Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 25 part 9/16

But through those things which we have already said in such number, it appears clearly, as I judge, and is certain that the baptism of Christ cannot be violated even by the perversity of heretics, when among them it is given and received. But even if it be not yet certain, at least whoever, retaining what has been said, will have considered it, confesses that it is still doubtful. We therefore do not resist the most manifest truth, but either contend on behalf of a manifest truth, as I think, or at least—as those may suppose who deem this question not yet solved—we are still seeking the truth.

And therefore, if the matter stands otherwise than we say, with the same simplicity we receive those baptized by heretics, with which those received them whom Cyprian, for the sake of unity, presumed to attain to pardon. But if the baptism of Christ—as the many things already said indicate—can be intact even in one whose life or faith is not intact, whether of those who seem to be within and yet do not belong to the members of that one dove, or of those who so do not belong to it that they are even openly outside: then those who in those times repeated it merited the same pardon for the sake of the charity of unity, which Cyprian believed those to have merited, for the sake of such charity, whom he judged to have been admitted without baptism.

These men, therefore, who—no cause existing (since, as the same Cyprian shows, evil men cannot harm the good in unity)—cut themselves off from the charity of that same unity, have lost all place for any pardon; and those who would perish by the very wickedness of schism, even if they did not rebaptize after the Catholic Church, of what punishment are they worthy who either attempt to give to Catholics, who have it, that which Cyprian affirms they do not have, or—as the matter itself makes manifest—accuse the Catholic Church of not having that which they themselves also have!

But because now, as I had begun to say, we have undertaken to converse with the letters of Cyprian, I would not seem, as I think, even to him, if he were present, to struggle obstinately and stubbornly against brethren and fellow-priests on behalf of heretics, since he would grasp these great considerations which move us—why we should believe that even among heretics, perverse in their own malignant error, the baptism of Christ can nevertheless in itself be most reverend and most holy.

And since he himself also testifies—whose testimony is of great weight to us—that such were customarily admitted in time past, whoever, moved by his discourse, does not doubt that heretics are to be baptized anew, let him deem those, to whom this has not yet been persuaded on account of the great things which are alleged against it, to be such as were in time past those who admitted persons baptized in heresy—their own error alone being corrected—simply, and were able with them to be saved through the bond of unity.

But whoever understands—both by the past custom of the Church, and by the later strength of a plenary council, and by so many and so great testimonies of the holy Scriptures, and by many documents of Cyprian himself, and by clear reasonings of the truth—that the baptism of Christ, consecrated by evangelical words, is not made perverse by the perversity of any man whatsoever, let him understand that by the same bond of unity those could have been saved to whom, with charity preserved, it then seemed otherwise.

And through this it must at the same time be understood that those whom no tares, no chaff—if they themselves had been willing to be wheat—could have defiled in the fellowship of the Church spread throughout the whole world, and who therefore, with no cause existing, tore themselves away from that same bond of unity: whichever of those two things be true, whether what Cyprian then held, or what the universality of the Catholic Church—from which he did not withdraw—maintained, these men, established most openly outside, in the manifest sacrilege of schism, cannot be saved; and all that they have of the divine sacraments and of the liberality of the one lawful Husband, so long as they are such, avails rather to their confusion than to their salvation.

Wherefore, even if the heretics were truly willing, once their error was corrected, to come to the Church on this account—because they supposed that they did not possess baptism unless they received it in the Catholic Church—not even so ought we to consent to a repetition of baptism for them; rather they should be taught that the integrity of baptism does not profit their perversity if they refuse to be corrected, that the integral baptism was not violated by their perversity so long as they refused to be corrected, and that it is not the case that, because they wish to be corrected, a better baptism comes to be in them, but rather that they themselves depart from their malignity, and that the very thing which before was in them unto ruin now begins to profit unto salvation.

For when they learn these things, they will both desire salvation in Catholic unity, and will not reckon as their own what belongs to Christ, and will not mingle the sacrament of truth—though set within them—with their own error.

