Chap. XXXI.

Argument. – But That God, The, Son of God, Born of God the Father from Everlasting, Who Was Always in the Father, Is the Second Person to the Father, Who Does Nothing Without His Father’s Decree; and That He Is Lord, and the Angel of God’s Great Counsel, to Whom the Father’s Godhead Is Given by Community of Substance.

Thus God the Father, the Founder and Creator of all things, who only knows no beginning, invisible, infinite, immortal, eternal, is one God; to whose greatness, or majesty, or power, I would not say nothing can be preferred, but nothing can be compared; of whom, when He willed it, the Son, the Word, was born, who is not received69 in the sound of the stricken air, or in the tone of voice forced from the lungs, but is acknowledged in the substance of the power put forth by God, the mysteries of whose sacred and divine nativity neither an apostle has learnt, nor prophet has discovered, nor angel has known, nor creature has apprehended. To the Son alone they are known, who has known the secrets of the Father. He then, since He was begotten of the Father, is always in the Father. And I thus say always, that I may show Him not to be unborn, but born. But He who is before all time must be said to have been always in the Father; for no time can be assigned to Him who is before all time. And He is always in the Father, unless the Father be not always Father, only that the Father also precedes Him, – in a certain sense, – since it is necessary – in some degree – that He should be before He is Father. Because it is essential that He who knows no beginning must go before Him who has a beginning;70 even as He is the less as knowing that He is in Him, having an origin because He is born, and of like nature with the Father in some measure by His nativity, although He has a beginning in that He is born, inasmuch as He is born of that Fat, her who alone has no beginning. He, then, when the Father willed it, proceeded from the Father, and He who was in the Father came forth from the Father; and He who was in the Father because He was of the Father, was subsequently with the Father, because He came forth from the Father, – that is to say, that divine substance whose name is the Word, whereby all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. For all things are after Him, because they are by Him. And reasonably, He is before all things, but after the Father, since all things were made by Him, and He proceeded from Him of whose will all things were made. Assuredly God proceeding from God, causing a person second to the Father as being the Son, but not taking from the Father that characteristic that He is one God. For if He had not been born – compared with Him who was unborn, an equality being manifested in both – He would make two unborn beings, and thus would make two Gods. If He had not been begotten – compared with Him who was not begotten, and as being found equal – they not being begotten, would have reasonably given two Gods, and thus Christ would have been the cause of two Gods. Had He been formed without beginning as the Father, and He Himself the beginning of all things as is the Father, this would have made two beginnings, and consequently would have shown to us two Gods also. Or if He also were not the Son, but the Father begetting from Himself another Son, reasonably, as compared with the Father, and designated as great as He, He would have caused two Fathers, and thus also He would have proved the existence of two Gods. Had He been invisible, as compared with the Invisible, and declared equal, He would have shown forth two Invisibles, and thus also He would have proved them to be two Gods. If incomprehensible,71 if also whatever other attributes belong to the Father, reasonably we say, He would have given rise to the allegation of two Gods, as these people feign. But now, whatever He is, He is not of Himself, because He is not unborn; but He is of the Father, because He is begotten, whether as being the Word, whether as being the Power, or as being the Wisdom, or as being the Light, or as being the Son; and whatever of these He is, in that He is not from any other source, as we have already said before, than from the Father, owing His origin to His Father, He could not make a disagreement in the divinity by the number of two Gods, since He gathered His beginning by being born of Him who is one God. In which kind, being both as well only-begotten as first-begotten of Him who has no beginning, He is the only one, of all things both Source and Head. And therefore He declared that God is one, in that He proved Him to be from no source nor beginning, but rather the beginning and source of all things. Moreover, the Son does nothing of His own will, nor does anything of His own determination; nor does He come from Himself, but obeys all His Father’s commands and precepts; so that, although birth proves Him to he a Son, yet obedience even to death declares Him the minister of the will of His Father, of whom He is. Thus making Himself obedient to His Father in all things, although He also is God, yet He shows the one God the Father by His obedience, from whom also He drew His beginning. And thus He could not make two Gods, because He did not make two beginnings, seeing that from Him who has no beginning He received the source of His nativity before all time.72 For since that is the beginning to other creatures which is unborn, – which God the Father only is, being beyond a beginning of whom He is who was born, – while He who is born of Him reasonably comes from Him who has no beginning, proving that to be the beginning from which He Himself is, even although He is God who is born, yet He shows Him to be one God whom He who was born proved to be without a beginning. He therefore is God, but begotten for this special result, that He should be God. He is also the Lord, but born for this very purpose of the Father, that He might be Lord. He is also an Angel, but He was destined of the Father as an Angel to announce the Great Counsel of God. And His divinity is thus declared, that it may not appear by any dissonance or inequality of divinity to have caused two Gods. For all things being subjected to Him as the Son by the Father, while He Himself, with those things which are subjected to Him, is subjected to His Father, He is indeed proved to be Son of His Father; but He is found to be both Lord and God of all else. Whence, while all things put under Him are delivered to Him who is God, and all things are subjected to Him, the Son refers all that He has received to the Father, remits again to the Father the whole authority of His divinity. The true and eternal Father is manifested as the one God, from whom alone this power of divinity is sent forth, and also given and directed upon the Son, and is again returned by the communion of substance to the Father. God indeed is shown as the Son, to whom the divinity is beheld to be given and extended. And still, nevertheless, the Father is proved to be one God; while by degrees in reciprocal transfer that majesty and divinity are again returned and reflected as sent by the Son Himself to the Father, who had given them; so that reasonably God the Father is God of all, and the source also of His Son Himself whom He begot as Lord. Moreover, the Son is God of all else, because God the Father put before all Him whom He begot. Thus the Mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus, having the power of every creature subjected to Him by His own Father, inasmuch as He is God; with every creature subdued to Him, found at one with His Father God, has, by abiding in that condition that He moreover “was heard,”73 briefly proved God His Father to be one and only and true God.

Two Notes by the American Editor.

P. 611. The author’s elucidation of the figure, anthropopathy, is an enlargement of Clement’s casual remarks in the Stromata (cap. xvi. vol. ii. p. 363, this series). Consult On the Figurative Language of Holy Scripture, Jones of Nayland, Works, vol. iv. ed. 1801.

P. 630, note 5. Compare Waterland, vol. ii. p. 210, ed. 1823; also Life of Bishop Bull, by Robert Nelson, p. 260. For the extraordinary history of Bull’s work in France, see the said Life, pp. 327-333. For Petavius, Waterland, vol. ii. p. 277, and Bull’s Life, p. 243. Petavius seems to have had a crafty design to sustain the Council of Trent by arguing that the Council of Nicaea also made new dogmas. Bull proves that it only bore witness to the old. To the honour of the assembled bishops of the Gallican Church, they sustained Bull against the Jesuit. 

FOOTNOTES

69 As the Word formed. [He expounds Psa_44:1-26 (Psalms 45, LXX)]

70 [“In a sense;” i.e., in logic, not time.]

71 [Compare the Athanasian Confession.]

72 [As in the Athanasian Confession.]

73 There is apparently some indistinct reference here to the passage in Heb_5:7, “and was heard in that he feared” – ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλυβείας. [For the Angel of Great Council, see p. 629, supra.]

On the Jewish Meats.1

Chap. I.

Argument. — Novatian, a Roman Presbyter, During His Retirement at the Time of the Decian Persecution, Being Urged by Various Letters from His Brethren, Had Written Two Earlier Epistles Against the Jews on the Subjects of Circumcision and the Sabbath, and Now Writes the Present One on the Jewish Meats.

Although, most holy brethren, the day in which I receive your letters and writings is most ardently longed for by me, and to be reckoned among the chief and happiest — for what else is there now to make me more joyous?2 — still I think that the day is to be deemed not less notable, and among special days, wherein I return to you similar communications, with the affection of love that I owe you, and write you letters with a corresponding interest. For nothing, most holy brethren, holds me bound with such bonds nothing stirs and arouses me with such a stimulus of care and anxiety, as the fear lest you should think that any disadvantage is suffered by you by reason of my absence; and this I strive to remedy, in labouring to show myself present with you by frequent letters. Although, therefore, the duty which I owe, and the charge I have undertaken, and the very ministerial office imposed upon me, require of me this necessity of writing letters, yet you still further enhance it, by stirring me up to write through means of your continual communications. And inclined although I am to those periodical expressions of love, you urge me the more by showing that you stand fast continually in the Gospel: whence it results, that by my letters I am not so much instructing you who are already informed, as inciting you who are already prepared. For you, who not only hold the Gospel pure and purged from all stain of perverse doctrine, but also energetically teach the same, seek not man for a master, since you show yourselves by these very things to be teachers. Therefore as you run, I exhort you; and as you watch, I stir you up; and as you contend against “the spiritual things of wickedness,” (Eph_6:12) I address you; and as you press “in your course to the prize of your calling in Christ,” (Phi_3:14) I urge you on, — that, treading under foot and rejecting as welt the sacrilegious calumnies of heretics as also the idle fables of Jews, you may hold the sole word3 and teaching of Christ, so as worthily to claim for yourselves the authority of His name. But how perverse are the Jews, and remote from the understanding of their law, I have fully shown, as I believe, in two former letters,4 wherein it was absolutely proved that they are ignorant of what is the true circumcision, and what the true Sabbath; and their ever increasing blindness is confuted in this present epistle, wherein I have briefly discoursed concerning their meats, because that in them they consider that they only are holy, and that all others are defiled.5

Chap. II.

Argument. — He First of All Asserts That the Law Is Spiritual; and Thence, Man’s First Food Was Only the Fruit Trees, and the Use of Flesh Was Added, That the Law That Followed Subsequently6 Was to Be Understood Spiritually.7

Therefore, first of all, we must avail ourselves of that passage, “that the law is spiritual;” (Rom_7:14) and if they deny it to be spiritual, they assuredly blaspheme; if, avoiding blasphemy, they confess it to be spiritual, let them read it spiritually. For divine things must be divinely received, and must assuredly be maintained as holy. But a grave fault is branded on those who attach earthly and human doctrine to sacred and spiritual words; and this we must beware of doing. 

Moreover, we may beware, if any things enjoined by God be so treated as if they were assumed to diminish His authority, test, in calling some things impure and unclean, their institution should dishonour their ordainer. For in reprobating what He has made, He will appear to have condemned His own works, which He had approved as good; and He will be designated as seeming capricious in both cases, as the heretics indeed would have it; either in having blessed things which were not clean, or in subsequently reprobating as not good, creatures which He had blessed as both clean and good. And of this the enormity and contradiction will remain for ever if that Jewish doctrine is persisted in, which must be got rid of with all our ability; so that whatever is irregularly delivered by them, may be taken away by us, and a suitable arrangement of His works, and an appropriate and spiritual application of the divine law, may be restored. But to begin from the beginning of things, whence it behoves me to begin; the only food for the first men was fruit and the produce of the trees. For afterwards, man’s sin transferred his need from the fruit-trees to the produce of the earth, when the very attitude of his body attested the condition of his conscience. For although innocency raised men up towards the heavens to pluck their food from the trees so long as they had a good conscience, yet sin, when committed, bent men down to the earth and to the ground to gather its grain. Moreover, afterwards the use of flesh was added, the divine favour supplying for human necessities the kinds of meats generally fitting for suitable occasions. For while a more tender meat was needed to nourish men who were both tender and unskilled, it was still a food not prepared without toil, doubtless for their advantage, lest they should again find a pleasure in sinning, if the labour imposed upon sin did not exhort innocence. And since now it was no more a paradise to be tended, but a whole world to be cultivated, the more robust food of flesh is offered to men, that for the advantage of culture something more might be added to the vigour of the human body. All these things, as I have said, were by grace and by divine arrangement: so that either the most vigorous food should not be given in too small quantity for men’s support, and they should be enfeebled for labour; or that the more tender meat should not be too abundant, so that, oppressed beyond the measure of their strength, they should not be able to bear it.8 But the law which followed subsequently ordained9 the flesh foods with distinction: for some animals it gave and granted for use,10 as being clean; some it interdicted as not clean, and conveying pollution to those that eat them. Moreover, it gave this character to those that were clean, that those which chew the cud and divide the hoofs are clean; those are unclean which do neither one nor other of these things. So, in fishes also, the law said that those indeed were clean which were covered with scales and supplied with fins, but that those which were otherwise were not clean. Moreover, it established a distinction among the fowls, and laid down what was to be judged either an abomination, or clean. Thus the law ordained the exercise of very great subtlety in making a separation among those animals which the ancient appointment had gathered together into one form of blessing. What, then, are we to say? Are the animals therefore unclean? But what else is it to say that they are not clean, than that the law has separated them from the uses of food? And what, moreover, is that that we have just now said? Then God is the ordainer of things which are not clean; and the blame attached to things which are made will recoil upon their Maker, who did not produce them clean; to say which is certainly characteristic of extreme and excessive folly: it is to accuse God as having created unclean things, and to charge upon the divine majesty the guilt of having made things which are abomination, especially when they were both pronounced “very good,” (Gen_1:31) and as being good have obtained the blessing from God Himself “that they should increase and multiply.” Moreover also they were reserved by the command of the Creator in Noah’s ark for the sake of their offspring, that so being kept they might be proved to be needful; and being needful, they might be proved to be good, although even in that case also there is a distinction appended. But still, even then, the creation of those very creatures that were not clean might have been utterly abolished, if it had needed to be abolished on account of its own pollution.

