HERETIC BAPTISM

Its Validity Denied. Controversy between Cyprian and Stephen (§ 1).

The Donatist Controversy. Augustine (§ 2).

Attitude of the Eastern Church (§ 3).

The Roman Catholic Position (§ 4).

The Protestant Position (§ 5).

The initiation into the Church was accomplished from the beginning by Baptism (q.v.), and the question naturally arose, how is the rite to be regarded if the administrant did not belong to the true communion? If the working of the Spirit was effective exclusively in the Church, a new baptism of those baptized into a heretical body seemed inevitable. Even Clement of Alexandria regarded the baptism of heretics as not genuine (Strom., i. 19). Tertullian declares with great vigor against heretic baptism (De baptismo, xv.), and in a Greek work now lost treated especially of the subject. A Carthaginian synod held under Agrippinus, between 200 and 220, declared baptism performed outside of the Church invalid (Cyprian, Epist., lxx. [lxxi.] 4). In Asia Minor, at the synods of Iconium and Synnads, the baptism of the Montanists was not recognized (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VII, vii. 5; Firmilian, in Epist. Cypriani, lxxiv. [lxxv.] 5). As for Rome, Hippolytus charges Calixtus (pope 217-222) with having first (hardly "especially") introduced the repetition of baptism (Philosophoumena, ix. 12). Nevertheless, Stephen (253-257) could assert as Roman tradition the reception of heretics and schismatics by mere imposition of hands. Stephen's position is not altogether clear. According to Cyprian (Epist., lxxiv. [lxxv.]) and Eusebius (Hist. eccl., vii. 2), Stephen regarded the imposition of hands at the reception of all heretics as sufficient, but, some Christian form of baptism is evidently presupposed (Cyprian, Epist., lxxiv. [lxxv.] 9, 18; lxxii. [lxxiii.] 18; lxxiii. (lxxiv.] 5). Also the beginning of the controversy with Cyprian is not clear. But Cyprian's letters lxvi. and lxvii. [lxviii. and lxvii.] show that the relation between Cyprian and Stephen, who held communion with bishops who had lapsed, was not at all friendly. According to the extant sources, Cyprian opened the controversy, probably provoked by Stephen. At first Cyprian carried on the contest with the help of African councils. The synod at Carthage, in 255, declared that "no one could be baptized out of the Church" (Cyprian, Epist., lxix. [lxx.] 1), without mentioning Stephen. At the synod of 256, seventyone bishops decided in like manner (Cyprian, Epist., lxxii. [lxxiii.]), and so did the eighty-seven bishops assembled on Sept. 1 of the same year; but their

236

decision was not to be binding upon bishops who represented another tradition. Nevertheless, the rupture with Rome could not be avoided (Cyprian, Epist., lxxiii. [1xxiv.]), and this because Stephen refused all concessions. Cyprian now tried to place against the authority of Rome the "unanimity" of the other bishops. Firmilian of Cæsarea in Cappadocia joined him (Cyprian, Epist., lxxiv. [lxxv.]), whereas Dionysius of Alexandria tried to mediate. Death probably prevented Stephen from excommunicating the churches of Cappadocia and Cilicia. His successor, Sixtus II, seems to have been on friendly terms with Cyprian. See Cyprian,, § 3; Stephen I., Pope.

The question of heretic baptism came up again in the Donatistic controversy, since the characteristic of Donatism (q.v.) was the rebaptism of heretics and schismatics. At the Synod of Arles in 314 it was decided (canon viii.) that schismatics are to be received by mere imposition of hands. Cæcilian gave up the previously existing African practise; but the Donatists in rejecting their opponents rejected also their baptism, though they do not seem at first to have consistently carried out their principle (cf. T. Hahn, Tyconiusstudien, Leipsic, 1900, pp. 102 sqq.; Augustine, Epist., xciii. 43-44). The persecution of the Donatists by Macarius intensified their opposition, but still they did not always rebaptize (Augustine, De baptismo, i. 2, 7, ii. 16-17, v. 6, Contra epist. Parmeniani, iii. 21, ii. 34). The Donatist Tyconius opposed a rebaptism from principle. He held that the sacraments of the Church catholic were real; but in Africa, where the Church was opposing Donatism, they were not the media of salvation. Tyconius's ideas were taken up by Augustine and carried further. According to his notion of the Church as the externa communio sacramentorum, i.e., a "communion of saints," he distinguishes between the having baptism and the having salvation through baptism. Though not correctly, yet actually, baptism is administered outside of the Church catholic (De baptismo, i. 2, 22-23). The sacredness of the baptism can not be destroyed by the unholy administrant, because it has in itself the divine power for salvation or evil (De baptismo, ii. 15). Even among heretics there can be "a real Christian baptism" (De baptismo, v. 2, 5). The baptismal formula according to the Gospel guarantees the sacrament, hence the achis matics also have a "legitimate" sacrament, though not "legitimately" (De baptismo, v. 8). Independent of administrant and recipient a character dominicus belongs to baptism (De baptismo, vi. 1; cf. Contra epist. Parmeniani, ii. 29); for not the administrant, as Petilian says, but Christ, is the "origin and root and head of the baptized" (Contra epist. Petiliani, iii. 64). But of course only in the Church catholic is baptism received for salvation (De baptismo, vi. 78, vii. 75, Contra Cresconium, i. 27-28); for the forgiveness of sins is entirely connected with the Church (De baptistno, iii. 22, v. 29). An unbeliever who has been baptized does not receive forgiveness or loses it at once, yet if he be converted he needs no rebaptism (De baptismo, i . 18-19, iii. 18; and elsewhere). But what prevents the schismatic from receiving salvation is his lack of love. True, the Holy Spirit dwells even in a schismatic communion, but not as the spirit of love. Hence a schismatic, be he ever so praiseworthy, has not the true love, but only he who has become a "partaker in the holy unity" (Contra Cresconium, ii. 16 sqq.). Without love all sacraments avail nothing, and love is wanting in the schismatic (De baptismo, i. 12, 22, ii. 22, iii. 20 sqq., iv. 24 sqq.).

