(NOTE: The electronic text obtained from The Electronic Bible Society was
not completely corrected. EWTN has corrected all discovered errors.)
In this file, footnote numbers sometimes refer to following text instead
of to the preceeding.
ST. JEROME
THE DIALOGUE AGAINST THE LUCIFERIANS
[Translated by The Hon. W. H. Fremantle, M.A., Canon of Canterbury
Cathedral and Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College, Oxford, with the
assistance of the Rev. G. Lewis, M.A., of Balliol College, Oxford, Vicar of
Dodderhill near Droitwick, and the Rev. W. G. Martley, M.A., of Balliol
College, Oxford.]
1. It happened not long ago that a follower of Lucifer had a dispute
with a son of the Church. His loquacity was odious and the language he
employed most abusive. For he declared that the world belonged to the
devil, and, as is commonly said by them at the present day, that the Church
was turned into a brothel. His opponent on the other hand, with reason
indeed, but without due regard to time and place, urged that Christ did not
die in vain, and that it was for something more than a Sardinian cloak of
skins[1] that the Son of God came down from heaven. To be brief, the
dispute was not settled when night interrupted the debate, and the lighting
of the street-lamps gave the signal for the assembly to disperse. The
combatants therefore withdrew, almost spitting in each other's faces, an
arrangement having been previously made by the audience for a meeting in a
quiet porch at daybreak. Thither, accordingly, they all came, and it was
resolved that the words of both speakers should be taken down by reporters.
2. When all were seated, Helladius the Luciferian said, I want an
answer first to my question. Are the Arians Christians or not?
Orthodoxus. I answer with another question, Are all heretics
Christians?
L. If you call a man a heretic you deny that he is a Christian.
O. No heretics, then, are Christians.
L. I told you so before.
O. If they are not Christ's, they belong to the devil.
L. No one doubts that.
O. But if they belong to the devil, it makes no difference whether they
are heretics or heathen.
L. I do not dispute the point.
O. We are then agreed that we must speak of a heretic as we would of a
heathen.
L. Just so.
O. Now it is decided that heretics are heathen, put any question you
please.
L. What I wanted to elicit by my question has been expressly stated,
namely, that heretics are not Christians. Now comes the inference. If the
Arians are heretics, and all heretics are heathen, the Arians are heathen
too. But if the Arians are heathen and it is beyond dispute that the church
has no communion with the Arians, that is with the heathen, it is clear
that your church which welcomes bishops from the Arians, that is from the
heathen, receives priests of the Capitol[2] rather than bishops, and
accordingly it ought more correctly to be called the synagogue of Anti-
Christ than the Church of Christ.
O. Lo! what the prophet said is fulfilled:[1] "They have digged a pit
before me, they have fallen into the midst thereof themselves."
L. How so?
O. If the Arians are, as you say, heathen, and the assemblies of the
Arians are the devil's camp, how is it that you receive a person who has
been baptized in the devil's camp?
L. I do receive him, but as a penitent.
O. The fact is you don't know what you are saying. Does any one receive
a penitent heathen?
L. In my simplicity I replied when we began that all heretics are
heathen. But the question was a captious one, and you shall have the full
credit of victory in the first point. I will now proceed to the second and
maintain that a layman coming from the Arians ought to be received if
penitent, but not a cleric.
O. And yet, if you concede me the first point, the second is mine too.
L. Show me how it comes to be yours.
O. Don't you know that the clergy and laity have only one Christ, and
that there is not one God of converts and another of bishops? Why then
should not he who receives laymen receive clerics also?
L. There is a difference between shedding tears for sin, and handling
the body of Christ; there is a difference between lying prostrate at the
feet of the brethren, and from the high altar administering the Eucharist
to the people. It is one thing to lament over the past, another to abandon
sin and live the glorified life in the Church. You who yesterday impiously
declared the Son of God to be a creature, you who every day, worse than a
Jew, were wont to cast the stones of blasphemy at Christ, you whose hands
are full of blood, whose pen was a soldier's spear, do you, the convert of
a single hour, come into the Church as an adulterer might come to a virgin?