Chap. III.

Argument. — And Thus Unclean Animals Are Not to Be Reproached, Lest the Reproach Be Thrown upon Their Author; but when an Irrational Animal Is Rejected on Any Account, It Is Rather That That Very Thing Should Be Condemned in Man Who Is Rational; and Therefore That in Animals the Character, the Doings, and the Wills of Men Are Depicted.

How far, then, must that law, which — as I have shown by the authority of the apostle — is spiritual, be spiritually received in order that the divine and sure idea of the law may be carried out? Firstly, we must believe that whatever was ordained by God is clean and purified by the very authority of His creation; neither must it be reproached, lest the reproach should be thrown back upon its Author. Then too that the law was given to the children of lsrael for this purpose, that they might profit by it, and return to those virtuous manners which, although they had received them from their fathers, they had corrupted in Egypt by reason of their intercourse with a barbarous people. Finally, also, those ten commandments on the tables teach nothing new, but remind them of what had been obliterated — that righteousness in them, which had been put to sleep, might revive again as it were by the afflatus of the law, after the manner of a smothered fire. But they could profit by the perception that those vices were especially to be avoided in men which the law had, condemned even in beasts.7 For when an irrational animal is rejected on any account, it is rather that very thing which is condemned in the man, who is rational. And if in it anything which it has by nature is characterized as a defilement, that same thing is most to be blamed when it is found in man opposed to his nature. Therefore, in order that men might be purified, the cattle were censured — to wit, that men also who had the same vices might be esteemed on a level with the brutes. Whence it results, that not only were the animals not condemned by their Creator because of His agency;10 but that men might be instructed in the brutes to return to the unspotted nature of their own creation. For we must consider how the Lord distinguishes clean and not clean. The creatures that are clean, it says, both chew the cud and divide the hoof; the unclean do neither, or only one of the two. All these things were made by one Workman, and He who made them Himself blessed them. Therefore I regard the creation of both as clean, because both He who created them is holy, and those things which were created are not in fault in being that which they were made. For it has never been customary for nature, but for a perverted will, to bear the blame of guilt. What, then, is the case? In the animals it is the characters, and doings, and wills of men that are depicted.11 They are clean if they chew the cud; that is, if they ever have in their mouth as food the divine precepts. They divide the hoof, if with the firm step of innocency they tread the ways of righteousness, and of every virtue of life. For of those creatures which divide the foot into two hoofs the walk is always vigorous; the tendency to slip of one part of the hoof being sustained by the firmness of the other, and so retained in the substantial footstep. Thus they who do neither are unclean, whose walk is neither firm in virtues; nor do they digest the food of the divine precepts after the manner of that chewing of the cud. And they, too, who do one of these things are not themselves clean either, inasmuch as they are maimed of the other, and not perfect in both. And these are they who do both, as believers, and are clean; or one of the two, as Jews and heretics, and are blemished; or neither, as the Gentiles, and are consequently unclean. Thus in the animals, by the law, as it were, a certain mirror of human life is established, wherein men may consider the images of penalties; so that everything which is vicious in men, as committed against nature, may be the more condemned, when even those things, although naturally ordained in brutes, are in them blamed.12 For that in fishes the roughness of scales is regarded as constituting their cleanness; rough, and rugged, and unpolished, and substantial, and grave manners are approved in men; while those that are without scales are unclean; because trifling, and fickle, and faithless, and effeminate manners are disapproved. Moreover, what does the law mean when it says, “Thou shalt not eat the camel?” (Lev_11:4)13 — except that by the example of that animal it condemns a life nerveless14 and crooked with crimes. Or when it forbids the swine to be taken for food? It assuredly reproves a life filthy and dirty, and delighting in the garbage of vice, placing its supreme good not in generosity of mind, but in the flesh alone. Or when it forbids the hare? It rebukes men deformed into women. And who would use the body of the weasel for food? But in this case it reproves theft. Who would eat the lizard? But it hates an aimless waywardness of life. Who the eft? But it execrates mental stains. Who would eat the hawk, who the kite, who the eagle? But it hates plunderers and violent people who live by crime. Who the vulture? But it holds accursed those who seek for booty by the death of others. Or who the raven? But it holds accused crafty wills. Moreover, when it forbids the sparrow, it condemns intemperance; when the owl, it hates those who fly from the light of truth; when the swan, the proud with high neck; when the sea-mew, too talkative an intemperance of tongue; when the bat, those who seek the darkness of night as well as of error. These things, then, and the like to these, the law holds accursed in animals, which in them indeed are not blame-worthy, because they are born in this condition; in man they are blamed, because they are sought for contrary to his nature, not by his creation, but by his error.

Chap. IV.

Argument. — To These Things Also Was Added Another Reason for Prohibiting Many Kinds of Meats to the Jews; to Wit, for the Restraint of the Intemperance of the People, and That They Might Serve the One God.

To these considerations, then, thus enumerated, were added also other reasons for which many kinds of meats were withheld from the Jews; and that this might be so, many things were called unclean, not as being condemned in themselves, but that the Jews might be restrained to the service of one God; because frugality and moderation in appetite were becoming to those who were chosen for this purpose. And such moderation is always found to be approximate to religion, nay, so to speak, rather related and akin to it; for luxury is inimical to holiness. For how shall religion be spared by it, when modesty is not spared? Luxury does not entertain the fear of God; since while pleasures hurry it on, it is carried forward to the sole daring of its desires: for the reins being loosened, it increases in the application of expense without measure, as if it were its food, exceeding its patrimony with its modesty; or as a torrent rushing from the mountain-peaks not only overleaps what is opposed to it, but carries with it those very hindrances for the destruction of other things. Therefore these remedies were sought for to restrain the intemperance of the people, that in proportion as luxury was diminished, virtuous manners might be increased. For what else did they deserve, than that they should be restrained from using all the pictures of divers meats, who dared to prefer the vilest meats of the Egyptians to the divine banquets of manna, preferring the juicy meats of their enemies and masters to their liberty? They were truly worthy that the slavery which they had coveted should pamper them, if the food that was more desirable and free was so ill pleasing to them.

Chap. V.

Argument. — But There Was a Limit to the Use of These Shadows or Figures; for Afterwards, when the End of the Law, Christ, Came, All Things Were Said by the Apostle to Be Pure to the Pure, and the True and Holy Meat Was a Right Faith and an Unspotted Conscience.

And thus there was a certain ancient time, wherein those shadows or figures were to be used, that meats should be abstained from which had indeed been commended by their creation, but had been prohibited by the law. But now Christ, the end of the law, has come, disclosing all the obscurities of the law — all those things which antiquity had covered with the clouds of sacraments. For the illustrious Master, and the heavenly Teacher, and the ordainer of the perfected truth, has come, under whom at length it is rightly said: “To the pure all things are pure but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure, but even their mind and conscience is defiled.” (Tit_1:15) Moreover, in another place: “For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused which is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer.” (1Ti_4:4, 1Ti_4:5) Again, in another place: “The Spirit expressly says that in the last days some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by them which believe and those who know God.” (1Ti_4:1, 1Ti_4:2, 1Ti_4:3) Moreover, in another passage: “Everything that is sold in the market-place eat, asking nothing.” (1Co_10:25) From these things it is plain that all those things are returned to their original blessedness now that the law is finished, and that we must not revert to the special observances of meats, which observances were ordained for a certain reason, but which evangelical liberty has now taken away, their discharge being given. The apostle cries out: “The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy.” (Rom_14:17) Also elsewhere: “Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.” (1Co_6:13) God is not worshipped by the belly nor by meats, which the Lord says will perish, and are “purged” by natural law in the draught.15 For he who worships the Lord by meats, is merely as one who has his belly for his Lord. The meat, I say, true, and holy, and pure, is a true faith, an unspotted conscience, and an innocent soul. Whosoever is thus fed, feeds also with Christ. Such a banqueter is God’s guest: these are the feasts that feed the angels, these are the tables which the martyrs make. Hence is that word of the law: “Man cloth not live by bread alone, but by every word which proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Deu_8:3) Hence, too, that saying of Christ: “My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me, and to finish His work.” (Joh_4:34) Hence, “Ye seek me not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of my loaves and were filled. But labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for the meat which endureth to life eternal, which the Son of man will give you; for Him hath the Father sealed.” (Joh_6:26, Joh_6:27) By righteousness, I say, and by continency, and by the rest of the virtues, God is worshipped. For Zecharias also tells us, saying: “If ye eat or drink, is it not ye that eat or drink?” (Zec_7:6, LXX) — declaring thereby that meat or drink attain not unto God, but unto man: for neither is God fleshly, so as to be pleased with flesh; nor is He careful16 for these pleasures, so as to rejoice in our food.17 God rejoices in our faith alone, in our innocency alone, in our truth alone, in our virtues alone. And these dwell not in our belly, but in our soul; and these are acquired for us by divine awe and heavenly fear, and not by earthly food. And such the apostle fitly rebuked, as “obeying the superstitions of angels, puffed up by their fleshly mind; not holding Christ the head, from whom all the body, joined together by links, and inwoven and grown together by mutual members in the bond of charity, increaseth to God;” (Col_2:18, Col_2:19) but observing those things: “Touch not, taste not, handle not; which indeed seem to have a form of religion, in that the body is not spared.” (Col_2:21, Col_2:23) Yet there is no advantage at all of righteousness, while we are recalled by a voluntary slavery to those elements to which by baptism we have died.

Chap. VI.

Argument. — But, on the Ground That Liberty in Meats Is Granted to Us, There Is No Permission of Luxury, There Is No Taking Away of Continence and Fasting: for These Things Greatly Become the Faithful, — To Wit, That They Should Pray to God, and Give Him Thanks, Not Only by Day, but by Night.

But from the fact that liberty of meats is granted to us, it does not of necessity follow that luxury is allowed us; nor because the Gospel has dealt with us very liberally, has it taken away continency. By this, I say, the belly is not provided for, but the form of meats was shown: it was made manifest what was right, not that we might go into the gulf of desire, but to give a reason for the law. But nothing has so restrained intemperance as the Gospel; nor has any one given such strict laws against gluttony as Christ, who is said to have pronounced even the poor blessed, and the hungering and thirsting happy, the rich miserable; to whom, obeying the government of their belly and their palate, the material of their lusts could never be wanting, so that their servitude could not cease; who think it an argument of their happiness to desire as much as they can, except that they are thus able to attain less than they desire. For, moreover, preferring Lazarus in his very hunger and in his sores themselves, and with the rich man’s dogs, He restrained the destroyers of salvation, the belly and the palate, by examples. The apostle also, when he said, “Having food and raiment, we are therewith content,” (1Ti_6:8) laid down the law of frugality and continency; and thinking that it would be of little advantage that he had written, he also gave himself as an example of what he had written, adding not without reason, that “avarice is the root of all evils;” (1Ti_6:10) for it follows in the footsteps of luxury. Whatever the latter has wasted by vice, the former restores by crime; the circle of crimes being re-trodden, that luxury may again take away whatever avarice had heaped together. Nor yet are there wanting, among such things, those who, although they have claimed to themselves the sound of the Christian name, afford instances and teachings of intemperance; whose vices have come even to that pitch, that while fasting they drink in the early morning, not thinking it Christian to drink after meat, unless the wine poured into their empty and unoccupied veins should have gone down directly after sleep: for they seem to have less relish of what they drink if food be mingled with the wine. Thus you may see such in a new kind, still fasting and already drunk, not running to the tavern, but carrying the tavern about with them; and if any one of them offers a salute, he gives not a kiss, but drinks a health. What can they do after meat, whom meat finds intoxicated? Or in what kind of state does the sun at his setting leave them, whom at his rising he looks upon as already stupid with wine? But things which are detestable are not to be taken as our examples. For those things only are to be taken by which our soul may be made better; and although in the Gospel the use of meats is universally given to us, yet it is understood to be given to us only with the law of frugality and continence. For these things are even greatly becoming to the faithful, — to wit, those who are about to pray to God and to give Him thanks, not only by day, but by night also; which cannot be if the mind, stupefied by meat and wine, should not prevail to shake off heavy sleep and the load heaped upon the breast. 

Chap. VII.

Argument. — Moreover, We Must Be Careful That No One Should Think That This Licence May Be Carried to Such an Extent as That He May Approach to Things Offered to Idols.

But it must be very greatly guarded against in the use of food, and we must be warned lest any should think that liberty is permitted to that degree that even he may approach to what has been offered to idols. For, as far as pertains to God’s creation, every creature is clean. But when it has been offered to demons, it is polluted so long as it is offered to the idols; and as soon as this is done, it belongs no longer to God, but to the idol. And when this creature is taken for food, it nourishes the person who so takes it for the demon, not for God, by making him a fellow-guest with the idol, not with Christ, as rightly do the Jews also.18 [But see 1Co_8:4, etc.] And the meaning of these meats being perceived, and the counsel of the law being considered, and the kindness of the Gospel grace being known, and the rigour of temperance being observed, and the pollution of things offered to idols being rejected, we who keep the rule of truth throughout all things, ought to give thanks to God through Jesus Christ, His Son, our Lord, to whom be praise, and honour, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen.

