell him how the question about the baptism of heretics had been decided in Africa. He communicated to him at the same time, it appears, the acts and documents which treated of this business. Firmilian hastened to express, in a letter still extant, his full assent to Cyrian’s principles. This letter of Firmilian’s forms No. 75 of the collection of the letters of S. Cyprian: its contents are only, in general, an echo of what S. Cyprian had set forth in defense of his own opinion, and in opposition to Stephen; only in Firmilian is seen a much greater violence and passion against Stephen, — so much so, that Molkenbuhr, Roman Catholic Professor at Paderb0rn, has thought that a letter so disrespectful towards the Pope could not be genuine. We are entirely ignorant of what then passed between Cyprian and Stephen, but it is certain that church communion was not interrupted between them. The persecution which soon afterwards broke out against the Christians under the Emperor Valerian, in 257, probably appeased the controversy. Pope Stephen died as a martyr during this persecution, in the month of August 257. His successor Xystus received from Dionysius the Great, who had already acted as mediator in this controversy on the baptism of heretics, three letters in which the author earnestly endeavored to effect a reconciliation; the Roman priest Philemon also received one from Dionysius. These attempts were crowned with success; for Pontius, Cyprian’s deacon and biographer, calls Pope Xystus bonus et pacificus sacerdos, and the name of this. Pope was written in the diptychs of Africa. The eighty-second letter of Cyprian also proves that the union between Rome and Carthage was not interrupted, since Cyprian sent a deputation to Rome during the persecution, to obtain information respecting the welfare of the Roman Church, that of Pope Xystus, and in general about the progress of the persecution. Soon after, on the 14th September 258, Cyprian himself fell, in his turn, a victim to the persecution of Valerian.