To this may be added that men, by some hidden inspiration of God I know not what, so detest it if anyone should receive again a baptism which he had already received anywhere, that these very heretics, when they dispute about it, rub their brows for shame; and nearly all their laity, who have grown old among them and have conceived a spirited obstinacy against the Catholic Church, confess that this alone displeases them there; and many who, for the sake of gaining certain worldly advantages or avoiding disadvantages, wish to go over to them, strive by hidden efforts that this be granted them as a kind of special and private favour, namely that they not be rebaptized; and not a few, though believing the rest of the heretics' empty errors and false accusations against the Catholic Church, are held back by this one thing, so that they are unwilling to join them, lest they be compelled to be rebaptized.

Fearing this sentiment of men, which utterly takes hold of all hearts, these Donatists chose rather to receive the baptism which was given among the Maximianists whom they had condemned, and in that way to cut off their own tongues and stop up their own mouths, rather than to baptize anew so many men of the peoples of Musti and Assuras and other congregations, whom together with Felician and Praetextatus and the rest of those condemned by them and returning to them they took back. For when this is done rarely, in individual cases, amid great intervals of place and time, the horror of the deed is not so keenly felt.

But if suddenly there were gathered together those whom over so long a time the aforementioned Maximianists had baptized—whether under the pressing perils of death or during the paschal solemnities—and it were said to them that they must be baptized again, since what they had received in the sacrilege of schism was nothing, then indeed there would be said that which the obstinacy of their error would compel them to say, so that by some false shadow of constancy they might screen the rigor and ice of their hardness against the warmth of truth.

But because they could not bear this, and because not even those who did it could tolerate that it should be done to so many men—especially since these same men, in the party of Primian, would be rebaptizing those whom in the party of Maximian they had already baptized—the baptism of those was accepted and the swelling pride of these was cut short. This they would in no way choose to have happen, unless they judged that the horror men feel at a repeated washing was more opposed to them than the consideration of a lost defense.

I have not said this because we ought to be deterred by human sentiment, if truth compelled that those coming from heretics be baptized anew; but because the holy Cyprian says that by this very thing the heretics could have been the more driven to the necessity of coming over, if they were baptized again in the Catholic Church—for this reason I wished to call to mind how great a horror of this deed lies embedded in almost all minds; a horror which I would believe to have been divinely infused, so that against whatever disputations the weak cannot resolve, the Church might be fortified by that very horror. Truly, when I consider Cyprian's very words, I am prompted to say certain things much needed for settling a question of this kind.

For he says: 'If they see that it is decreed and established by our judgment and sentence, that the baptism by which they are baptized there be reckoned just and lawful, they will suppose that they justly and lawfully possess the Church too and the other gifts of the Church.' He does not say: 'they will suppose that they possess the gifts of the Church,' but: 'that they possess them justly and lawfully.' We, however, grant that they possess baptism, but not justly and lawfully; yet we cannot say that they do not possess it, since we recognize the Lord's sacrament in the words of the Gospel. Therefore they have a lawful baptism, but they do not have it lawfully.

For whoever has it both in Catholic unity and living worthily thereof, has it both as lawful and lawfully; but whoever has it either within the Catholic Church itself, like chaff mingled with the wheat, or outside, like chaff carried off by the wind—he indeed has a lawful baptism, but not lawfully; for he has it just as he uses it. And he does not use it lawfully who uses it against the law, which everyone does who, once baptized, lives in ruin, whether within or without. Wherefore, just as the Apostle said concerning the law: 'The law is good, if a man use it lawfully,' so concerning baptism we can rightly say: 'Baptism is good, if a man use it lawfully.'

And just as those who did not use it lawfully did not then make the law not to be good, or not to exist at all, so in no way does anyone who does not use it lawfully—whether because he lives in heresy or because he lives in the worst morals—make baptism not to be good, or baptism not to exist at all. And therefore, when he is converted either to Catholic unity or to a life worthy of so great a sacrament, he does not begin to have another lawful baptism, but he begins to have that very same one lawfully. Nor does the remission of the irrevocable sins follow upon baptism, unless it be held not only as lawful, but also lawfully.

Nevertheless, if it be not held lawfully, and sins be either not remitted or, once remitted, be brought back again, the sacrament of baptism in the baptized will not on that account be either evil or nothing. For just as Judas, to whom the Lord handed the morsel, gave place to the devil within himself not by receiving something evil but by receiving it wickedly, so whoever takes the Lord's sacrament unworthily does not bring it about, either that, because he himself is evil, the sacrament is evil, or that, because he receives it not unto salvation, he has received nothing. For the body of the Lord and the blood of the Lord were no less such even to those to whom the Apostle said: 'He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.'