A letter written to Cyprian by Novatian the Roman presbyter, in the name of the Roman clergy, will be found translated (Ep. xxx.) at p. 308, this volume.

FOOTNOTES

1 Entitled “A letter of Novatian, the Roman Presbyter.”

2 “Liberiorem,” translated, according to a plausible emendation, as “hilariorem.”

3 Traditionem.

4 These letters are not extant, but they are mentioned by Jerome, de vir. Illustr., ch. lxx.

5 [1Co_6:13. A passage probably connected with the Jewish superstition. But see the Peshito-Syriac version on Mar_7:19. Compare Murdock’s version ad loc., ed. 1855.]

6 Which, distinguishing between meats, granted certain animals as clean, and interdicted certain others as not clean, especially as all animals were declared “very good,” and even unclean animals were reserved for offspring in Noah’s ark, although they otherwise might have been got rid of, if they ought to have been destroyed on account of their uncleanness.

7 [The divers animals are also parables illustrating human passions and appetites. See Jones of Nayland, vol. xi. p. 1.]

8 This sentence is very unintelligible, but it is the nearest approach to a meaning that can be gathered from the original.

9 [Gen_9:3. The Noachic covenant was Catholic, and fore-shadowed Act_10:15, although clean and unclean beasts were recognised as by natural classification. Gen_7:2. Argue as in Gal_3:17.]

10 Sui culpa.

11 [The moral uses of the animal creation are recognised in all languages; as when we say of men, a serpent, a fox, a hog, an ass, etc.: so otherwise, a lion, a lamb, an eagle, a dove, etc.]

12 [Novatian was a keen analyst, and his allegorical renderings are logical generally, though sometimes fanciful.]

13 [Jones of Nayland, vol. iii., Disquisition, ed. 1801.]

14 “Enervem,” but more probably “informem.”

15 [Or lower bowel, Mar_7:19; Mat_15:17. See cap. 1 note 5, p. 645, supra. It throws off refuse, leaving food only to the system.]

16 “Attonitus” is assumed to be rightly read “attentus.”

17 [1Ti_4:4, 1Ti_6:17. Against the Encratites (vol. 1. p. 353), but not against moderation (vol. 2. p. 237, this series).]

18 scil. abstain.

A Roman Council Celebrated Under Stephen.

From the Synodal Roll.

A divine and sacred provincial synod, gathered together at Rome by Stephen, the blessed martyr and father1 which excommunicated those who in an African synod had, without reason, conceded that they who came to the Catholic Church from any heresy should be re-baptized. (Reference is made to this council in Epistles of Cyprian,  No. lxxiii., and at large in Epistles lxix. to lxxiv., pp. 375-396, supra.)

Carthaginian Councils.

The Third Carthaginian Council Under Cyprian, on the Baptism of Infants; Held Anno Domini 253.

This document is translated at p. 353, Ep. lviii.

The Fourth Carthaginian Council Under Cyprian; Held Anno Domini 254. About Basilides and Martial, Bishops of Spain, Who Had Received Certificates.

This document is translated at p. 369, Ep. lxvii.

The Fifth Carthaginian Council Under Cyprian, the First About Baptism; Held Anno Domini 255, the Third Year of St. Stephen’s Episcopate.

This will be found translated at p. 375, Ep. lxix.

The Sixth Carthaginian Council Under Cyprian, the Second About Baptism, from a Province of Africa and Numidia; Held Anno Domini 256, in the Third Year of Stephen’s Episcopate.

This will be found translated at p. 378, Ep. lxxi.

The Seventh Carthaginian Council Under Cyprian, the Third About Baptism, from Three Provinces of Africa; Held Anno Domini 256, in the Third Year of Stephen’s Episcopate.

This will be found translated and given in full on p. 565 of the present volume. 

FOOTNOTES

1 “Papa” [as applied to all bishops. See p. 154, supra.]

A Treatise Against the Heretic Novatian by an Anonymous Bishop.

Introductory Notice1

The writer of the following treatise was undoubtedly a contemporary of Cyprian, and wrote in the early part of the reign of Valerian (254-256), during an interval of peace to the Church. This much may be collected from the fact that he names one, and only one, persecution after that of Decius – namely, that of Gallus and Volusianus – and speaks of those who had lapsed under the former, as having been stedfast and victorious in the latter. (ch. (or sec.) 6, p. 659, infra.) He is generally believed to have been an Africa, and Tillemont is only withheld from attributing the work to Cyprian himself by what he judges to be a difference of style. But although from the exordium it may be concluded that the writer was a bishop, yet, from his manifest uncertainty as to the fitting way to treat those who had lapsed, it is evident that Cyprian cannot have been the author; for that prelate, when the persecution of Gallus and Volusianus was just threatening, had already decided upon receiving to communion the penitents who had yielded to temptation under Decius. (Epistles, liii. p. 336, supra.)

Ceillier2 says that this treatise was written about the year 255, while Novatian was still alive, (ch. (or sec.) 1, p. 657, infra.) and when the schism of Felicissimus was all but extinct.

Erasmus first published it among the known works of Cyprian in the year 1520.

FOOTNOTES

1 [By Dr. Wallis, editor of vol. xiii., Edinb. series.]

2 Hist. Gén. des Auteurs, tom. iii. ch. i. art. 4, sec. 2, note 4.

Note.

The American editor subjoins as follows: Cyprian, and Cornelius afterward, had decided, with their councils, that the lapsed should be classed, and dealt with accordingly, as (1) Libellatici, those who had compounded with the heathen, and bought off from offering sacrifice; and (2) Sacrificati, those who had actually offered sacrifice to idols. Different degrees of discipline were awarded, but all were admitted to pardon finally. 

That the Hope of Pardon Should Not Be Denied to the Lapsed.

1. While I was meditating and impatiently tossing in my mind what I ought to do concerning those pitiable brethren who, wounded, not of their own will, but by the onset of a raging devil, have lived until now, that is, through a long course of time, in the endurance of their punishment; lo, there appeared opposed to me another enemy, and the adversary of his own paternal affection – the heretic Novatian – who not only, as it is signified in the Gospel, passed by the prostrate wounded man, as did the priest or the Levite, but by an ingenious and novel cruelty rather would slay the wounded man, by taking away the hope of salvation, by denying the mercy of his Father, by rejecting the repentance of his brother. Marvellous, how bitter, how harsh how perverse are many things! But one more easily perceives the straw in another’s eye than the beam in one’s own. Let not the abrupt madness of that perfidious heretic move or disturb us however, beloved brethren, who, although he is placed in such great guilt of dissension and schism, and is separated from the Church, with sacrilegious temerity does not shrink from hurling back his charges upon us: for although he is now by himself made unclean, defiled with the filth of sacrilege, he contends that we are so. And although it is written that the dogs should remain without, and the apostle has taught that these same dogs must be shunned, as we read, for he says, “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers,” (Phi_3:2) he does not cease stirring up his frenzy with barkings, after the manner of wolves seeking the gloomy darkness, where with his brutal cruelty he may easily rend in his dark caves the sheep snatched away from the Shepherd. Certainly he declares that he and his friends whom he collects are gold. Nor do we doubt but that deserters of the Church who have become apostates could now easily be converted into gold, but it must be that gold in which the first sins of the people of Israel were designated. But the gold and silver vessels which were wrested from the Egyptians continue in the Lord’s power, that is, in Christ’s Church; in which house if thou hadst continued, Novatian, thou hadst perchance been also a precious vessel; but now thou neither perceivest nor complainest that thou art changed into chaff and straw.

2. Why, therefore, shouldst thou be lifted up with vain things? Thou wilt gain loss rather than profit. Why, from the very fact that thou art become poorer, believest thou thyself rich? Hear in the Apocalypse the Lord’s voice rebuking thee with righteous reproaches: “Thou sayest,” says He, “I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and blind, and poor, and naked.” (Rev_3:17) Let him think for certain that he possesses these riches of poverty, whoever he may be, that, forsaking the Church of Christ, with his darkened reason does not shrink from being turned to those rash leaders of schisms and authors of dissension, whom John calls antichrists, whom the Evangelist likens to chaff, whom the Lord Christ characterizes as thieves and robbers, as He Himself declares in the Gospel, saying that “he who entereth not by the door into the sheep-fold, but goeth down by some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.” (Joh_10:1) Moreover, in the same He also says, “All who have come are thieves and robbers.” (Joh_10:8) Who are such but the deserters of the faith, and the transgressors of God’s Church, who strive against God’s ordinance; whom the Holy Spirit rightly rebukes by the prophet, saying, “Ye have taken counsel, but not by me; and have made a confederacy, but not by my Spirit, to add sin to sin.” (Isa_30:1) What now can those most perverse friends of Novatian, even now the most unhappy1 few, reply to these things, who have broken forth to such a folly of madness as to have no reverence either for God or man? Among them, shamelessly, and without any law of ordination, the episcopate is sought after; but among us in its own Sees, and in those of the throne delivered to it by God, it is renounced. [Ep. xl. p. 319, supra: et alibi.] There the Truth says, “They reject me, that they may sacrifice to me; nor do they offer the holy oblations of the children of Israel, nor do they approach to offer the holy of holies, but they shall receive their ignominy in the error wherein they have erred.” (Eze_44:10-13) Let it be enough in a few words to have proved what they are. Hear, therefore, O Novatians, among whom the heavenly Scriptures are read rather than understood; well, if they are not interpolated. [see p. 602, note 19, supra.] For your ears are closed, and your hearts darkened, seeing that ye admit no light from spiritual and saving warnings; as Isaiah gays, “The servants of God are blinded.” (Isa_42:19) And deservedly blinded, because the desire of schismatics is not in the law; which law points out to us the one and only Church in that ark to wit, which was fashioned, by the providence of God, under Noah before the deluge, in which – to answer you quickly, O Novatian – we find that there were shut up not only clean animals, but also unclean; which ark was saved alone, with those who were in it, whereas the other things which were not found therein perished in the deluge. From that ark there were loosed two birds, a raven and a dove; and this raven truly bore the figure or type of impure men, and men who would be in perpetual darkness through the world’s broad road, and of apostates who should arise, feeding on unclean things, and not turning themselves eventually to the Church; and as we read, we find that it was sent forth, and returned no more. Whoever should be found to resemble this bird, then, that is, the impure spirit, will no more be able to return to the Church, seeing that the Lord will forbid them, even if they should wish it, as He commanded Moses, saying, “Everything leprous2 and impure, cast abroad outside the camp.” (Num_5:2) But the dove sent forth that returned, is signified by the man who does not delay, because be would have no rest for his feet. And Noah received it into the ark; and when it was sent forth again on the seventh day, received it, bearing in its mouth an olive leaf.

3. And I, beloved brethren, – as I not heedlessly meditate these things, and not in harmony with human wisdom, but as it is permitted to our minds by the condescension of the heavenly Lord, needfully and pertinently to conceive, – say that that dove signifies to us of itself a double type. Formerly, that is, from the beginning of the divine administration, it suggests its own figure, the first indeed and chief – that is, the figure of the Spirit. And by its mouth the sacrament of baptism which is provided for the salvation of the human race, and that by the heavenly plan it is celebrated in the Church only.3 Moreover, three times sent forth from the ark, flying about through the air over the water, it already signified the sacraments of our Church. Whence also the Lord Christ charges upon Peter, and moreover also upon the rest of His disciples, “Go ye and preach the Gospel to the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Mat_28:19) [for the next sentence see Act_2:33] That is, that that same Trinity which operated figuratively in Noah’s days through the dove, now operates in the Church spiritually through the disciples.

4. Let us now take the second character also of the dove sent forth from the ark, that is to say, in the time of the deluge, when all the abysses broke forth; when the cataracts of heaven were opened upon the earth, on account of the wickedness of men which they daily practised before the Lord; as said Moses, “And the Lord God saw that the wickednesses of men were overflowing upon the earth, and that all of them were remembering for evil from the beginning of their days; and He said, I will destroy man whom I have made from off the face of the earth, from man even unto cattle, and from the creeping thing even unto the fowls of the air.” (Gen_6:5-7) Therefore in the time of the flood the dove is sent forth from the ark, when the waters were violently rushing with all their force upon the earth.