If you repent of your sin, abandon your priestly functions: if you are
shameless in your sin, remain what you were.
O. You are quite a rhetorician, and fly from the thicket of controversy
to the open fields of declamation. But, I entreat you, refrain from common-
places, and return to the ground and the lines marked out; afterwards, if
you like, we will take a wider range.
L. There is no declamation in the case; my indignation is more than I
can bear. Make what statements you please, argue as you please, you will
never convince me that a penitent bishop should be treated like a penitent
layman.
O. Since you put the whole thing in a nutshell and obstinately cling to
your position, that the case of the bishop is different from that of the
layman, I will do what you wish, and I shall not be sorry to avail myself
of the opportunity you offer and come to close quarters. Explain why you
receive a layman coming from the Arians, but do not receive a bishop.
L. I receive a layman who confesses that he has erred; and the Lord
willeth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he should repent.
O. Receive then also a bishop who, as well as the layman, confesses
that he has erred, and it still holds good that the Lord willeth not the
death of a sinner, but rather that he should repent.
L. If he confesses his error why does he continue a bishop? Let him lay
aside his[1] episcopal functions, and I grant pardon to the penitent.
O. I will answer you in your own words. If a layman confesses his
error, how is it he continues a layman? Let him lay aside his lay-
priesthood, that is, his baptism, and I grant pardon to the penitent. For
it is written[2] " He made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God
and Father." And again,[3] "A holy nation, a royal priesthood, an elect
race." Everything which is forbidden to a Christian, is forbidden to both
bishop and layman. He who does penance condemns his former life. If a
penitent bishop may not continue what he was, neither may a penitent layman
remain in that state on account of which he confesses himself a penitent.
L. We receive the laity, because no one will be induced to change, if
he knows he must be baptized again. And then, if they are rejected, we
become the cause of their destruction.
O. By receiving a layman you save a single soul: and I in receiving a
bishop unite to the Church, I will not say the people of one city, but the
whole[4] province of which he is the head; if I drive him away, he will
drag down many with him to ruin. Wherefore I beseech you to apply the same
reason which you think you have for receiving the few to the salvation of
the whole world. But if you are not satisfied with this, if you are so
hard, or rather so unreasonably unmerciful as to think him who gave baptism
an enemy of Christ, though you account him who received it a son, we do not
so contradict ourselves: we either receive a bishop as well as the people
which is constituted as a Christian people by him, or if we do not receive
a bishop, we know that we must also reject his people.
5. L. Pray, have you not read what is said concerning the bishops,[1]
"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost its savour,
wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be
cast out and trodden under foot of man." And then there is the fact that
the priest[2] intercedes with God for the sinful people, while there is no
one to entreat for the priest. Now these two passages of Scripture tend to
the same conclusion. For as salt seasons all food and nothing is so
pleasant as to please the palate without it: so the bishop is the seasoning
of the whole world and of his own Church, and if he lose his savour through
the denial of truth, or through heresy, or lust, or, to comprehend all in
one word, through sin of any kind, by what other can he be seasoned, when
he was the seasoning of all? The priest, we know, offers his oblation for
the layman, lays his hand upon him when submissive, invokes the return of
the Holy Spirit, and thus, after inviting the prayers of the people,
reconciles to the altar him who had been delivered to Satan for the
destruction of the flesh that the spirit might he saved; nor does the
restore one member to health until all the members have wept together with
him. For a father easily pardons his son, when the mother entreats for her
offspring. If then it is by the priestly order that a penitent layman is
restored to the Church, and pardon follows where sorrow has gone before, it
is clear that a priest who has been removed from his order cannot be
restored to the place he has forfeited, because either he will be a
penitent and then he cannot be a priest, or if he continues to hold office
he cannot be brought back to the Church by penitential discipline. Will you
dare to spoil the savour of the Church with the salt which has lost its
savour? Will you replace at the altar the man who having been cast out
ought to lie in the mire and be trodden under foot by all men? What then
will become of the Apostle's command,[3] "The bishop must be blameless as
God's steward"? And again,[4] "But let a man prove himself, and so let him
come." What becomes of our Lord's intimation,[5] "Neither cast your pearls
before the swine"? But if you understand the words as a general admonition,
how much mere must care be exercised in the case of priests when so much
precaution is taken where the laity are concerned?[6] "Depart, I pray you,"
says the Lord by Moses, "from the tents of these wicked men, and touch
nothing of theirs, lest ye be consumed in all their sins.'[1] And again in
the Minor Prophets,[1] "Their sacrifices shall be unto them as the bread of
mourners; all that eat thereof shall be polluted." And in the Gospel the
Lord says,[2] " The lamp of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be
single, thy whole body shall be full of light." For when the bishop
preaches the true faith the darkness is scattered from the hearts of all.