Let the heretics therefore not seek in the Catholic Church what they have, but what they do not have—that is, the end of the commandment, without which many holy things can be possessed, but cannot profit. Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart and a good conscience and unfeigned faith. But as for the sacrament of the laver, let them hasten to the unity and truth of the Catholic Church, not that they may have it—if they are already washed by that same laver, even though in heresy—but that they may have it salutarily. And now we must see what may be said concerning the baptism of John.

For we read in the Acts of the Apostles that those who had already been baptized with John's baptism were baptized by Paul for no other reason than that John's baptism was not Christ's baptism, but one granted to John by Christ, which was properly called John's—just as the same John says: 'A man can receive nothing, unless it be given him from heaven.' And lest perchance it should seem that he had thus received it from God the Father in such a way that he did not receive it from the Son, speaking again of Christ himself he says: 'Of his fulness have we all received.' Now John received this by the grace of a certain dispensation, not to endure long, but only so far as sufficed to prepare the way for the Lord, whose forerunner he was appointed to be.

For as the Lord was about to enter it humbly, and to lead to excellence those who humbly followed him, so, just as he washed the feet of his servants, he willed to be washed with a servant's baptism.

For just as he subjected himself to the feet of those whom he himself was directing, so he subjected himself to John's office, which he himself had bestowed—so that all might understand with how great a sacrilege of pride anyone would despise the baptism which he ought to receive from the Lord, when the Lord himself had received a baptism which he himself had furnished, that he might give it to his servant as the servant's own; and that, whereas John, than whom none greater has arisen among those born of women, bore so great a testimony to Christ that he confessed himself unworthy to loose the latchet of his sandal, Christ, both by receiving his baptism, was found the most humble among men, and, by taking away all place from his baptism, was believed to be the most high God—the same being both the teacher of humility and the giver of loftiness.

For to none of the prophets, to no man at all, do we read in the divine Scriptures that it was granted to baptize in the water of repentance unto the remission of sins—which was granted to John, by which marvelous grace, drawing the hearts of the peoples to himself, he might prepare in them a way for him whom he proclaimed to be so much greater than himself. But the Lord Jesus Christ cleanses the Church with such a baptism that, when it is received, no other is required; whereas John baptized beforehand with such a baptism that, when it was received, the Lord's baptism was still necessary—not that the former be repeated, but that to those who had received John's baptism there might also be handed on the baptism of Christ, for whom John was preparing the way.

For if the humility of Christ were not to be commended, there would have been no need of John's baptism; again, if the end were in John, there would have been no need of Christ's baptism after John's baptism. But because Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to everyone that believes, by John was pointed out the one toward whom men should press on, and in him, once he is reached, one abides. The same John, therefore, both proclaimed the loftiness of the Lord, when he set him far above himself, and his humility, when he baptized him as though the lowliest. But if John had baptized Christ alone, John would be thought the dispenser of a better baptism, with which Christ himself alone was washed, than is Christ's, with which Christians are washed.

And again, if it were necessary that all be baptized first with John's baptism and then with Christ's, Christ's baptism would deservedly seem less full and less perfect, as not sufficing unto salvation. Wherefore the Lord was both baptized with John's baptism, that he might bend the proud necks of men to his saving baptism, and was not baptized with that baptism alone, lest by this very thing he should show that the former was superior, in that he alone had merited to be baptized with it; and he did not allow it to continue beyond that point, lest this one baptism, with which he himself baptizes, should seem to need another going before it.

I ask therefore: if sins were remitted by John's baptism, what more could be conferred by the baptism of Christ upon those whom the Apostle Paul, after John's baptism, willed to be baptized with Christ's baptism? But if sins were not remitted by John's baptism, were then those men better than John who lived in Cyprian's times, of whom he himself says that they seized estates by treacherous frauds and increased their gains by multiplying usury—yet when these baptized, remission of sins came about? Or was it because the unity of the Church held them? What then? Was John not in unity—that friend of the bridegroom, the preparer of the Lord's way and the baptizer of the Lord himself? Who, most demented, would say this?