It remains for us now, in order fully to understand the controversy on the baptism of heretics, to express with greater precision the opinions and assertions of Cyprian and Stephen. 1 . We must ask, first of all, which of the two had Christian antiquity on his side. a. Cyprian says, in his seventy-third letter: “The custom of baptizing heretics who enter the Church is no innovation amongst us: for it is now many years since, under the episcopate of Agrippinus of holy memory, a great number of bishops settled this question in a synod; and since then, up to our days, thousands of heretics have received baptism without difficulty.” Cyprian, then, wishing to demonstrate the antiquity of his custom, could not place it earlier than Agrippinus, that is to say, than the commencement of the third century (about 220 years after Christ); and his own words, especially the “since then” (exinde), show that it was Agrippinus who introduced this custom into Africa. b. In another passage of the same letter, Cyprian adds: “Those who forbid the baptism of heretics, having been conquered by our reasons (ratione), urge against us the custom of antiquity (qui ratione vincuntur, consuetudinem nobis opponunt ).” If Cyprian had been able to deny that the practice of his adversaries was the most ancient, he would have said: “They are wrong if they appeal to antiquity (consuetudo); it is evidently for us.” But Cyprian says nothing of the kind: he acknowledges that his adversaries have antiquity on their side, and he only tries to take its force from this fact, by asking, “Is antiquity, then, more precious than truth? (quasi consuetudo major sit vetitate );” and by adding, “In spiritual things we must observe what the Holy Spirit has (afterwards)more fully revealed (id in spiritualibus sequendum, quod in melius fuerit a Spiritu sancto revelatum ).” He acknowledges, therefore, in his practice a progress brought about by the successive revelations of the Holy Spirit. c. In a third passage of this letter, S. Cyprian acknowledges, if possible more plainly, that it was not the ancient custom to re-baptize those who had been baptized by heretics. “This objection,” he says, “may be made to me: What has become of those who in past times entered the Church from heresy, without having been baptized?” He acknowledges, then, that in the past, in parceteritum, converts from heresy were not re-baptized. Cyprian makes answer to this question: “Divine mercy may well come to their aid; but because one has erred once, it is no reason for continuing to err (non tamen, quia aliquando erratum est, ideo semper errandum est).” That is to say, formerly converts were not rebaptized; but it was a mistake, and for the future the Holy Spirit has revealed what is best to be done (in melius a Spiritu sancto revelatum). d. When Pope Stephen appealed to tradition, Cyprian did not answer by denying the fact: he acknowledges it; but he seeks to diminish the value of it, by calling this tradition a human tradition, and not legitimate (humana traditio, non legitima). e. Firmilian also maintained that the tradition to which Stephen appealed was purely human, and he added that the Roman Church had also in other points swerved from the practice of the primitive Church — for example, in the celebration of Easter. This example, however, was not well chosen, since the Easter practice of the Roman Church dates back to the prince of the apostles. f. Firmilian says, in another passage of this same letter, that it was anciently the custom also in the African Churches not to re-baptize the converts: “You Africans,” he says, “can answer Stephen, that having found the truth, you have renounced the error of your (previous) custom (vos dicere Afri potestis, cognita veritate errorem vos consuetudinis reliquisse).” Nevertheless, Firmilian thought that it was otherwise in Asia Minor, and that the custom of re-baptizing converts was traced back to a very far-off period; but when he wishes to give the proof of it, he only finds this one: “We do not remember (!) when this practice began amongst us.” He appeals, in the last place, to the Synod of Iconinto, which we know was not held until about the year 230. g. It is worthy of remark, that even in Africa all the bishops did not pronounce in favor of the necessity of a fresh baptism, which would certainly have been the case if the practice of Agrippinus and Cyprian had always prevailed in Africa. h. A very important testimony in favor of Stephen, and one which proves that the ancient custom was not to re-baptize, is given by the anonymous author of the book de Rebabtismate, a contemporary and probably a colleague of Cyprian. This author says that the practice maintained by Stephen, that of simply laying hands on the converts without re-baptizing them, is consecrated by antiquity and by ecclesiastical tradition (vetustissima consuetudine ac traditione ecclesiastica), consecrated as an ancient, memorable, and solemn observance by all the saints, and all the faithful (prisca et memorabilis cunctorum emeritorum sanctorum, et fidelium solemnissima observatio), which has in its favor the authority of all the churches (auctoritas omnium, Ecclesiarum,), but from which unhappily some have departed, from the mania for innovations. i. S. Vincent of Lerins agrees with the author we have just quoted, when he says that Agrippinus of Carthage was the first who introduced the custom of re-.baptizing, contra divinum, canonem, contra universalis Ecclesiae regulam, contra morem atque instituta majorum; but that Pope Stephen condemned the innovation and re-established the, tradition, retenta est antiquitas, explosa novitas. k. S. Augustine also believes that the custom of not re-baptizing heretics is an apostolical tradition (credo ex apostolica traditione venientem), and that it was Agrippinus who was the first to abolish this very safe custom (saluberrima consuetudo), without succeeding in replacing it by a better custom, as Cyprian thought. l. But the gravest testimony in this question is that of the Philosophoumena, in which Hippolytus, who wrote about 230, affirms that the custom of re-baptizing was only admitted under Pope Callistus, consequently between 218 and 222. m. Before arriving at the conclusion to be deduced from all these proofs, it remains for us to examine some considerations which appear to point in an opposite direction. (a .) In his book de Baptismo, which he wrote when he was still a Catholic, and before this work in a Greek document, Tertullian shows that he did not believe in the validity of baptism conferred by heretics. But, on considering it attentively, we find that he was not speaking of all baptism by heretics, but only of the baptism of those who had another God and another Christ. Besides, we know that Tertullian is always inclined to rigorism, and he certainly is so on this point; and then, living at Carthage at the commencement of the third century, being consequently a contemporary of Agrippinus, perhaps even being one of his clergy, he naturally inclined to resolve this question as Agrippinus resolved it, and his book de Baptismo perhaps exerted an influence upon the resolutions of the Synod of Carthage. Also Tertullian does not pretend that it was the primitive custom of the Church to re-baptize: his words rather indicate that he thought the contrary. He says, Sed circa haereticos sane quid custodiendum sit, digne quis retractet; that is to say, “It would be useful if some one would study afresh (or examine more attentively) what ought to be done about heretics, that is to say, in relation to their baptism.” (b ).Dionysius the Great says, in a passage which Eusebius has preserved: “The Africans were not the first to introduce this practice (that of re-baptizing converts): it is more ancient; it was authorized by bishops who lived much earlier, and in populous Churches.” However, as he only mentions the Synods of Iconium and of Synnada before the Africans, his expression much earlier can only refer to these assemblies, and he adduces no earlier testimony for the practice of Cyprian. (g ).Clement of Alexandria certainly speaks very disdainfully of baptism by heretics, and calls it a foreign water; he does not, however, say that they were in the habit of renewing this baptism. (d ).The Apostolical Canons 45 and 46 (or 46 and 47, according to another order) speak of the non-validity of baptism by heretics; but the question is to know what is the date of these two canons: perhaps they are contemporary with the Synods of Iconium and of Synnada, perhaps even more recent. We are hardly able to doubt, then, that in the ancient Church, those who returned to the orthodox faith, after having been baptized by heretics, were not re-baptized, if they had received baptism in the name of the Trinity, or of Jesus. 2 . Let us see now whether Pope Stephen considered as valid baptism conferred by all heretics, without any exception or condition. We know that the Synod of Arles in 314, as well as the Council of Trent, teaches that the baptism of heretics is valid only when it is administered in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Were the opinions and assertions of Stephen agreeable to this doctrine of the Church?