And he gives the reason,[3]" Neither do men light a lamp, and put it under
the bushel, but on the stand; and it shineth unto all that are in the
house." That is, God's motive for lighting the fire of His knowledge in the
bishop is that he may not shine for himself only, but for the common
benefit. And in the next sentence[4] "If," says he, "thine eye be evil, thy
whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in
thee be darkness, how great is the darkness!" And rightly; for since the
bishop is appointed in the Church that he may restrain the people from
error, how great will the error of the people be when he himself who
teaches errs. How can he remit sins, who is himself a sinner? How can an
impious man make a man holy? How shall the light enter into me, when my eye
is blind? O misery! Antichrist's disciple governs the Church of Christ. And
what are we to think of the words,[4] "No man can serve two masters "? And
that too[5] "What communion hath light and darkness? And what concord hath
Christ with Belial?" In the old testament we read,[6] "No man that hath a
blemish shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord." And again,[7]
"Let the priests who come nigh to the Lord their God be clean, lest haply
the Lord forsake them." And in the same place,[7] "And when they draw nigh
to minister in holy things, let them not bring sin upon themselves, lest
they die." And there are many other passages which it would be an endless
task to detail, and which I omit for the sake of brevity. For it is not the
number of proofs that avails, but their weight. And all this proves that
you with a little leaven have corrupted the whole lump of the Church, and
receive the Eucharist to-day from the hand of one whom yesterday you
loathed like an idol.
6. O. Your memory has served you, and you have certainly given us at
great length many quotations from the sacred books: but after going all
round the wood, you are caught in my hunting-nets. Let the case be as you
would have it, that an Arian bishop is the enemy of Christ, let him be the
salt that has lost its savour, let him be a lamp without flame, let him be
an eye without a pupil: no doubt your argument will take you thus far--that
he cannot salt another who himself has no salt: a blind man cannot
enlighten others, nor set them on fire when his own light has gone out. But
why, when you swallow food which he has seasoned, do you reproach the
seasoned with being saltless? Your Church is bright with his flame, and do
you accuse his lamp of being extinguished? He gives you eyes, and are you
blind? Wherefore, I pray you, either give him the power of sacrificing
since you approve his baptism, or reject his baptism if you do not think
him a priest. For it is impossible that he who is holy in baptism should be
a sinner at the altar.
L. But when I receive a lay penitent, it is with laying on of hands,
and invocation of the Holy Spirit, for I know that the Holy Spirit cannot
be given by heretics.