5. That ark bore the figure of the Church, as we have said above, which was stricken hither and thither to such a degree by the tumultuous waters. Therefore that deluge which happened under Noah showed forth the figure of the persecution which now lately was poured forth over the whole world. Moreover, by the waters, the cataracts broken forth meeting together on all sides, and growing, were signified the peoples which grew up for the desolation of the Church; as the Apocalypse teaches, saying, “The waters which thou sawest are peoples, and nations, and kingdoms.” (Rev_17:15) Moreover, the dove which could not find rest for its feet, bore the likeness of the lapsed, who fell forgetful of the divine announcements, either ignorant in simplicity, or feigning in audacity. Of whom the Lord had intimated the future destruction in the Gospel in these words, saying, “He who heareth my words and doeth them not, I will liken him to a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand: the tempests came and beat upon that house, and it fell; and great was its destruction.” (Mat_7:26, Mat_7:27) And lest we should seem to have made the comparison inconsiderately of that dove bearing the image of the lapsed, the prophet rebukes the city as a dove, that is, the character of the lapsed, saying, “The dove hearkens not to the voice; that is, the illustrious and redeemed city receives not teaching, and trusted not in the Lord.” (Zep_3:1, Zep_3:2, Zep_3:3, LXX)

6. Moreover, that that dove could not find rest for her feet, as we have said above, this signified the footsteps of those who deny; that is, those, wounded by the poison of the shining serpent, who sacrifice, turned towards their fall; which could not any further step upon the asp and the basilisk, and tread upon the dragon and the lion. For this power the Lord gave to His disciples, as He says in the Gospel:” Lo, I give unto you power to tread on all the power of the enemy, and upon serpents and scorpions; and they shall not harm you.” (Luk_10:19) When, therefore, these so many and such malignant spirits are attacking and bestirring themselves for the destruction of the lapsed, a way of salvation is provided for the wounded, that with whatever strength they have they may drag themselves with their whole body, and betake themselves to their camp, wherein being received, they may heal their wounds with spiritual medicaments. Thus the dove received, after the intervention of a few days, is again sent forth from the ark; and returning, not only shows its firm footsteps, but moreover the signs of its peace and victory, in those olive leaves which it bore in its mouth. Therefore that twofold sending forth shows to us a twofold trial of persecution: the first, in which they who have lapsed have fallen conquered; the second, in which they who have fallen have come out conquerors. For to none of us is it doubtful or uncertain, beloved brethren, that they who in the first struggle – that is, in the Decian persecution – were wounded; afterwards, that is in the second encounter, persevered so bravely, that, despising the edicts of the princes of the world,4 they maintained that unconquered; in that they did not fear, after the example of the good Shepherd, to give up their life, and to shed their blood, and not to shrink from any barbarity of the raging tyrant.

7. Behold how glorious, how dear to the Lord, are the people whom these schismatics do not shrink from calling “wood, hay, stubble;” (1Co_3:12) the equals of whom, that is, those who are even still placed in the same guilt of their lapse, they presume must not be admitted to repentance. This they judge from that utterance of the Lord, where He says, “Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I deny before my Father which is in heaven.” (Mat_10:33) Oh grief! why do they strive against the Lord’s precepts, that this offspring of Novatian, following the example of his father the devil, should now endeavour to put in force those things which Christ will do in the time of His judgment? that is, when Scripture says, “Vengeance is mine; and I will repay, saith the Lord.” (Heb_10:30)

8. We will answer them as to that utterance of the Lord, which they ill understand, and ill explain to themselves. For that He says, “Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven,” its meaning is assuredly with respect to future time – to the time at which the Lord shall begin to judge the secrets of men – to the time at which we must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ – to the time at which many shall begin to say, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name, and in Thy name cast out devils, and in Thy name done many wonderful works?” (Mat_7:22, Mat_7:23) And yet they shall hear the voice of the Lord saying, “Depart from me, all ye that have worked iniquity: I know you not.” (Mat_7:22, Mat_7:23) Then shall it be fulfilled that He says, “I also will deny them.” But whom will the Lord Christ chiefly deny, if not all of you heretics, and schismatics, and strangers to His name? For ye who were some time Christians, but now are Novatians, no longer Christians, have changed your first faith by a subsequent perfidy in the calling of your name. I should wish you to reply to your own proposition. Read and teach: whom of those who had failed or denied Him, while He was still with them, did our Lord deny? Yet also to the others of the disciples who had remained with Him He saith, “Will ye also go away?” (Joh_6:67) Even Peter, whom He had previously foretold as about to deny Him, when he had denied Him, He did not deny, but sustained; and He Himself soothed him when subsequently bitterly bewailing his denial.

9. What sort of folly is thine, Novatian, only to read what tends to the destruction of salvation, and to pass by what tends to mercy, when Scripture cries, and says, “Repent, ye who err: be converted in heart;” (Eze_18:30) and when the same prophet also exhorts, and says, “Be converted unto me with all your heart, in fasting, and weeping, and mourning; and rend your hearts, and not your garments; be ye converted to the Lord your God: for He is merciful, and one who pities with great compassion?” (Joe_2:12, Joe_2:13)

10. Thus we have heard that the Lord is of great compassion. Let us hear what the Holy Spirit testifies by David: “If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my commandments; if they should profane my righteousness, and should not keep my precepts; I will visit their crimes with a rod, and their sins with stripes. But my mercy will I not utterly disperse from them.” (Psa_89:30 et seq.) Words like to these we read that the Lord said also by Ezekiel: “Son of man, the house of Israel has dwelt on its own land, and they have defiled it by their crimes: their uncleanness has become like that of a menstruous woman before my face. I have poured out my anger upon them, and I have scattered them among the nations; and I have judged them according to their sins, because they have defiled my holy name; and because it was said of them, This is the people of the Lord, I have spared them, because of my holy name, which the house of Israel despised among the nations.” (Eze_36:17-23) And in conjunction with this he says, “Therefore say to the people of Israel, Thus saith the Lord, I spare you not, O house of Israel; but I will spare you on account of my holy name, which ye have defiled among they nations: and ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I shall be sanctified in you.” Also the Lord to the same: “Son of man, say unto the people of Israel, Wherefore have ye spoken, saying, We are pining away in our sins, and how shall we be able to be saved? Say unto them, I live, saith the Lord: for I do not desire the death of the sinner; but I desire that the sinner should turn from his evil way, and live: therefore return ye from your evil way: why do ye give yourselves over to death, O house of Israel?” (Eze_33:10, Eze_33:11) So, too, by Isaiah the prophet: “I will not be angry with you for ever, nor will I abstain from defending you always.” (Isa_57:16) And because Jeremiah the prophet, in the person of the sinful people, prays to the Lord, saying, “Amend us, O Lord, but in judgment, and not in anger, lest Thou make us few;” (Jer_10:24) Isaiah also added, and said, “For his sin I have slightly afflicted him; and I have stricken him, and have turned away my face from him: and he was afflicted, and went away sadly in his ways.” (Isa_57:17) And because he labours, he added and said, “I have seen his ways, and I have healed him; and I have given him a true exhortation, peace upon peace;” (Isa_57:19) that to those who repent, and pray, and labour, restoration is possible, because they would miserably perish, and because they would decline from Christ.

11. Moreover, this is proved in the Gospel, where is described that woman who was a sinner, who came to the house of a certain Pharisee whither the Lord had been bidden with His disciples, and she brought a vessel of ointment, and stood at the Lord’s feet, and washed His feet with her tears, and wiped them with her hair, and pressed kisses upon them; so that that Pharisee was provoked, and said, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what sort of a woman this is who touches him; for she is a sinner.” (Luk_7:39 et seq.) Whence immediately the Lord, the remitter of sins and the receiver of the penitent, says, “Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he answered, saying, Master, say on. And the Lord, There was a certain creditor which had two debtors; one who had5 five hundred pence, and the other fifty. When they had nothing to pay, he forgave both. And He asked, Which of these loved most? And Simon answered, Assuredly he to whom he forgave most. And He added, saying, Seest thou that woman? I entered into thy house, thou gavest me no kiss; but she hath not ceased to kiss my feet; thou washedst not my feet, but she has washed them with her tears, and wiped them with her hair; thou didst not anoint my feet with oil, but she hath anointed them. Wherefore I say unto thee, Simon, that her sins are forgiven her.” Behold, the Lord grants the debt with His liberal kindness to both debtors; behold Him who pardons sins; behold the woman who was a sinner, penitent, weeping, praying, and receiving remission of her sins!

12. And now blush if thou canst, Novatian; cease to deceive the unwary with thy impious arguments; cease to frighten them with the subtlety of one particular. We read, and adore, and do not pass over the heavenly judgment of the Lord, where he says that He will deny him who denies Him. But does this mean the penitent? And why should I be taking pains so long to prove individual cases of mercies? since the mercy of God is not indeed denied to the Ninevites, although strangers, and placed apart from the law of the Lord, when they beseech it on account of the overthrow announced to their city. Nor to Pharaoh himself, resisting with sacrilegious boldness, when formerly he was stricken with plagues from heaven, and, turning to Moses and to his brother, said, “Pray to the Lord for me, for I have sinned.” (Exo_9:28) At once the anger of God was suspended from him. And yet thou, O Novatian, judgest and declarest that the lapsed have no hope of peace and mercy, nor inclinest thine ear to the rebuke of the apostle, when he says,” Who art thou, who judgest another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall stand. God is mighty to establish him.” (Rom_14:4) Whence pertinently and needfully the Holy Spirit, in the person of those same lapsed people, rebukes you when He says, “Rejoice not over me, O mine enemy: because if I have fallen, I shall also rise again; and if I shall walk in darkness, the Lord is my light. I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned against Him, until He justify my cause, and execute judgment and justice, and bring me forth to the light. I shall behold His righteousness; and she that is mine enemy shall see me, and shall cover herself with confusion.” (Mic_7:8-10)

13. I beseech thee, hast thou not read, “Boast not, and speak not loftily, and let not arrogancy proceed out of your mouth: for the Lord lifteth the poor from the earth; He raiseth up the beggar from the dunghill, and maketh him to sit with the mighty ones of the people?” (1Sa_2:3-8) Hast thou not read, that “the Lord resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble?” (Jam_4:6) Hast thou not read, “Whoso exalteth himself shall be humbled?” (Mat_23:12) Hast thou not read, that “God destroys the remembrance of the proud, and does not forsake the memory of the lowly?” Hast thou not read, that “with what judgment a man shall judge he must be judged?” (Mat_7:2) Hast thou not read, that “he who hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because the darkness hath blinded his eyes?” (1Jo_2:11) Whence, then, this Novatian has become both so wicked and so lost, so mad with rage of discord, I cannot discover, since he always in one household – that is, the Church of Christ – would have bewailed the sins of his neighbours as his own;6 would have borne the burthens of his brethren, as the apostle exhorts would have strengthened the faltering in the faith with heavenly counsel. But now, from the time when he began to practise that heresy of Cain which only delights in slaying, he does not even of late spare himself. But if he had read that “the righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day on which he shall have erred, and the wickedness of the wicked shall not harm him from the day in which he shall have been converted,” (Eze_33:12) he would long ago have repented in ashes, who is always opposed to penitents; who labours more readily in the destruction of those things which are built and standing, than in the building up of those which are prostrate; who has once more made heathens of many most wretched brethren of ours, terrified by his false oppositions, by saying that the repentance of the lapsed is vain, and cannot avail them for salvation, although the Scripture cries aloud and says, “Remember whence thou hast fallen, and repent, or else I will come to thee except thou repent.” (Rev_2:5) And indeed, writing to the seven churches, rebuking each one of them with its own crimes and sins, it said, Repent. To whom but to them, doubtless, whom He had redeemed at the great price of His blood?

14. O impious and wicked as thou art, thou heretic Novatian! who after so many and great crimes which in past times thou hadst known to be voluntarily committed in the Church, and before thou thyself wast an apostate in the family of God, hadst certainly taught that these might be abolished from memory if well-doing followed; according to the faith of the Scripture which says, “But if the wicked will turn from all his sins which he hath committed, and will do righteousness, he shall live in eternal life, and shall not die in his wickedness.” (Eze_18:21) For the sins which he has committed shall be abolished from memory by the good deeds which succeed. Thou reconsiderest now, whether the wounds of the lapsed who have fallen, stripped bare by the devil, ought to be cured; dashed down, as they are, by the “violence of the flood which the serpent sent forth from his mouth after the woman.” (Rev_12:15) But “What shall I say?” says the apostle. “Do I praise you? In this I praise you not; that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.” (1Co_11:17) For where there are “rivalries and dissensions among you, are ye not carnal, and walk according to man?” (1Co_3:3) Nor indeed ought we to wonder why this Novatian should dare now to practise such wicked, such severe things against the person of the lapsed, since we have previous examples of this kind of prevarication. Saul, that once good (1Sa_9:2) man, besides other things, is subsequently overthrown by envy, and strives to do everything that is harsh and hostile against David. That Judas, who was chosen among the apostles, who was always of one mind and faithful in the house of God, himself subsequently betrayed God.7

And indeed the Lord had foretold that many should come as ravening wolves in the skins of sheep. Who are those ravening wolves but such as conspire with treacherous intent to waste the flock of Christ? As we read it written in Zechariah: “Lo, I raise up a shepherd in the land, who shall not visit that which is turned away, and will eat the flesh of the chosen, and tear their claws in pieces.” (Zec_11:16) Similarly also in Ezekiel he rebukes shepherds of this kind, to wit, robbers and butchers (I will speak as he had thought8), saying, “O shepherds, wherefore do ye drink the milk, and eat up the curdled milk, and have brought that which is strong to nothing, and have not visited the weak, have not healed the halting, and have not recalled the wandering, and have permitted my people to wander among thorns and briers? For these things, says the Lord, lo, I will come against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep of their hands; and I will drive them away, that they may not feed my sheep; and my sheep shall no more be for them to devour, and I will seek them out as a shepherd his flock in the day in which there shall be darkness and cloud. Thus I will seek out my sheep, and I will seek them out in every place wherever they are scattered; and I will seek out what had perished, and I will recall what had wandered, and what had halted I will heal, and what is weak I will watch over; and I will feed my sheep with judgment.” (Eze_34:1-31)

