Conciliar Acts 4

(Erasm. III, 3; Pamel., Rigalt., Baluz. LIX; Paris, LVIII; Oxon., Lips. LXIV; Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae, pp. 74 and 116.) In the year of Christ 257, the persecution having ceased, in order to set in order the shaken Church, Cyprian and his fellow bishops of the African Church came together according to custom—partly to preserve the right faith and Catholic unity, partly also to restore the collapsed ecclesiastical discipline, and to form the good morals of the faithful. In this synod it was decreed first, that the deacon whom Rogatianus had denounced before the Fathers of the council for the insolence and abuse offered to him, should either be suspended, or, unless he amend his sin, be utterly deposed.

He wished the same to be decreed concerning the rest of the insolent and abusive clergy: because obstinacy in subordinate clergy is dangerous, from which for the most part they have been accustomed to slip into heresy. The words of Cyprian, writing in reply to Rogatianus on this matter, are these: 'These are the beginnings of heretics, and the origins and attempts of schismatics who think wickedly—that they may please themselves, that they may despise the prelate set over them with a proud swelling. Thus one withdraws from the Church; thus a profane altar is set up outside; thus one rebels against the peace of Christ and the appointment and unity of God. But if he further exasperate and provoke you with his abuses, you shall exercise upon him the power of your honor, that you may either depose him or suspend him.'

Secondly, in this same synod the Fathers of the council, understanding that Geminius Victor, a Christian departing this life, had named in his testament a certain presbyter Fortunatus as guardian of his children, and had thereby—according to the decree of a certain council formerly held in Africa under their predecessors on this matter—incurred the penalty of excommunication, declare that the deceased Geminius himself was excommunicated, because he had called away a presbyter from the worship of God to secular affairs; and therefore they very strictly forbid that sacrifice be offered for the deceased, or that his name be mentioned at the altar; and by this synodal constitution they confirm the very decree of their predecessors. These matters are established from the 66th epistle of Cyprian, in which he speaks thus:

"We were gravely moved, I and my colleagues who were present, and our fellow-presbyters who sat beside us," etc. (See Baronius, year 257, numbers 13 and 14.) In this same council it seems to have been answered, in response to the doubt of certain persons, that in a case of necessity the baptism of infants ought to be hastened before the eighth day—especially because it may be concluded with certainty that this council was held in a time of peace for the Church, not under Lucius, as the Venetian edition has it, but rather about the beginning of Valerian's reign. What the nature of that controversy about the baptism of infants was, may be learned from the 59th epistle of Cyprian to the presbyter Fidus, which is subjoined here.

CYPRIAN AND THE REST OF HIS COLLEAGUES WHO WERE PRESENT IN THE COUNCIL, SIXTY-SIX IN NUMBER, TO FIDUS THEIR BROTHER, GREETING. SUMMARY: The African Fathers determine that the peace rashly granted by Therapius is to be ratified.—The baptism of newborn infants is established by the same Fathers.—The superstitious custom of not admitting infants to a kiss before the eighth day is censured.—No one is to be hindered from baptism. I. We have read your letter, dearly beloved brother, in which you indicated concerning a certain Victor, once a presbyter, that to him—before he had performed full penance and made satisfaction to the Lord God, against whom he had sinned—Therapius our colleague had rashly, at an immature time and with overhasty haste, granted peace.

This matter moved us considerably, namely that there had been a departure from the authority of our decree, so that before the lawful and full time of satisfaction, and without the request and knowledge of the people, no infirmity pressing nor necessity compelling, peace should be granted to him. But after long-weighed counsel among us, it was enough to rebuke Therapius our colleague because he had done this rashly, and to instruct him to do nothing of the kind hereafter. Yet the peace once given, in whatever manner, by a priest of God, we did not think ought to be taken away; and on this account we permitted Victor to make use of the communion granted to him. II.