O. All the paths of your propositions lead to the same meeting-point,
and it is with you as with the frightened deer--while you fly from the
feathers fluttering in the wind, you become entangled in the strongest of
nets. For seeing that a man, baptized in the name of the Father and the Son
and the Holy Ghost, becomes a temple of the Lord, and that while the old
abode is destroyed a new shrine is built for the Trinity, how can you say
that sins can be remitted among the Arians without the coming of the Holy
Ghost? How is a soul purged from its former stains which has not the Holy
Ghost? For it is not mere water which washes the soul, but it is itself
first purified by the Spirit that it may be able to spiritually wash the
souls of men.[1] " The Spirit of the Lord," says Moses, "moved upon the
face of the waters," from which it appears that there is no baptism without
the Holy Ghost. Bethesda, the pool in Judea, could not cure the limbs of
those who suffered from bodily weakness without the advent of an angel,[2]
and do you venture to bring me a soul washed with simple water, as though
it had just come from the bath? Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, of whom it
is less correct to say that He was cleansed by washing than that by the
washing of Himself He cleansed all waters, no sooner raised His head from
the stream than He received the Holy Ghost. Not that He ever was without
the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as He was born in the flesh through the Holy
Ghost; but in order to prove that to be the true baptism by which the Holy
Ghost comes. So then if an Arian cannot give the Holy Spirit, he cannot
even baptize, because there is no baptism of the Church without the Holy
Spirit. And you, when you receive a person baptized by an Arian and
afterwards invoke the Holy Ghost, ought either to baptize him, because
without the Holy Ghost he could not be baptized, or, if he was baptized in
the Spirit, you must not invoke the Holy Ghost for your convert who
received Him at the time of baptism.
7. L. Pray tell me, have you not read[1] in the Acts of the Apostles
that those who had already been baptized by John, on their saying in reply
to the Apostles' question that they had not even heard what the Holy Ghost
was, afterwards obtained the Holy Ghost? Whence it is clear that it is
possible to be baptized, and yet not to have the Holy Ghost.
O. I do not think that those who form our audience are so ignorant of
the sacred books that many words are needed to settle this little question.
But before I say anything in support of my assertion, listen while I point
out what confusion, upon your view, is introduced into Scripture. What do
we mean by saying that John in his baptism could not give the Holy Spirit
to others, yet gave him to Christ? And who is that John?[2]" The voice of
one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord, make his
paths straight." He who used to say,[3] "Behold the Lamb of God, which
taketh away the sins of the world": I say too little, he who from his
mother's womb cried out,[4]" And whence is this to me that the mother of my
Lord should come unto me," did he not give the Holy Ghost? And did[6]
Ananias give him to Paul? It perhaps looks like boldness in me to prefer
him to all other men. Hear then the words of our Lord,[6] "Among them that
are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist."
For no prophet had the good fortune both to announce the coming of Christ,
and to point Him out with the finger. And what necessity is there for me to
dwell upon the praises of so illustrious a man when God the Father even
calls him an angel?[7] "Behold, I send my messenger (angel) before thy
face, who shall prepare thy way before thee." He must have been an angel
who after lodging in his mother's womb at once began to frequent the desert
wilds, and while still an infant played with serpents; who, when his eyes
had once gazed on Christ thought nothing else worth looking at; who
exercised his voice, worthy of a messenger of God, in the words of the
Lord, which are sweeter than honey and the honey-comb. And, to delay my
question no further, thus it behooved[8] the Forerunner f of the Lord to
grow up. Now is it possible f that a man of such character and renown did
not give the Holy Ghost, while Cornelius the centurion received Him before
baptism? Tell me, pray, why could he not give Him? You don't know? Then
listen to the teaching of Scripture: the baptism of John did not so much
consist in the forgiveness of sins as in being a baptism of repentance for
the remission of sins, that is, for a future remission, which was to follow
through the sanctification of Christ. For it is written,[1] "John came, who
baptized in the wilderness, and preached the baptism of repentance unto
remission of sins." And soon after, "[2] "And they were baptized of him in
the river Jordan, confessing their sins." For as he himself preceded Christ
as His forerunner, so also his baptism was the prelude to the Lord's
baptism.[3] "He that is of the earth," he said, "speaketh of the earth; he
that cometh from heaven is above all." And again,[4] "I indeed baptize you
with water, he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." But if John, as he
himself confessed, did not baptize with the Spirit, it follows that he did
not forgive sins either, for no man has his sins remitted without the Holy
Ghost. Or if you contentiously argue that, because the baptism of John was
from heaven, therefore sins were forgiven by it, show me what more there is
for us to get in Christ's baptism. Because it forgives sins, it releases