At first sight Stephen appears to have gone too far, and to have admitted all baptism by heretics, in whatever manner it was conferred. His chief proposition, as we read it in S. Cyprian, is expressed in these terms: Si quis ergo a quacunque haeresi venerit ad nos, nil innovetur nisi quod traditum est, ut manus illi imponatur in paenitentiam. He seems, then, to declare valid all baptism by heretics, in whatever manner it might have been administered, with or without the formula of the Trinity. Cyprian argues, in a measure, as if he understood Stephen’s proposition in this sense. However, a. From several passages in the letters of S. Cyprian, we see that Pope Stephen did not thus understand it. (a .) Thus (Epist. 73, p. 130) Cyprian says: “Those who forbid the baptism of heretics lay great stress upon this, that even those who had been baptized by Marcion were not re-baptized, because they had already been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” Thus Cyprian acknowledges, that Stephen, and those who think with him, attribute no value to the baptism of heretics, except it be administered in the name of Jesus Christ. (b .) Cyprian acknowledges in the same letter (p. 133), that heretics baptize in nomine Christi. (g .) Again, in this letter, he twice repeats that his adversaries considered as sufficient baptism administered out of the Church, but administered is nomine Christi. (d .) Cyprian, in answering this particular question — -if baptism by the Marcionites is valid — acknowledges that they baptize in the name of the Trinity; but he remarks that, trader the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, they understand something different from what the Church understands. This argument leads us to conclude that the adversaries of S. Cyprian considered baptism by the Marcionites to be valid, because they conferred it in the name of the Trinity. b. Firmilian also gives testimony on the side of Stephen. (a.) He relates, indeed, that about twenty-two years before he had baptized a woman in his own country who professed to be a prophetess, but who, in fact, was possessed by an evil spirit. Now, he asks, would Stephen and his partisans approve even of the baptism which she had received, because it had been administered with the formula of the Trinity (maxime cui nec symbolum Trinitatis defuit)? (b .) In the same letter Firmilian sums up Stephen’s opinion in these terms: In multum proficit nomen Christi ad fidem et baptismi sanctificationem, ut quicungue et ubicunque in nomine Christi baptizatus fucrit, consequatur statim gratiam Christi. c. If, then, Cyprian and Firmilian affirm that Pope Stephen held baptism to be valid only when conferred in the name of Christ, we have no need to have recourse to the testimony either of S. Jerome, or of S.