But as to what pertains to the case of infants, whom you said ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after they are born, and that the law of ancient circumcision is to be considered, so that you thought one who is born ought not to be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day—a far different view appeared to all in our council. For in that which you thought ought to be done, no one consented; but rather we all judged that the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to no human being that is born. For since the Lord in His Gospel says (Luke 9:56):

'The Son of Man came not to destroy the souls of men, but to save them'—so far as in us lies, if it can be done, no soul is to be lost. For what is lacking to him who has once been formed in the womb by the hands of God? To us indeed and to our eyes, those who are born seem to receive their increase according to the course of worldly days. But whatever things are made by God are perfected by the majesty and work of God their Maker. III.

Finally, that among all—whether infants or those greater in years—there is one equality of the divine gift, the faith of divine Scripture declares to us. Elisha, over the dead infant son of the widow who lay there, so stretched himself out in prayer to God that head was applied to head and face to face, and the limbs of Elisha, lying upon him, were joined to the several limbs of the little one, and feet to feet (2 Kings 4:34). If this matter be considered according to the inequality of our birth and of the body, the infant could not be made equal to the adult and grown man, nor could the small limbs cohere with and suffice for the larger.

But there the divine and spiritual equality is expressed—that all men are alike and equal once they have been made by God, and our age may have a distinction in the increments of the body according to the world, not according to God; unless indeed even the very grace which is given to the baptized is bestowed in lesser or greater measure according to the age of the recipients—whereas the Holy Spirit is given equally to all not according to measure, but according to fatherly love and indulgence. For (Gal. 2:6) just as God does not accept the person, so neither does He accept the age, since He offers Himself as Father to all with equal balance for the attainment of heavenly grace. IV.

For also as to that which you said—that in the first days of his birth the infant is not clean, and that each of us still shrinks from kissing him—we do not think that this ought to be an impediment to the granting of heavenly grace. For it is written (Titus 1:15): 'To the pure all things are pure.' Nor ought any of us to shrink from that which God has deigned to make.

For although the infant is still new from birth, yet it is not such that anyone ought to shrink from kissing him in the giving of grace and the making of peace, since in the kiss of an infant each of us ought, according to his religious devotion, to consider the very hands of God still fresh, which we kiss in a man newly formed and in a manner recently made, when we embrace that which God has made. For as to the fact that in the carnal circumcision of the Jews the eighth day was observed, it is a sacrament foreshadowed beforehand in shadow and in image, but fulfilled in truth at the coming of Christ.

For the eighth day—that is, the first day after the Sabbath—was destined to be the day on which the Lord should rise again, and should quicken us, and give us a spiritual circumcision; this eighth day, that is, the first after the Sabbath and the Lord's day, went before in image. That image ceased when afterward the truth came and the spiritual circumcision was given to us. V. Wherefore we think that no one is to be hindered from obtaining grace by that law which has already been established, nor ought spiritual circumcision to be hindered by carnal circumcision, but that absolutely every man is to be admitted to the grace of Christ—since Peter also in the Acts of the Apostles speaks and says (Acts 10:28):

'The Lord has said to me that no man is to be called common and unclean.' Moreover, if anything could hinder men from the attainment of grace, the more grievous sins could rather hinder the adult and the grown and those greater in years.

But further, if even to the gravest offenders, and to those who have sinned much against God before, when afterward they have believed, remission of sins is granted, and no one is forbidden from baptism and from grace—how much more ought an infant not to be forbidden, who, newly born, has sinned in nothing, except that, being born carnally according to Adam, he has contracted by his first birth the contagion of the ancient death—who comes to receive the remission of sins all the more easily for this very reason, that not his own but another's sins are remitted to him. VI. And therefore, dearly beloved brother, this was our sentence in the council: that by us no one ought to be forbidden from baptism and from the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and loving to all.

And since this is to be observed and maintained concerning all, we think it is the more to be observed concerning the very infants and the newly born, who by this very fact deserve more of our help and of the divine mercy: that immediately at the first rising of their birth, weeping and crying, they do nothing else but make supplication. We wish you, dearly beloved brother, ever to fare well.