from Gehenna. Because it releases from Gehenna, it is perfect. But no
baptism can be called perfect except that which depends on the cross and
resurrection of Christ. Thus, although John himself said,[5]" He must
increase, but I must decrease," in your perverse scrupulosity you give more
than is due to the baptism of the servant, and destroy that of the master
to which you leave no more than to the other. What is the drift of your
assertion? Just this--it does not strike you as strange that those who had
been baptized by John, should afterwards by the laying on of hands receive
the Holy Ghost, although it is evident that they did not obtain even
remission of sins apart from the faith which was to follow. But you who
receive a person baptized by the Arians and allow him to have perfect
baptism, after that admission do you invoke the Holy Ghost as if this were
still some slight defect, whereas there is no baptism of Christ without the
Holy Ghost? But I have wandered too far, and when I might have met my
opponent face to face and repelled his attack, I have only thrown a few
light darts from a distance. The baptism of John was so far imperfect that
it is plain they who had been baptized by him were afterwards baptized with
the baptism of Christ. For thus the history relates[6]" And it came to pass
that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper
country came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples: and he said unto
them, Did ye receive the Holy Ghost when ye believed? And they said unto
him, Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Ghost was given. And
he said, Into what then were ye baptized? And they said, Into John's
baptism. And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance,
saying unto the people, that they should believe on Him which should come
after him, that is, on Jesus. And when they heard this, they were baptized
into the name of the Lord Jesus: And when Paul had laid his hands upon
them, immediately the Holy Ghost fell on them." If then they were baptized
with the true and lawful baptism of the Church, and thus received the Holy
Ghost: do you follow the apostles and baptize those who have not had
Christian baptism, and you will be able to invoke the Holy Ghost.
8. L. Thirsty men in their dreams eagerly gulp down the water of the
stream, and the more they drink the thirstier they are. In the same way you
appear to me to have searched everywhere for arguments against the point I
raised, and yet to be as far as ever from being satisfied. Don't you know
that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the
Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You
may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the
authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect
would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the
Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the
written law, as for instance[1] the practice of dipping the head three
times in the layer, and then, after leaving the water, of[2] tasting
mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy;[3] and, again, the
practices of standing up in worship on the Lord's day, and ceasing from
fasting every Pentecost; and there are many other unwritten practices which
have won their place through reason and custom. So you see we follow the
practice of the Church, although it may be clear that a person was baptized
before the Spirit was invoked.
9. O. I do not deny that it is the practice of the Churches in the case
of those who living far from the greater towns have been baptized by
presbyters and deacons, for the bishop to visit them, and by the laying on
of hands to invoke the Holy Ghost upon them. But how shall I describe your
habit of applying the laws of the Church to heretics, and of exposing the
virgin entrusted to you in the brothels of harlots? If a bishop lays his
hands on men he lays them on those who have been baptized in the right
faith, and who have believed that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are
three persons, but one essence. But an Arian has no faith but this (close
your ears, my hearers, that you may not be defiled by words so grossly
impious), that the Father alone is very God, and that Jesus Christ our
Saviour is a[1] creature, and[2] the Holy Ghost the Servant of both. How
can he then receive the Holy Ghost from the Church, who has not yet
obtained remission of sins? For the Holy Ghost must have a clean abode: nor
will He become a dweller in that temple which has not for its chief priest
the true faith. But if you now ask how it is that a person baptized in the
Church does not receive the Holy Ghost, Whom we declare to be given in true
baptism, except by the hands of the bishop, let me tell you that our
authority for the rule is the fact that after our Lord's ascension the Holy
Ghost descended upon the Apostles. And in many places we find it the
practice, more by way of honouring the[3] episcopate than from any
compulsory law. Otherwise, if the Holy Ghost descends only at the bishop's
prayer, they are greatly to be pitied who in isolated houses, or in forts,
or retired places, after being baptized by the presbyters and deacons have
fallen asleep before the bishop's visitation. The well-being of a Church
depends upon the dignity of its chief-priest, and unless some extraordinary
and unique functions be assigned to him, we shall have as many schisms in
the Churches as there are priests. Hence it is that without ordination and
the bishop's license neither presbyter nor deacon has the power to baptize.