15. Who is it that says these things? Certainly He who, having left the ninety and nine sheep, went to seek that one which had wandered from His flock; as David says, “I have gone astray like a sheep which was lost,” (Psa_119:176) which being found Christ brings back, bearing on His shoulder the tender sinful one; and He, rejoicing and exulting, having called His friends and domestics, says, “Rejoice with me; for my sheep which was lost is found. I say,” says He, “unto you, that there will be such joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth.” (Luk_15:6-10) And in continuation, He says: “Or what woman, having ten denarii, if she should lose one of the denarii, does not light a lamp, and all the day long clean out her house, seeking till she finds it? And when she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbours, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the denarius that I had lost. I say unto you, that such joy shall be in the sight of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.” (Luk_15:6-10) But, on the other hand, they who do not repent of their wickedness, let them know from the answer of the Lord Himself what remaineth for them; for we read in the Gospel, that “certain men came from the Galileans to the Lord, telling Him of those whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices; to whom the Lord answered, saying, Think ye that those Galileans had been sinners above other Galileans, because they suffered such things? No; for I say unto you, unless ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, think ye that they were debtors to death above all men who dwell in Jerusalem? No; I say unto you,” said He, “that unless ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” (Luk_13:1-5)

16. Let us then arouse ourselves as much as we can, beloved brethren; and breaking away from the slumber of indolence and security, let us be watchful for the observance of the Lord’s precepts. Let us with all our hearts seek for what we have lost, that we may be able to find; because “to him that seeketh,” says the Scripture, “it shall be given, and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.” (Luk_11:10) Let us cleanse our house with spiritual cleanliness, that every secret and hidden place of our breast, truly enlightened by the light of the Gospel, may say, “Against Thee only have I sinned, and done this great evil in Thy sight.” (Psa_51:4) Because the death of sinners is evil, and in hell there is no repentance. Let us have in contemplation especially the day of judgment and retribution, and what must be believed by all of us, and firmly maintained, that “there is no acceptance of persons with God;” (Rom_2:11) since He commanded in Deuteronomy, that the person must not be accepted in judgment: “Thou shalt not accept,” says He, “the person, neither shalt thou judge according to the least nor according to the greatest.” (Deu_1:17) Like words to these He also said by Ezekiel: “All souls,” said He, “are mine; as the soul of the father, so is the soul of the son: the soul that hath sinned, it shall die.” (Eze_18:4) It is then He who must be revered by us; He must be held fast; He must be propitiated by our full and worthy confession, “who has the power of sending soul and body to the Gehenna of fire,” (Mat_10:28) – as it is written, “Behold, He cometh with many thousands of His messengers, to execute judgment upon all, and to destroy all the wicked, and to condemn all flesh, for all the deeds of the wicked which they have wickedly done, and for all the impious words which sinners have spoken about God.” (Jud_1:14, Jud_1:15)

17. Like things to these also says Daniel: “I beheld a throne placed, and the Ancient of days sat upon it, and His clothing was as it were snow, and the hairs of His head as it were white wool: His throne was a flame of fire, its wheels were burning fire. A river of fire came forth before Him: thousand thousands ministered to Him, and thousand thousands stood before Him: He sat to judgment, and the books were opened.” (Dan_7:9, Dan_7:10) And John still more plainly declares, both about the day of judgment and the consummation of the world, saying, “And when,” said he, “He had opened the sixth seal, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the whole moon became as of blood; and the stars fell to the earth, even as a fig-tree, shaken by a mighty wind, casteth her unripe figs. And the heaven departed as a book when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island were moved from their places. And the kings of the earth, and all the great men, and the tribunes, and the rich men, and the strong men, and every slave, and every free man, hid themselves in the caves and in the caverns of the mountains; saying to the mountains and to the rocks, Fall upon us, and hide us from the sight of the Father that sitteth upon the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: because the day of destruction cometh; and who shall be able to stand?” (Rev_6:12-17) Also in the same Apocalypse John says that this too was revealed to him. “I saw,” says he, “a great throne, and one in white who sat upon it, from whose face the heaven and the earth fled away; and their place was not found. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the sight of the Lord’s throne: and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is (the book) of life: and every one was judged according to those things that were written in the book, according to their own works.” (Rev_20:11-13) Moreover, too, the apostle, giving good advice, thus exhorts us, saying, “Let no one deceive you with vain words: for because of these things the wrath of God cometh upon the children of disobedience. Be not partakers with them.” (Eph_5:6, Eph_5:7)

18. Let us, then, with the whole strength of our faith, give praise to God; let us give our full confession, since the powers of heaven rejoice over our repentance, all the angels rejoice, and Christ also rejoices, who once again with full and merciful moderation exhorts us, laden with sins, overwhelmed with crimes, to cease from wickedness, saying, “Turn ye, and return from your impieties, and your iniquities shall not be to you for a punishment. Cast away from you all your impieties which ye have committed against me; and make to yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. And why do ye deliver yourselves over to death, O house of Israel? For I do not desire the death of the sinner.” (Eze_18:30-32) “I am He, I am He who blots out thy crimes, and I will not remember them. But do thou have in mind, and let us judge; tell thou thy wickednesses first, that thou mayest be justified.” (Isa_43:25, Isa_43:26) While the way of mercy, brethren, is open,9 let us entreat God with full atonements; let us humble ourselves, that we may be exalted; let us acquiesce in the divine exhortation, whereby we may escape the day of the Lord and His anger. For thus He says: “Look, my son, upon the nations of men, and know who hath hoped in the Lord, and has been confounded; or has remained in His commandments, and has been forsaken; or has called upon Him, and He has despised him. For the Lord is loving and merciful, and forgiving in time of tribulation their sins to all those that seek after Him in truth.” (Sirach 2:10, 11) Therefore He says, “First tell thou thy sins, that thou mayest be justified.” Let there be first in your hand that prayer full of confession.10

FOOTNOTES

1 Infelicissimi. This is supposed to be a play upon the name of Felicissimus, referred to in Cyprian’s letter, [xlviii. p. 325, supra].

2 Varium.

3 This passage is altogether corrupt and unintelligible; some force is necessary even to give it an appearance of meaning.

4 Scil. Gallus and Volusianus (Pamel.).

5 “Habebat,” but probably “debebat” – owed.

6 This refers to Novatian’s letter in the name of the Roman people. [See p. 308. Compare p. 320,  note 209.]

7 [A misconception of Judas, who seems to have been hypocritical from the first. Joh_6:64.]

8 This parentheses is unintelligible. [i.e., not shepherds, but “butchers,” in the prophet’s thought, who speaks as follows, etc.]

9 [A virtual refutation of the dogma of purgatory, and all the trading in masses which it involves. The pious Hirsher, in his Kirchlichen Zustände der Gegenwart (Tübingen, 1849; a translation of which, by the American editor of this series, was published, Oxford, 1852), bewails the corrupting influences of this system, though he died in the Papal communion.]

10 [The Lord’s prayer; Mar_11:25, Elucidation III., p. 559, supra.]

Introductory Notice1

The following treatise on Re-baptism has been attributed by some authorities to the pen of one Ursinus,2 a monk, who is said to have written in the fourth century. But internal evidence seems to point to a bishop as having been the writer; (sec. x.) and it seems very probable that it was written while the baptismal controversy was still agitating the Church, from the manner in which he refers to it. Moreover, the bitter attack contained in the first chapter was probably levelled against Cyprian, as the leader of the party in favour of the re-baptism of heretics. And this would hardly have been the case, at least the attack would not have been characterized by the same rancour, if Cyprian had already suffered martyrdom, and the controversy had lost its acrimony and intensity.

Rigaltius, who first edited the treatise, among his notes to the works of Cyprian, judged that it was written about the time of that Father. And Fell, Cave, Tillemont, and Galland, are of the same opinion. The two latter, indeed, conjecture that it was actually intended against Cyprian.

The difficulty arising to the translator from a loose and rambling style, and very involved argument, has been enhanced by a text singularly uncertain; but he ventures to think that there are points in the treatment of the subject which will not be without interest to the theological student of the present day, although its immediate purpose has passed away. 

FOOTNOTES

1 [By Dr. Wallis, editor of vol. xiii., Edinb. series.]

2 Gennadius, de Script. Eccles., cap. xxvii.

A Treatise on Re-Baptism by an Anonymous Writer.

Argument. – That They Who Have once Been Washed in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Ought Not to Be Re-Baptized.

1. I observe that it has been asked among the brethren what course ought specially to be adopted towards the persons of those who, although baptized in heresy, have yet been baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,1 and subsequently departing from their heresy, and fleeing as supplicants to the Church of God, should repent with their whole hearts, and only now perceiving the condemnation of their error, implore from the Church the help of salvation. The point is whether, according to the most ancient custom and ecclesiastical tradition, it would suffice, after that baptism which they have received outside the Church indeed, but still in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, that only hands should be laid upon them by the bishop for their reception of the Holy Spirit, and this imposition of hands would afford them the renewed and perfected seal of faith; or whether, indeed, a repetition of baptism would be necessary for them, as if they should receive nothing if they had not obtained baptism afresh, just as if they were never baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. And therefore some things were talked about as having been written and replied on this new question, wherein both sides endeavoured with the greatest eagerness to demolish what had been written by their antagonists. In which kind of debate, as it appears to me, no controversy or discussion could have arisen at all if each one of us had been content with the venerable authority of all the churches,2 and with becoming humility had desired to innovate nothing, as observing no kind of room for contradiction. For everything which is both doubtful and ambiguous, and is established in opinions differing among those of prudent and faithful men, if it is judged to be against the ancient and memorable and most solemn observance of all those holy and faithful men who have deserved well, ought assuredly to be condemned; since in a matter once arranged and ordained, whatever that is which is brought forward against the quiet and peace of the Church, will result in nothing but discords, and strifes, and schisms. And in this no other fruit can be found but this alone; that one man, whoever he is, should be vain-gloriously declared among certain fickle men to be of great prudence and constancy: and, being gifted with the arrogance of heretics, whose only consolation in destruction is the not appearing to sin alone, should be renowned among those that are most similar and agreeable to himself, as having corrected the errors and vices of all the churches. For this is the desire and purpose of all heretics, to frame as many calumnies of this kind as possible against our most holy mother the Church, and to deem it a great glory to have discovered anything that can be imputed to her as a crime, or even as a folly. And since it becomes no faithful man of sound mind to dare to hold such a view, especially no one who is ordained in any clerical office at all, and much more in the episcopal order, it is like a prodigy for bishops themselves to devise such scandals, and not to fear to unfold too irreverently against the precept of the law and of all the Scriptures, with their own disgrace and risk, the disgrace of their mother the Church – if they think that there is any disgrace in this matter; although the Church has no disgrace in this instance, save in the error of such men as these themselves. Therefore it is the more grievous sin in men of this kind, if that which is blamed by them in the most ancient observance, as if it were not rightly done, is manifestly and forcibly shown as well to have been rightly observed by those who were before us, as to be rightly observed also by us; so that even if we should engage in the controversy with equal arguments on both sides, yet, since that which was innovated could not be established without dissension among the brethren and mischief to the Church, assuredly it ought not, – right or wrong, as they say, that is, contrary to what is good and proper – rashly to be flung like a stain upon our mother the Church; and the ignominy of this audacity and impiety ought with reason to be attached to those who should attempt this. But since it is not in our power, according to the apostle’s precept, “to speak the same thing, that there be not schisms among us;” (1Co_1:10) yet, as far as we can, we strive to demonstrate the true condition of this argument, and to persuade turbulent men, even now, to mind their own business, as we shall even attain a great deal if they will at length acquiesce in this sound advice.3 And therefore we shall, as is needful, collect into one mass whatever passages of the Holy Scriptures are pertinent to this subject. And we shall manifestly harmonize, as far as possible, those which seem to be differing or of various meaning; and we shall to the extent of our poor ability examine both the utility and advantage of each method, that we may recommend to all the brethren, that the most wholesome form and peaceful custom be adopted in the Church.

2. To such, then, as approach to a discussion of saving and modern, that is, of spiritual and evangelical baptism, there occurs first of all the announcement universally well known, made and begun by John the Baptist, who, somewhat departing from the law, that is, from the most ancient baptism of Moses, and preparing the way of the new and true grace, both preoccupied the ears of the Jews gradually by the baptism of water and of repentance which for the time he practised, and took possession of them with the announcement of a spiritual baptism that was to come, exhorting them, and saying, “He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire;” (Mat_3:11) and for this reason we also ought to make a beginning of this discourse from this point. For in the Acts of the Apostles, the Lord after His resurrection, confirming this same word of John, “commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for that promise of the Father which, saith He, ye have heard from me; for John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” (Act_1:4, Act_1:5) And Peter also related these same words of the Lord, when he gave an account of himself to the apostles, saying: “And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell upon them as on us at the beginning; and I remembered the word of the Lord, how that He said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. If, therefore, He gave them a like gift as to us, who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could withstand the Lord?” (Act_11:15-17) And again: “Men and brethren, ye know how from ancient days God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel, and believe. And God, who knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as He did unto us.” (Act_15:7, Act_15:8) And on this account we ought to consider what is the force and power of this saying. For the Lord says to them who would have to be subsequently baptized because they should believe, that they must be baptized not in like manner as by Him in water, unto repentance, but in the Holy Ghost. And of this announcement, as assuredly none of us can doubt it, it is plain on what principle men were baptized in the Holy Spirit. For it was peculiarly in the Holy Spirit Himself alone that they who believed were baptized. For John distinguished, and said that he indeed baptized in water, but that one should come who would baptize in the Holy Ghost, by the grace and power of God; and they are so by the Spirit’s bestowal and operation of hidden results. Moreover, they are so no less in the baptism of the Spirit and of water. They are so, besides, also in the baptism of every one in his own proper blood4 Even as the Holy Scriptures declare to us, from which we shall adduce evident proofs throughout each individual instance of those things which we shall narrate.