In the East, the attitude toward heretic baptism was uncertain and depended on the estimate of the various sects. The eighth canon of the Council of Nicæa recognizes the baptism of the Novatians; canon xix. rejects that of the adherents of Paul of Samosata. The Synod of Laodicea (c. 360) also makes distinctions (canons vii. and viii.). The Apostolic Constitutions refuse to acknowledge baptism by heretics, but forbid a repetition of the rite (vi. 15). The Second Trullan Council (692) distinguishes again between heretics.

In the West, Augustine laid a lasting foundation for the estimate of heretic baptism. Following him, Peter Lombard ("Sentences," IV., dist. 6 A) says that persons baptized by heretics with the Christian baptismal formula are to be received by imposition of hands. Bonaventura (on Peter Lombard, ut sup.) sees a reason for not repeating baptism in the "impression of a character." Thomas Aquinas (Summa, iii., qucæst. 66, art. 9) emphasizes the indelible character which baptism impresses, but holds that the res sacramenti, the blessed efficacy, is lacking to heretics. The decree of the Council of Florence for the Armenians (§ 10; cf. H. Denzinger, Encheiridion, Würzburg, 1888, p. 161) declared that even a heathen and heretic can baptize "provided he keeps to the form of the Church and intends to do what the Church does," but the decree for the Jacobites (Denzinger, ut sup., p. 170) says that only in the Church are the sacraments sufficient for salvation. The Council of Trent acknowledged as valid baptism performed by heretics in the name of the Trinity "with the intention of doing what the Church does" (Session vii., de baptismo, canon iv.), and in view of this demanded the obedience of all baptized (canon viii.; cf. the letter of Pius IX. to the emperor of Germany in 1873, in Mirbt, Quellen, p. 386). At the Synod of Evreux in 1576 it was decided (and often repeated afterward) that the Protestants were not to be denied the general intention. In practise the disposition prevails to rebaptize Protestant converts, but with exceptions.

Protestantism has from the beginning preserved its ecumenical character in the estimate of baptism. Hence in the Lutheran Church, in case of necessity, the administration of baptism even by a Roman Catholic priest has been conceded. Calvin, in 1565, allowed the non-Lutherans at Frankfort to have their children baptized by Lutheran ministers. Only against the validity of baptisms by anti-Trinitarian communions are

237

doubts entertained by Protestants, some maintaining that a communion which does not baptize in the name of Christ has no Christian baptism at all. But where baptism receives into the congregation of believers in Christ, it can not be repeated, because it is the inviolable gift of adoption through Christ.

N. Bonwetsch.

Bibliography: The sources are: Cyprian, Epistola, lxix - lxxv., ed. G. Hartel, ii. 547 sqq., 3 vols., Vienna, 1868-71, and the anonymous De rebaptismate, ib., iii. 69 sqq. (Eng. transl. of these is to be found in ANF, v. 375-402 and 667 sqq.); Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VII, ii.-ix.; and the anti-Donatistic writings of Augustine. Consult: J. W. F. Höfling, Das Sakrament der Taufe, i. 62 sqq., Erlangen,1846; W. Elwin, Hist. of Church Opinion . . . with Reference to Heretical, Schiamatical and Lay Administration, London, 1889; T. Hahn, Tyconiusstudien, Leipsic, 1900; J. Ernst, Die Ketzertaufangelegenheit in der all christlichen Kirche, Mainz, 1901; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, i. 117 sqq., 201 sqq., 407 sqq., 427 sqq., Eng. transl., i. 98 sqq., 180 sqq., 409 sqq., 430 sqq.; Neander, Christian Church, i. 317-323, ii. 219; Schaff, Christian Church, ii. 262-265. Further matter is found in the literature under Cyprian and Augustine.