Wherefore, although I so believe that John baptized in the water of repentance unto the remission of sins, that to those baptized by him sins were remitted in hope, while in the reality itself it came to pass in the Lord's baptism—just as the resurrection which is awaited at the end has already been wrought in us in hope, as the Apostle says, that 'he hath raised us up together and hath made us to sit together in the heavenly places,' and the same says: 'For by hope we were saved'—for John himself too, when he says: 'I indeed baptize you in the water of repentance unto the remission of sins,' seeing the Lord, says:

'Behold the Lamb of God, behold him that taketh away the sins of the world'—yet, lest anyone should contend that sins were remitted even in John's baptism, but that some fuller sanctification was conferred through the baptism of Christ upon those whom Paul commanded to be baptized anew, I do not contend pugnaciously. For that which most pertains to the present matter is to be considered: in whatever way the baptism of John may stand—since it is manifest that it pertains to the unity of Christ—what cause brought it about that after holy John men had to be baptized, and after avaricious bishops they did not have to be. For no one denies that in the Lord's field John was wheat and, if it can be no more, wheat in a hundredfold abundance;

likewise no one doubts that avarice, which is the service of idols, is reckoned among the chaff in the Lord's harvest. Why then, after the wheat, is one baptized, and after the chaff, one is not baptized? If Paul baptized after John because he was better than John, why did not Cyprian too baptize after his usurer colleagues, than whom he was better beyond comparison? If Cyprian did not baptize after such colleagues because they were in unity with him, then neither ought Paul to have baptized after John, because they were held in the same unity. Or do perhaps the defrauders and the rapacious pertain to the members of that one dove, and he does not pertain to it—he to whom the very power of the Lord Jesus Christ was shown by the Holy Spirit descending in the likeness of a dove?

Nay rather, he pertains most intimately, while these—whether on occasion of some scandal or in the final winnowing—are to be separated from the wheat and in no way pertain to it; and yet after the former, once baptized, baptism took place, while after these it does not take place. What then is the cause, except that the baptism which Paul commanded those to receive was not the same as that which was given through John? And therefore, within that very unity of the Church, the baptism of Christ, if it be handed on by a usurer baptizing, cannot be repeated; but those receiving John's baptism even from John himself had afterward to be baptized with Christ's baptism. Accordingly, I too, using the very words of the blessed Cyprian, can turn the hearts of my hearers to the consideration of a certain wonder, if I say:

'That John, held to be the greatest among the prophets; that man filled while yet in his mother's womb with divine grace; that man upheld by the spirit and power of Elijah, who was not the Lord's adversary but his forerunner and herald, who not only foretold the Lord in words but also showed him to the eyes, who baptized Christ himself through whom the rest are baptized—he was not permitted so to baptize that those who had been baptized by him should not be baptized after him: and after avaricious defrauders, rapacious usurers, shall no one think that anyone in the Church is to be baptized?' Is it not, when I have cried out these things odiously, answered to me: 'Why do you think this unworthy, as though either John were dishonored or the avaricious man honored?

But it was not fitting that his baptism be repeated, concerning whom the same John says: This is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit. For by whatever minister it be given, it is the baptism of him of whom it is said: This is he that baptizeth. But neither was John's own baptism repeated, when Paul the Apostle commanded those baptized by him to be baptized in Christ. For what they had not received from the friend of the bridegroom, this they had to receive from that very bridegroom, of whom that friend had said: This is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit.' For the Lord Jesus could, if he had willed, have given the power of his baptism to some one or some few chosen servants of his, whom he had already made his friends, to whom he says:

'I will not now call you servants but friends'—so that, just as Aaron was shown to be priest by the flowering rod, so in his Church, where many and greater miracles have been done, ministers of more excellent sanctity and dispensers of the mysteries might be shown by some sign, who alone should baptize. But if this were done, although attributed to them by the Lord, it would nevertheless now be called their own baptism, just as the baptism of John was. Therefore Paul gives thanks to God that he had baptized none of them, who, as though forgetful in whose name they had been baptized, were dividing themselves under the names of men.

For since baptism given through a contemptible man avails as much as that given through an apostle, it is thereby recognized to be neither this man's nor that man's, but Christ's; which, in the Lord himself, John testifies that he learned through that likeness of the dove. For in what other respect he may have said: 'And I knew him not,' I do not clearly see. For if he did not know him at all, he would not have said to him when he came to his baptism: 'I ought to be baptized by thee.' What then is it that he says: 'For I saw the Spirit as a dove descending from heaven, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not, but he that sent me to baptize in water, he said to me: Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending from heaven and abiding upon him, this is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit'?