3. And to these things thou perchance, who art bringing in some novelty, mayest immediately and impatiently reply, as thou art wont, that the Lord said in the Gospel: “Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Joh_3:3, Joh_3:5) Whence it manifestly appears that that baptism alone is profitable wherein also the Holy Spirit can dwell; for that upon the Lord Himself, when He was baptized, the Holy Spirit descended, and that His deed and word are quite in harmony, and that such a mystery can consist with no other principle. To which reply none of us is found either so senseless or so stubborn as to dare, contrary to right or contrary to truth, to object, for instance, so to the doing of things in their integrity, and by all means in the Church, and the observation of them according to the order of discipline perpetually by us. But if, in the same New Testament, those things which in that matter we come upon as associated, be sometimes found in some sort divided, and separated, and arranged, and ordered just as if they were by themselves; let us see whether these solitary instances by themselves may not sometimes be such as are not imperfect, but, as it were, entire and complete. For when by imposition of the bishop’s hands the Holy Spirit is given to every one that believes, as in the case of the Samaritans, after Philip’s baptism, the apostles did to them by laying on of hands; in this manner also they conferred on them the Holy Spirit. And that this might be the case, they themselves prayed for them, for as yet the Holy Spirit had not descended upon any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Moreover, our Lord after His resurrection, when He had breathed upon His apostles, and had said to them, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” (Joh_20:22) thus and thus only bestowed upon them the Spirit.

4. And this being found to be so, what thinkest thou, my brother? If a man be not baptized by a bishop, so as even at once to have the imposition of hands, and should yet die before having received the Holy Spirit, should you judge him to have received salvation or not? Because, indeed, both the apostles themselves and the disciples, who also baptized others, and were themselves baptized by the Lord, did not at once receive the Holy Spirit, for He had not as yet been given, because that Jesus had not as yet been glorified. And after His resurrection no small interval of time elapsed before that took place, – even as also the Samaritans, when they were baptized by Philip, did not receive the gift until the apostles invited from Jerusalem to Samaria went down to them to lay hands upon them, and conferred on them the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands. Because in that interval of time any one of them who had not attained the Holy Spirit, might have been cut off by death, and die defrauded of the grace of the Holy Spirit. And it cannot be doubted also, that in the present day this sort of thing is usual, and happens frequently, that many after baptism depart from this life without imposition of the bishop’s hands, and yet are esteemed perfected believers. Just as the Ethiopian eunuch, when he was returning from Jerusalem and reading the prophet Isaiah, and was in doubt, having at the Spirit’s suggestion heard the truth from Philip the deacon, believed and was baptized; and when he had gone up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord took away Philip, and the eunuch saw him no more. For he went on his way rejoicing, although, as thou observest, hands were not laid on him by the bishop, that he might receive the Holy Spirit. But if thou admittest this, and believest it to be saving, and dost not gainsay the opinion of all the faithful, thou must needs confess this, that even as this principle proceeds to be more largely discussed, that other also can be more broadly established; that is, that by the imposition of hands alone of the bishop – because baptism in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ has gone before it – may the Holy Spirit also be given to another man who repents and believes. Because the Holy Scripture has affirmed that they who should believe in Christ, must needs be baptized in the Spirit; so that these also may not seem to have anything less than those who are perfectly Christians; lest it should be needful to ask what sort of a thing was that baptism which they have attained in the name of Jesus Christ. Unless, perchance, in that former discussion also, about those who should only have been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, thou shouldst decide that they can be saved even without the Holy Spirit, or that the Holy Spirit is not accustomed to be bestowed in this manner only, but by the imposition of the bishop’s hands; or even shouldst say that it is not the bishop alone who can bestow the Holy Spirit.

5. And if this be so, and the occurrence of any of these things cannot deprive a man who believes, of salvation, thou thyself also affirmest that the fact of the mystery of the faith being divided in a manner, and its not being, as thou contendest, consummated, where necessity intervenes, cannot take away salvation from a believing and penitent man. Or if thou sayest that a man of this kind cannot be saved, we deprive all bishops of salvation, whom thou thus engagest, under risks as assured as possible, to be bound themselves to afford help to all those who live under their care, and are in weak health, in their districts, scattered up and down, because other men of less degree among the clerics who venture cannot confer the same benefit; so that the blood of those who shall appear to have departed from this life without the benefit would have, of necessity, to be required at the hands of the bishops. And further, as you are not ignorant, the Holy Spirit is found to have been given to men who believe, by the Lord without baptism of water, as is contained in the Acts of the Apostles after this manner: “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell upon all them who heard the word. And they who were of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. For they heard them speak with their tongues, and they magnified God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” (Act_10:44-48) Even as Peter also subsequently most abundantly taught us about the same Gentiles, saying: “And He put no difference between us and them, their hearts being purified by faith.” (Act_15:9) And there will be no doubt that men may be baptized with the Holy Ghost without water, – as thou observest that these were baptized before they were baptized with water; that the announcements of both John and of our Lord Himself were satisfied, – forasmuch as they received the grace of the promise both without the imposition of the apostle’s hands and without the laver, which they attained afterwards. And their hearts being purified, God bestowed upon them at the same time, in virtue of their faith, remission of sins; so that the subsequent baptism conferred upon them this benefit alone, that they received also the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, that nothing might appear to be wanting to the integrity of their service and faith.5

6. And this also, – looking at it from the opposite side of this discussion, – those disciples of our Lord themselves attained, upon whom, being previously baptized, the Holy Spirit at length came down on the day of Pentecost, descending from heaven indeed by the will of God, not of His own accord, but effused for this very office, and moreover upon each one of them. Although these were already righteous, and, as we have said, had been baptized by the Lord’s baptism even as the apostles themselves, who nevertheless are found on the night on which He was apprehended to have all deserted Him. And even Peter himself, who boasted that he would persevere in his faith, and most obstinately resisted the prediction of the Lord Himself, yet at last denied Him, that by this means it might be shown to us, that whatever sins they bad contracted in the meantime and in any manner, these same sins, by the faith in them subsequently attested as sincere, were without doubt put away by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Nor, as I think, was it for any other reason that the apostles had charged those whom they addressed in the Holy Spirit, that they should be baptized in the name of Christ Jesus, except that the power of the name of Jesus invoked upon any man by baptism might afford to him who should be baptized no slight advantage for the attainment of salvation, as Peter relates in the Acts of the Apostles, saying: “For there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.” (Act_4:12) As also the Apostle Paul unfolds, showing that God hath exalted our Lord Jesus, and “given Him a name, that it may be above every name, that in the name of Jesus all should bow the knee, of things heavenly and earthly, and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus is Lord in the glory of God the Father.” And he on whom, when he should be baptized, invocation should be made in the name of Jesus, although he might obtain baptism under some error, still would not be hindered from knowing the truth at some time or another, and correcting his error, and coming to the Church and to the bishop, and sincerely confessing our Jesus before men; so that then, when hands were laid upon him by the bishop, he might also receive the Holy Spirit, and he would not lose that former invocation of the name of Jesus. Which none of us may disallow, although this invocation, if it be standing bare and by itself, could not suffice for affording salvation, lest on this principle we should believe that even Gentiles and heretics, who abuse the name of Jesus, could attain unto salvation without the true and entire thing. Yet it is extremely useful to believe that this invocation of the name of Jesus, together with the correction of error and the acknowledgment of the belief of the truth, and with the putting away of all stain of past conversation, if rightly performed with the mystery of God among men of this kind, obtains a place which it would not have had, and finally, in the true faith and for the maintenance of the integrity of the sign, is no hindrance, when its supplement which had been wanting is added; and that it is consistent with good reason, with the authority of so many years, and so many churches and apostles and bishops; even as it is the very greatest disadvantage and damage to our most holy mother Church, now for the first time suddenly and without reason to rebel against former decisions after so long a series of so many ages. For not for any other reason Peter – who had already been baptized and had been asked what he thought of the Lord by the Lord Himself, and the truth of the revelation of the Father in heaven being bestowed on him bad confessed that Christ was not only our Lord, but was the Son of the living God – was shown subsequently to have withstood the same Christ when He made announcement of His passion, and therefore was set forth as being called Satan. For no other reason except because it would come to pass that some, although varying in their own judgment, and somewhat halting in faith and doctrine, although they were baptized in the name of Jesus, yet, if they had been able to rescind their error in some interval of time, were not on that account cut off from salvation; but at any time that they had come to the right mind, obtained by repentance a sound hope of salvation, especially when they received the Holy Spirit, to be baptized by Whom is the duty of every man, they would have intended some such thing. Even as we do not apprehend that Peter in the Gospel suffered this alone, but all the disciples, to whom, though already baptized, the Lord afterwards says, that “all ye shall be offended in me,” (Mar_14:27) all of whom, as we observe, having amended their faith, were baptized after the Lord’s resurrection with the Holy Spirit. So that not without reason we also in the present day may believe that men, amended from their former error, may be baptized in the Holy Spirit, who, although they were baptized with water in the name of the Lord, might have had a faith somewhat imperfect. Because it is of great importance whether a man is not baptized at all in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, or indeed whether in some respect he halts when he is baptized with the baptism of water, which is of less account provided that afterwards a sincere faith in the truth is evident in the baptism of the Spirit, which undoubtedly is of greater account.

7. Neither must you esteem what our Lord said as being contrary to this treatment: “Go ye, teach the nations; baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Mat_28:19) Because, although this is true and right, and to be observed by all means in the Church, and moreover has been used to be observed, yet it behoves us to consider that invocation of the name of Jesus ought not to be thought futile by us on account of the veneration and power of that very name, in which name all kinds of power are accustomed to be exercised, and occasionally some even by men outside the Church. But to what effect are those words of Christ, who said that He would deny, and not know, those who should say to Him in the day of judgment,” Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name, and in Thy name cast out demons, and in Thy name done many wonderful works,” when He answered them, even with emphasis,6 “I never knew you; depart from me, ye who work iniquity,” (Mar_14:27) unless that it should be shown to us, that even by those who work iniquity might these good works also be done, by the superfluous7 energy of the name of Christ? Therefore ought this invocation of the name of Jesus to be received as a certain beginning of the mystery of the Lord common to us and to all others, which may afterwards be filled up with the remaining things. Otherwise such an invocation would not avail if it should remain alone, because after the death of a man in this position there cannot be added to him anything at all, nor supplemented, nor can, in anything, avail him in the day of judgment, when they shall begin to be reproached by our Lord with those things which we have above mentioned, none of whom notwithstanding in this present time may by any man be so hardly and cruelly prohibited from aiding themselves in those ways which we have above shown.

8. But these things thou wilt, as thou art wont, contradict, by objecting to us, that when they baptized, the disciples were baptized perfectly, and rightly, and not as these heretics; and this thou must needs assume from their condition, and His who baptized them. And therefore we reply to this proposition of thine, not as accusers of the Lord’s disciples, but as we are constrained, because it is necessary that we should investigate by reasons where and when, and in what measure, salvation has been bestowed on each of us. For that our Lord was born, and that He was the Christ, appeared by many reasons to be believed, not unjustly, by His disciples, because He had been born of the tribe of Judah, of the family of David, and in the city of Bethlehem; and because He had been announced to the shepherds by the angels at the same moment that there was born to them a Saviour; because His star being seen in the east, He had been most anxiously sought for and adored by the Magi, and honoured with illustrious presents and distinguished offerings; because while still a youth, sitting in the temple with the doctors of the law, He wisely, and with the admiration of all, had disputed; because when He was baptized He had been glorified, as had happened to none others, by the descent of the Holy Spirit from the opened heavens, and by its abode upon Him; and moreover by the testimony of His Father, and also of John the Baptist; because, beyond the inferior capacity of man, He understood the hearts and thoughts of all men; because He cured and healed weaknesses, and vices, and diseases, with very great power; because He bestowed remissions of sins, with manifest attestation; because He expelled demons at His bidding; because He purified lepers with a word; because, by converting water into wine, He enlarged the nuptial festivity with marvellous joyfulness; because He restored or granted sight to the blind; because He maintained the doctrine of the Father with all confidence; because in a desert place He satisfied five thousand men with five loaves; because the remains and the fragments filled more than twelve baskets; because He everywhere raised up the dead, according to His mercy; because He commanded the winds and the sea to be still; because He walked with His feet upon the sea; because He absolutely performed all miracles. 