Augustine, or of S. Vincent of Lerins, who also affirm it. d. The anonymous author of the book de Rebaptismate, who was a contemporary even of S. Cyprian, begins his work with these words: “There has been a dispute as to the manner in which it is right to act towards those who have been baptized by heretics, but still in the name of Jesus Christ: qui in haeresi quidem, sed in nomine Dei nostri Jesu Christi, sint tincti.” e. It may again be asked if Stephen expressly required that the three divine Persons should be named in the administration of baptism, and if he required it as a condition sine qua non, or if he considered baptism as valid when given only in the name of Jesus Christ. S. Cyprian seems to imply that the latter was the sentiment of Pope Stephen, but he does not positively say so anywhere; and if he had said it, nothing could have been legitimately concluded against Pope Stephen, for Cyprian likes to take the words of his adversaries in their worst sense. What we have gathered (a d and b a ) tends to prove that Pope Stephen regarded the formula of the Trinity as necessary. Holy Scripture had introduced the custom of calling by the short phrase, baptism in the name of Christ, all baptism which was conferred in virtue of faith in Jesus Christ, and conformably to His precepts, consequently in the name of the Holy Trinity, as is seen in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistle to the Romans. It is not, then, astonishing that Pope Stephen should have used an expression which was perfectly intelligible at that period. f. In this discussion Pope Stephen seems to believe that all the heretics of his time used the true formula of baptism, consequently the same formula among themselves, and the same as the Church. tie declares this opinion deafly in these words, adduced from his letter by Firmilian: Stephanus in sua epistola dixit: haereticos quoque ipsos in baptismo convenire; and it was on this account, added the Pope, that the heretics did not re-baptize those who passed from one sect to another. To speak thus, was certainly to affirm that all the sects agreed in administering baptism with the formula prescribed by our Lord.

S. Cyprian also attributes to Pope Stephen words which can be explained very well if we study them with reference to those quoted by Firmilian.

According to S. Cyprian, Stephen had said: “We must not re-baptize those who have been baptized by heretics, cure ipsi haretici proprie alterutrum ad se venientes non baptizent;” that is to say, the different sects have not a special baptism of their own (proprie non baptizent): and it is for this reason that heretics do not re-baptize” those who pass from one sect to another. Now if the different sects have not special baptism, if they baptize in the same way — conveniunt in baptismo — as Firmilian makes Pope Stephen affirm, they hold necessarily the universal and primitive mode of Christian baptism; consequently they use the formula of the Trinity.

It is difficult to say whether, in admitting this hypothesis, Stephen fails into an historical error: for, on one side, S. Irenaeus accuses the Gnostics of having falsified the baptismal formula, and of having used different erroneous formulas; and consequently he contradicts Stephen; and, on the other side, S. Augustine appears to agree with him, saying: Facilius inveniuntur haeretici qui omnino non baptizent quam qui non, illis verbis (in nomine Patris, etc.) baptizent. g. We may be inclined to make an objection against Stephen on the subject of the Montanists. There is no doubt, in fact, that Stephen considered the baptism of these heretics to be valid, while the Church afterwards declared it to be of no value. But Stephen’s opinion is not in this contrary to the doctrine of the Church; neither did the Council of Nicaea (can. 19) mention the Montanists among those whose baptism it rejected. It could not do so any more than Stephen; for it was not until long after the time of Stephen and of the Council of Nicaea that a degenerate sect of Montanists fell away into formal anti- Trinitarianism. 3 . It remains for us to understand what, according to Stephen’s opinion, was to lie done with the converts after their reception into the Church.

These are Stephen’s words on this subject: Si quis ergo a quacumque haeresi venerit ad nos, nil innovetur nisi guod traditum est, ut manus illi imponatur in paenitentiam. There is a sense which is often given to this passage, as follows: “No innovation shall be made; only what is conformable to tradition shall be observed; hands shall be laid on the convert in sign of penitence.” But this interpretation is contrary to grammatical rules. If Stephen had wished to speak in this sense, he would have said: Nihil innovetur, sed quod traditum est observetur, etc. Hence Mattes translates the words of Stephen thus: “Nothing shall be changed (as regards the convert) but what it is according to