The dove had indeed descended upon him after he was baptized. But when he was still coming to be baptized, he had said: 'I ought to be baptized by thee.' Therefore he already knew him. What then does he mean by: 'I knew him not, but he that sent me to baptize in water, he said to me: Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending from heaven and abiding upon him, this is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit,' since this happened after he was baptized—unless it be that in one respect he knew him, and in another respect he still did not know him?

He knew, namely, the bridegroom, the Son of God, of whose fulness all would receive; but because he himself had thus received from his fulness the power of baptizing, so that it was called John's baptism, he did not know whether he was going to give it thus to others also, or rather was going to have his own baptism in such a way that—by whomever it were given, whether by a minister of more excellent grace or of inferior, whether through a man of hundredfold fruit or of sixtyfold or of thirtyfold, whether through wheat or through chaff—it would be recognized to belong to none but that one alone; and this he learned through the Spirit descending as a dove and abiding upon him.

And so we find it said by the apostles both 'my glory,' though indeed in the Lord, and 'my ministry' and 'my prudence' and 'my gospel,' though indeed imparted and given by the Lord; but 'my baptism' none of them said at all. For neither is the glory of all equal, nor do all minister equally, nor are all endowed with equal prudence, and in evangelizing one works better than another, and therefore one can be called more learned than another and better in saving doctrine; but one cannot be said to be more or less baptized than another, whether he be baptized by a lesser or by a greater.

Accordingly, since the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornications, uncleannesses, luxuries, the service of idols, sorceries, enmities, contentions, jealousies, animosities, dissensions, heresies, envyings, drunkennesses, revellings, and the like—if it is said as a marvel: 'After John men were baptized, and after heretics they are not baptized,' why is it not said as a marvel: 'After John men were baptized, and after the envious they are not baptized,' since Cyprian himself, in his letter on jealousy and spite, testifies that the envious are of the devil's party, and Cyprian himself, from the Apostle Paul, makes clear—as we have already shown—that there were envious announcers of Christ in the Church of Christ even in the apostolic times themselves?

That John's baptism was not the same as the baptism of Christ, I think has been sufficiently declared. And therefore no argument can be brought from it as to why baptism should take place after heretics because it took place after John—since John was not a heretic and could have a baptism which, though granted by Christ, was nevertheless not properly Christ's, seeing that he had the charity of Christ; whereas a heretic can have the baptism of Christ together with the perversity of the devil, just as within, another can have the baptism of Christ together with the envy of the devil. 'But surely baptism ought all the more to take place after a heretic, because John was not a heretic and yet baptism took place after him.'

'In the same way,' says someone, 'baptism ought all the more to take place after a drunkard, because John was sober and yet baptism took place after him'; and we shall have nothing to answer him except that to those baptized by John, who did not have the baptism of Christ, that baptism was handed on; but in those in whom there is the baptism of Christ, it comes about in no way, by whatever perversities of theirs, that the baptism of Christ should not be in them. Not therefore did the heretic obtain the right of baptism because he baptized first, but because he did not baptize with his own baptism; and even if he had not the right of baptizing, nevertheless what he gave is Christ's, and he who received it received what is Christ's. For many things are given contrary to right, nor are they on that account said to be either nothing or not given.

For neither does he who renounces the world with words alone and not with deeds receive baptism by right—and yet he receives it. For Cyprian too recalls that there were such persons in the Church in his times, and we ourselves experience it and groan. It is strange, moreover, how it can be said that baptism and the Church can in no way be separated or divided from each other. For if baptism remains inseparably in the baptized, how can the baptized be separated from the Church, and baptism cannot?

But that baptism remains inseparably in the baptized is manifest, because, into whatever depth of evils and whatever horrible abyss of sins the baptized may rush, even to apostatic ruin, he does not lack baptism; and therefore to one returning through penitence it is not given back, because he is judged to have been unable to lack it. But that the baptized can be separated from the Church—who could doubt it? For it is from thence that all heresies have gone out, which deceive under the Christian name. Wherefore, since it is manifest that baptism is in the baptized, when the baptized is separated from the Church, the baptism which is in him is assuredly separated together with him.