9. By which things, and by many deeds of this kind tending to His glory, it appeared to follow as a consequence, that in whatever manner the Jews think about Christ, and although they do not believe concerning Jesus Christ our Lord, that even they themselves thought that such and so great a one would without any death endure to eternity, and would possess the kingdom of Israel, and of the whole world for ever; and that it should not be destroyed. Whence, moreover, the Jews dared to seize Him by force, and anoint Him for the kingdom, which indeed He was compelled to evade; and therefore His disciples thought that in no other way would He bestow upon them eternal life, except He Himself had first continued this temporal life into that eternal one in His own experience. In fine, when they were passing through Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The Son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and after three days He shall rise again.” (Mar_9:30) and they were greatly grieved, because, as we have said, they had formed a very different notion previously in their minds and hearts. And again, this also was the speech of the Jews, in contradiction against Him, when He taught them of Himself, and announced future things to them, and they said, “We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou that the Son of man must be lifted up?” (Joh_12:34) And so there was this same presumption concerning Christ in the mind of the disciples, even as Peter himself, the leader and chief of the apostles, broke forth into that expression of his own incredulity. For when he, together with the others, had been asked by the Lord what he thought about Him, that is, whom he thought Him to be, and had first of all confessed the truth, saying that He was the Christ the Son of the living God, and therefore was judged blessed by Him because he had arrived at this truth, not after the flesh, but by the revelation of the heavenly Father; yet this same Peter, when Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders, and priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after the third day rise again from the dead; nevertheless that true confessor of Christ, after a few days, taking Him aside, began to rebuke Him, saying, “Be propitious to Thyself: this shall not be;” (Mat_16:22) so that on that account he deserved to hear from the Lord, “Get thee behind me, Satan;8 thou art an offence unto me, because he savoured not the things which are of God, but those things which are of men.” Which rebuke against Peter became more and more apparent when the Lord was apprehended, and, frightened by the damsel, he said, “I know not what thou sayest, neither know I thee;” (Mat_26:70) and again when, using an oath, he said this same thing; and for the third time, cursing and swearing, he affirmed that he knew not the man, and not once, but frequently, denied Him.9 And this disposition, because it was to continue to him even to the Lord’s passion, was long before made manifest by the Lord, that we also might not be ignorant of it. Again, after the Lord’s resurrection, one of His disciples, Cleopas, when he was, according to the error of all his fellow-disciples, sorrowfully telling what had happened to the Lord Himself, as if to some unknown person, spoke thus, saying of Jesus the Nazarene, “who was a prophet mighty in deed and in word before God and all the people; how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and fastened Him to the cross. But we trusted that it had been He which should have redeemed Israel.” (Luk_24:20, Luk_24:21) And in addition to these things, all the disciples also judged the declaration of the women who had seen the Lord after the resurrection to be idle tales; and some of themselves, when they had seen Him, believed not, but doubted; and they who were not then present believed not at all until they had been subsequently by the Lord Himself in all ways rebuked and reproached; because His death had so offended them that they thought that He had not risen again, who they had believed ought not to have died, because contrary to their belief He had died once. And thus, as far as concerns the disciples themselves, they are found to have had a faith neither sound nor perfect in such matters as we have referred to; and what is much more serious, they moreover baptized others, as it is written in the Gospel according to John.

10. Besides, what wilt thou say of those who are in many cases baptized by bishops of very bad character, who yet at length, when God so wills it, convicted of their crimes, are even deprived of their office itself, or absolutely of communion? Or what wilt thou decide of those who may have been baptized by bishops, whose opinions are unsound, or who are very ignorant – when they may not have spoken clearly and honestly, or even have spoken otherwise than is fit in the tradition of the sacrament, or at least may have asked anything, or asking, have heard from those who answered what ought by no means to be so asked or answered? And still this does not greatly injure that true faith of ours, although, moreover, these more simple men may deliver the mystery of the faith without the elegance and order that thou wouldst use. And thou wilt assuredly say, with that marvellous carefulness of thine, that these too should be baptized again, since this is especially the thing which is wanting to them, or hinders their being able to receive, uncorrupted, that divine and inviolable mystery of the faith. And yet, O excellent man, let us attribute and allow to the heavenly agencies their power, and let us concede to the condescension of the divine majesty its appropriate operations; and understanding how great is the advantage therein, let us gladly acquiesce in it. And thus, as our salvation is founded in the baptism of the Spirit, which for the most part is associated with the baptism of water, if indeed baptism shall be given by us, let it be conferred in its integrity and with solemnity, and with all those means which are written; and let it be administered without any disconnection of anything. Or if, by the necessity of the case, it should be administered by an inferior cleric, let us wait for the result, that it may either be supplied by us,10 or reserved to be supplied by the Lord. If, however, it should have been administered by strangers, let this matter be amended as it can and as it allows. Because outside the Church there is no Holy Spirit, sound faith moreover cannot exist, not alone among heretics, but even among those who are established in schism. And for that reason, they who repent and are amended by the doctrine of the truth, and by their own faith, which subsequently has been improved by the purification of their heart, ought to be aided only by spiritual baptism, that is, by the imposition of the bishop’s hands, and by the ministration of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, the perfect seal of faith has been rightly accustomed to be given in this manner and on this principle in the Church. So that the invocation of the name of Jesus, which cannot be done away, may not seem to be held in disesteem by us; which assuredly is not fitting; although such an invocation, if none of those things of which we have spoken should follow it, may fail and be deprived of the effect of salvation. For when the apostle said that there was “one baptism,” (Eph_4:5) it must needs have been by the continued effect of the invocation of the name of Jesus, because, once invoked, it cannot be taken away by any man, even although we might venture, against the decision of the apostles, to repeat it by giving too much, yea, by the desire of superadding baptism. If he who returns to the Church be unwilling again to be baptized, the result will be that we may defraud him of the baptism of the Spirit, whom we think we must not defraud of the baptism of water.

11. And what wilt thou determine against the person of him who hears the word,11 and haply taken up in the name of Christ, has at once confessed, and has been punished before it has been granted him to be baptized with water? Wilt thou declare him to have perished because he has not been baptized with water? Or, indeed, wilt thou think that there may be something from without that helps him to salvation, although he is not baptized with water? Thy thinking him to have perished will be opposed by the sentence of the Lord, who says, “Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father which is in heaven;” (Mat_10:32) because it is no matter whether he who confesses for the Lord is a hearer of the word or a believer, so long as he confesses that same Christ whom he ought to confess; because the Lord, by confessing him, in turn Himself graces His confessor before his Father with the glory of his martyrdom, as He promised. But this assuredly ought not to be taken too liberally, as if it could be stretched to such a point as that any heretic can confess the name of Christ who notwithstanding denies Christ Himself; that he believes on another Christ, when Christ avows that it cannot avail him at all; forasmuch as the Lord said that He12 must needs be brought to confession by us before men, which cannot be done without Him, and without veneration of His name. And therefore both13 ought to stand by the confessor, sound, and sincere, and uncontaminated, and inviolated, without any choice being made of the confessor himself, whether he is righteous or a sinner, and a perfect Christian or an imperfect one, who has not feared to confess the Lord at his own greatest peril. And this is not contrary to the former discussion, because there is left therein time for the correction of many things which are bad, and because certain things are conceded to the very name only of our Lord; while martyrdom cannot be consummated except in the Lord and by the Lord Himself, and therefore nobody can confess Christ without His name, nor can the name of Christ avail any one for confession without Christ Himself.

12. Wherefore the whole of this discussion must be considered, that it may be made clearer. For the invocation of the name of Jesus can only be an advantage if it shall be subsequently properly supplemented, because both prophets and apostles have so declared. For James says in the Acts of the Apostles: “Men and brethren, hearken: Simon hath declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will raise it up anew; that the residue of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called upon them, saith the Lord, who doeth these things.” (Act_15:13-17) Therefore also the residue of men, that is, some of the Jews and all the Gentiles upon whom the name of the Lord is called, may and of necessity must seek the Lord, because that very invocation of the name affords them the opportunity, or even imposes on them the necessity, of seeking the Lord. And with these they prescribe the Holy Scriptures – whether all or only some of them – to discuss still more boldly concerning the truth than with the Gentiles upon whom the name of the Lord Jesus, the Son of the living God, has not been invoked, as it likewise has not upon the Jews who only receive the Old Testament Scriptures. And thus men of both of these kinds, that is, Jews and Gentiles, fully believing as they ought, are in like manner baptized. But heretics who are already baptized in water in the name of Jesus Christ must only be baptized with the Holy Spirit; and in Jesus, which is “the only name given under heaven whereby we must be saved,” death is reasonably despised, although, if they continue as they are, they cannot be saved, because they have not sought the Lord after the invocation of His name upon them, – even as those who, on account of false Christs, perchance have refused to believe, of whom the Lord says, “Take heed that no man lead you into error. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall lead many into error.” (Mat_24:4, etc.) And again He says: “Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo here is Christ, or lo there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; so that, if it were possible, even the very elect shall be deceived.” (Mat_24:23, Mat_24:24) And these miracles, without doubt, they shall then do under the name of Christ; in which name some even now appear to do certain miracles, and to prophesy falsely. But it is certain that those, because they are themselves not of Christ, therefore do not belong to Christ, in like manner as if one should depart from Christ, abiding only in His name, he would not be much advantaged; nay, rather, he is even burdened by that name, although he may have been previously very faithful, or very righteous, or honoured with some clerical office, or endowed with the dignity of confession. For all those, by denying the true Christ, and by introducing or following another – although there is no other at all – leave themselves no hope or salvation; not otherwise than they who have denied Christ before men, who must needs be denied by Christ; no consideration for them being made from their previous conversation, or feeling, or dignity, equally as they themselves have dared to do away with Christ, that is, their own salvation, they are condemned by the short sentence of this kind, because it was manifestly said by the Lord, “Whosoever shall deny me before men, I also will deny him before my Father which is in heaven.” As this word “whosoever,” also in the sentence of confession, most fully shows us that no condition of the confessor himself can stand in the way, although he may have been before a denier, or a heretic, or a hearer, or one who is beginning to hear, who has not yet been baptized or converted from heresy to the truth of the faith, or one who has departed from the Church and has afterwards returned, and then when he returned, before the bishop’s hands could be laid upon him, being apprehended, should be compelled to confess Christ before men; even as to one who again denies Christ, no special ancient dignity can be effectual to him for salvation.

13. For any one of us will hold it necessary, that whatever is the last thing to be found in a man in this respect, is that whereby he must be judged, all those things which he has previously done being wiped away and obliterated.14 And therefore, although in martyrdom there is so great a change of things in a moment of time, that in a very rapid case all things may be changed; let nobody flatter himself who has lost the occasion of a glorious salvation, if by chance he has excluded himself therefrom by his own fault; even as that wife of Lot, [vol. 1. p. 505, note 106, this series] who in a similar manner in time of trouble only, contrary to the angel’s command, looked behind her, and she became a pillar of salt. On which principle also, that heretic who, by confessing Christ’s name, is put to death, can subsequently correct nothing, if he should have thought anything erroneously of God or of Christ, although by believing on another God or on another Christ he has deceived himself: he is not a confessor of Christ, but in the name only of Christ; since also the apostle goes on to say, “And if I shall give up my body so that I may be burnt up with fire, but have not love, I profit nothing.” (1Co_13:3) Because by this deed he profits nothing who has not the love of that God and Christ who is announced by the law and the prophets and in the Gospel in this manner: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy mind, and with all thy thought; and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. For on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets ;” (Mat_22:37) – even as John the evangelist said, “And every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God; for God is love;” (1Jo_4:7, 1Jo_4:8) even as God also says, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that every one that believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” (Joh_3:16) – as it manifestly appears that he who has not in him this love, of loving us and of being loved by us, profits nothing by an empty confession and passion, except that thereby it appears and is plain that he is a heretic who believes on another God, or receives another Christ than Him whom the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament manifestly declare, which announce without any obscurity the Father omnipotent, Creator of all things, and His Son. For it shall happen to them as to one who expects salvation from another God. Then, finally, contrary to their notion, they are condemned to eternal punishment by Christ, the Son of God the Father omnipotent, the Creator whom they have blasphemed, when God shall begin to judge the hidden things of men according to the Gospel by Christ Jesus, because they did not believe in Him, although they were washed in His name.

14. And even to this point the whole of that heretical baptism may be amended, after the intervention of some space of time, if a man should survive and amend his faith, as our God, in the Gospel according to Luke, spoke to His disciples, saying, “But I have another baptism to be baptized with.” (Luk_12:50) Also according to Mark He said, with the same purpose, to the sons of Zebedee: “Are ye able to drink of the cup which I drink of, or to be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized?” (Mar_10:38) Because He knew that those men had to be baptized not only with water, but also in their own blood; so that, as well baptized in this baptism only, they might attain the sound faith and the simple love of the laver, and, baptized in both ways, they might in like manner to the same extent attain the baptism of salvation and glory. For what was said by the Lord, “I have another baptism to be baptized with,” signifies in this place not a second baptism, as if there were two baptisms, but demonstrates that there is moreover a baptism of another kind given to us, concurring to the same salvation. And it was fitting that both these kinds should first of all be initiated and sanctified by our Lord Himself, so that either one of the two or both kinds might afford to us this one twofold saving and glorifying baptism; and certain ways of the one baptism might so be laid open to us, that at times some one of them might be wanting without mischief, even as in the case of martyrs that hear the word, the baptism of water is wanting without evil; and yet we are certain that these, if they had any indulgence, would also be used to be baptized with water. And also to those who are made lawful believers, the baptism of their own blood is wanting without mischief, because, being baptized in the name of Christ, they have been redeemed with the most precious blood of the Lord; since both of these rivers of the baptism of the Lord proceed out of one and the same fountain, that every one who thirsts may come and drink, as says the Scripture, “From his belly flowed rivers of living water;” (Joh_7:38) which rivers were manifested first of all in the Lord’s passion, when from His side, pierced by the soldier’s spear, flowed blood and water, so that the one side of the same person emitted two rivers of a different kind, that whosoever should believe and drink of both rivers might be filled with the Holy Spirit. For, speaking of these rivers, the Lord set this forth, signifying the Holy Spirit whom they should receive who should believe on Him: “But the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” (Joh_7:39) And when He thus said how baptism might be produced, which the apostle declares to be one, it is assuredly manifest on that principle that there are different kinds of one and the same baptism that flow from one wound into water and blood; since there are there two baptisms of water of which we have spoken, that is, of one and the same kind,15 although the baptism of each kind ought to be one, as we have more fully spoken.

15. And since we seem to have divided all spiritual baptism in a threefold manner, let us come also to the proof of the statement proposed, that we may not appear to have done this of our own judgment, and with rashness. For John says of our Lord in his epistle, teaching us: “This is He who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood: and it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one;” (1Jo_5:6) – that we may gather from these words both that water is wont to confer the Spirit, and that men’s own blood is wont to confer the Spirit, and that the Spirit Himself also is wont to confer the Spirit. For since water is poured forth even as blood, the Spirit also was poured out by the Lord upon all who believed. Assuredly both in water, and none the less in their own blood, and then especially in the Holy Spirit, men may be baptized. For Peter says: “But this is that which was spoken by the prophet; It shall come to pass in the last days, saith the Lord, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh: and their sons and their daughters shall prophesy, and their young men shall see visions, and their old men shall dream dreams: and upon my servants, and upon my handmaidens, will I pour out of my Spirit;” (Act_2:17-18) – which Spirit we discover to have been communicated in the Old Testament, not indeed everywhere nor at large, but with other gifts; or, moreover, to have sprung of His own will into certain men, or to have invested them, or to have been upon them, even as we observe that it was said by the Lord to Moses, about the seventy elders, “And I will take of the Spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them.” (Num_11:17) For which reason also, according to His promise, God put upon them from another of the Spirit which had been upon Moses, and they prophesied in the camp. And Moses, as a spiritual man, rejoiced that this had so happened, although he was unwillingly persuaded by Jesus the son of Nave to oppose this thing, and was not thereby induced. Further, also in the book of Judges, and in the books of Kings too, we observe that upon several, there either was the Spirit of the Lord, or that He came unto them, as upon Gothoniel, Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, Saul, David, and many others. Which comes to this result, that the Lord has taught us most plainly by them the liberty and power of the Holy Spirit, approaching of His own will, saying, “The Spirit breathes where He will; and thou hearest His voice, and knowest not whence He cometh or whither He goeth.” (Joh_3:5)16 So that the same Spirit is, moreover, sometimes found to be upon those who are unworthy of Him; not certainly in vain or without reason, but for the sake of some needful operation; as He was upon Saul, upon whom came the Spirit of God, and he prophesied. However, in later days, after the Spirit of the Lord departed from him, and after a malign spirit from the Lord vexed him, because then he had come, after the messengers whom he had previously sent before with care, with intent to kill David; and they therefore fell into the chorus of the prophets, and they prophesied, so that they neither were able nor willing to do what they had been bidden. And we believe that the Spirit which was upon them all effected this with an admirable wisdom, by the will of God. Which Spirit also filled John the Baptist even from his mother’s womb; and it fell upon those who were with Cornelius the centurion before they were baptized with water. Thus, cleaving to the baptism of men, the Holy Spirit either goes before or follows it; or failing the baptism of water, it falls upon those who believe. We are counselled that either we ought duly to maintain the integrity of baptism, or if by chance baptism is given by any one in the name of Jesus Christ, we ought to supplement it, guarding the most holy invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, as we have most abundantly set forth; guarding, moreover, the custom and authority which so much claim our veneration for so long a time and for such great men.

16. But since the first part of this argument seems to be unfolded, we ought to touch on its subsequent part, on account of the heretics; because it is very necessary not to pass over that discussion which once falls into our hands, lest perchance some heretic should dare, of his subtlety, to assail those of our brethren who are more simple. For because John said that we must be baptized in the Holy Ghost and in fire, from the fact that he went on to say and fire, some desperate men have dared to such an extent to carry their depravity, and therefore very crafty men seek how they can thus corrupt and violate, and even neutralize the baptism of holiness. Who derive the origin of their notion from Simon Magus, practising it with manifold perversity through various errors; to whom Simon Peter, in the Acts of the Apostles, said, “Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the grace of God could be possessed by money; thou hast neither part nor lot in this work; for thy heart is not right with God.” (Act_8:20, Act_8:21) And such men as these do all these things in the desire to deceive those who are more simple or more inquisitive. And some of them try to argue that they only administer a sound and perfect, not as we, a mutilated and curtailed baptism, which they are in such wise said to designate, that immediately they have descended into the water, fire at once appears upon the water. Which if it can be effected by any trick, as several tricks of this kind are affirmed to be – of Anaxilaus – whether it is anything natural, by means of which this may happen, or whether they think that they behold this, or whether the work and magical poison of some malignant being can force fire from the water; still they declare such a deceit and artifice to be a perfect baptism, which if faithful men have been forced to receive, there will assuredly be no doubt but that they have lost that which they had. Just as, if a soldier after taking an oath should desert his camp, and in the very different camp of the enemy should wish to take an oath of a far other kind, it is plain that in this way he is discharged from his old oath.

17. Moreover, if a man of this sort should again return to thee, thou wilt assuredly hesitate whether he may have baptism or no; and yet it will behove thee, in whatever way thou canst, to aid even this man if he repent. For of this adulterous, yea, murderous baptism, if there is any other author, it is then certainly a book devised by these same heretics on behalf of this same error, which is inscribed The Preaching of Paul;17 in which book, contrary to all Scriptures, thou wilt find both Christ confessing His own sin – although He alone did no sin at all – and almost compelled by His mother Mary unwillingly to receive John’s baptism. Also, that when He was baptized, fire was seen to be upon the water, which is written in neither of the Gospels. And that after such long time, Peter and Paul, after the collation of the Gospel in Jerusalem, and the mutual consideration and altercation and arrangement of things to be done finally, were known to one another, as if then for the first time; and certain other things devised of this kind disgracefully and absurdly ; – all which things thou wilt find gathered together into that book. But they who are not ignorant of the nature of the Holy Spirit, understand that what is said of fire is said of the Spirit Himself. For in the Acts of the Apostles, according to that same promise of our Lord, on the very day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit had descended upon the disciples, that they might be baptized in Him, there were seen sitting upon each one tongues as if of fire, that it might be manifest that they were baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire – that is, with that Spirit which was, whether fire, or as fire, such as was the fire which burned in the bush, and did not consume the bush; and such as is that fire which is the Spirit of the Angel, as saith the Scripture, “Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a burning fire;” (Psa_104:4) whom if thou shouldst resemble, or be a companion or sharer with, thou shalt be able to dread no fire, not even that which, going before the Lord in the day of judgment, shall burn up the whole world, save those who are baptized in the Holy Spirit and in fire.

18. And the Spirit, indeed, continues to this day invisible to men, as the Lord says, “The Spirit breathes where He will; and thou knowest not whence He cometh, or whither He goeth.” (Joh_3:18) But in the beginning of the mystery of the faith and of spiritual baptism, the same Spirit was manifestly seen to have sat upon the disciples as it had been fire. Moreover, the heavens being opened, to have descended upon the Lord like a dove; because many things, yea, almost all things which were to be, are manifest – which, however, were only invisible nevertheless, – now also are shown to the eyes and to the incredulity of men, either partially, or at times, or in figure, for the strengthening and confirming of our faith. But neither should I omit that which the Gospel well announces. For our Lord says to the paralytic man, “Be of good cheer, my son, thy sins are forgiven thee,” (Mat_9:2) that He might show that hearts were purified by faith for the forgiveness of sins that should follow. And this remission of sins that woman also which was a sinner in the city obtained, to whom the Lord said, “Thy sins are forgiven thee.” (Luk_7:48) And when they who were reclining around began to say among themselves, “Who is this that forgiveth sins?” (Luk_7:50) – because concerning the paralytic the scribes and Pharisees had murmured crossly – the Lord says to the woman, “Thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace.” (Luk_7:50) From all which things it is shown that hearts are purified by faith, but that souls are washed by the Spirit; further, also, that bodies are washed by water, and moreover that by blood we may more readily attain at once to the rewards of salvation.

19. I think that we have fully followed out the announcement of John the Baptist, whence we began our discourse, when he said to the Jews, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but He who cometh after me is greater than I, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.” (Luk_3:16) Moreover, I think also that we have not unsuitably set in order the teaching of the Apostle John, who says that “three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one.” (1Jo_5:8)18 And, unless I am mistaken, we have also explained what our Lord says: “John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” (Act_1:5) Moreover, I think that we have given no weak reason as the cause of the custom. Let us have a care, although we do that in a subsequent place, that none may think that we are stirring up the present debate on a single article; although this custom even alone ought, among men who have the fear of God, and are lowly, to maintian a chief place.

Note by the Edinburgh Translator.

Letters of Cyprian to Quintus, to Jubaianus, to Pompey, on “the baptism of heretics;” and to Magnus on “baptizing the Novatians, and those who obtain grace on a sick-bed,” may be found translated in Ep. lxx. (p. 377, supra), Ep. lxxii. (p. 379, supra), Ep. lxxiii. (p. 386, supra), and Ep. lxxv. (p. 397, supra), respectively; and the Letter of Firmilian to Cyprian against the Letter of Stephen, at p. 390, supra, Ep. lxxiv. All these letters are repeated, in extenso, in the Monumenta Veterum.

Eusebius says, by way of introduction to the fragment of a letter written to Stephen by Dionysius of Alexandria, as follows: “Dionysius indited to Stephen the first of those letters which were written on the subject of baptism, when no small controversy had arisen whether they who are converted from any kind of heresy ought to be purged by baptism (because an ancient custom had prevailed, that in receiving such there should only be hands laid upon them, with prayers). Cyprian, who then ruled the Church of Carthage, was the first who judged that they must not be admitted to communion unless they were first purified from error by baptism. But Stephen, thinking that nothing should be innovated contrary to the tradition which had already obtained in that matter from the beginning, was indignant at this. And as Dionysius had already written many letters to him on this argument, he intimates to him finally, that all the churches everywhere, now that the fury of persecution was abated, detesting the turbulent novelty of Novatian,19 had established peace with one another.”20

FOOTNOTES

1 [“In the name,” etc., implies as Jesus Christ commanded, St. Mat_28:19.]

2 [This was assumed by the Westerns to be the general rule, whereas it was only local. See p. 408,  note 510, supra.]

3 [The bitterness with which Vincent follows up the assumption that there was a general custom of all the churches, shows how sadly this controversy became envenomed in the West. Cap. vi. is a blemish on his Commonitory.]

4 There is something needed to make the connection of this passage complete.

5 [It was a notable compliance with the example of Christ, Mat_3:15. “They had received,” etc., yet that was no reason why the ordinances of Christ should be slighted.]

6 “Jurejurando.”

7 [Query, superabounding?]

8 [Isa_14:12. The sin of Lucifer had, very possibly, been this of rebelling against the Incarceration and the introduction thereby of an order of beings higher than himself. Hence our Lord recognised in Peter’s words the voice of the old adversary, and called him “Satan.” A premonition of his lapse.]

9 [It has been profoundly felt, that, as the Church of Rome in her early rectitude (Rom_1:8) reflected Peter’s confession, so in her lapse (Rom_11:20, Rom_11:21) she reflects this terrible rebuke. If she was once identified with Peter’s Rock, so now, alas! with Peter’s Satan.]

10 Scil. the bishop. [The plural of “solidarity.” See p. 128,  note 25, supra, and Elucidation XI. p. 159.]

11 By him who hears the word is meant a catechumen (Rigaltius). [Bunsen, vol. ii. p. 317. He quotes the Apostolical Constitutions (Alexandria), “Let the catechumens be three years hearing the word,” etc.]

12 The original interpolates “non.”

13 [Scil. baptisms (?) i.e., of water and of blood.]

14 [Eze_33:12. On the principle that what is deepest in man’s heart proves, finally, the character; Phi_2:12. A very solemn consideration in human accountability. (1Pe_1:17), but not to be disjoined from 2Co_6:10.]

15 Unius atque ejusdem species.

16 [Greek, πνευμα. Syriac as here rendered.]

17 Rigaltius says that Jerome mentions this document, and regards it as apocryphal. And Eusebius refers to the Περίοδοι Πέτρου, which, according to the common reading of Peter for Paul in the text, may point to the same document. [vol. 2. 341, note 181; and vol 4. p. 246.]

18 [It is noteworthy that he quotes the Latin formula, and not that (εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν) of the Greek. Now, the Latin, repeating (in 1Jo_5:8) the formula (hi tres unum sunt) which belongs to the dubious protasis, is so far evidence that such a verse existed in the old Greek. It is important that the Latin is not conformed to the received formula of the apodosis, “the three agree in one.”]

19 Eusebius calls him Novatus.

20 See H. E., book viii. chaps ii., iii., and iv.; and vol. 6., this series.