And yet, if necessity so be, we know that even laymen may, and frequently
do, baptize. For as a man receives, so too he can give; for it will hardly
be said that we must believe that the eunuch whom Philip[1] baptized lacked
the Holy Spirit. The Scripture thus speaks concerning him, "And they both
went down into the water; and Philip baptized him." And on leaving the
water, "The Holy Spirit fell upon the eunuch." You may perhaps think that
we ought to set against this the passage in which we read, "Now when the
apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word
of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down,
prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost: for as yet he was
fallen upon none of them." But why this was, the context tells us,--"Only
they had been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they
their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost." And if you here say
that you do the same, because the heretics have not baptized into the Holy
Spirit, I must remind you that Philip was not separated from the Apostles,
but belonged to the same Church and preached the same Lord Jesus Christ:
that he was without question a deacon of those who afterwards laid their
hands on his converts. But when you say that the Arians have not a Church,
but a synagogue, and that their clergy do not worship God but creatures and
idols, how can you maintain that you ought to act upon the same principle
in cases so totally different?
L. You repel my attack in front with vigour and firmness: but you are
smitten in the rear and leave your back exposed to the darts. Let us even
grant that the Arians have no baptism, and therefore that the Holy Ghost
cannot be given by them, because they themselves have not yet received
remission of sins; this altogether makes for victory on my side, and all
your argumentative wrestling is but laborious toil to give me the
conqueror's palm. An Arian has no baptism; how is it then that he has the
episcopate? There is not even a layman among them, how can there be a
bishop? I may not receive a beggar, do you receive a king? You surrender
your camp to the enemy, and are we to reject one of their deserters?
11. O. If you remember what has been said you would know that you have
been already answered; but in yielding to the love of contradiction you
have wandered from the subject, like those persons who are talkative rather
than eloquent, and who, when they cannot argue, still continue to wrangle.
On the present occasion it is not my aim to either accuse or defend the
Arians, but rather to get safely past the turning-post of the race, and to
main-lain that we receive a bishop for the same reason that you receive a
layman. If you grant forgiveness to the erring, I too pardon the penitent.
If he that baptizes a person into our belief has had no injurious effect
upon the person baptized, it follows that he who consecrates a bishop in
the same faith causes no defilement to the person consecrated. Heresy is
subtle, and therefore the simple-minded are easily deceived. To be deceived
is the common lot of both layman and bishop. But you say, a bishop could
not have been mistaken. The truth is, men are elected to the episcopate who
come from the bosom of Plato and Aristophanes. How many can you find among
them who are not fully instructed in these writers? Indeed all, whoever
they may be, that are ordained at the present day from among the literate
class make it their study not how to seek out the marrow of Scripture, but
how to tickle the ears of the people with the flowers of rhetoric. We must
further add that the Arian heresy goes hand in hand with the wisdom of the
world, and[1] borrows its streams of argument from the fountains of
Aristotle. And so we will act like children when they try to outdo one
another--whatever you say I will say: what you assert, I will assert:
whatever you deny, I will deny. We allow that an Arian may baptize; then he
must be a bishop.[2] If we agree that Arian baptism is invalid, you must
reject the layman, and I must not accept the bishop. I will follow you
wherever you go; we shall either stick in the mud together, or shall get
out together.
12. L. We pardon a layman because, when he was baptized, he had a
sincere impression that he was joining the Church. He believed and was
baptized in accordance with his faith.
O. That is something new for a man to be made a Christian by one who is
not a Christian. When he joined the Arians into what faith was he baptized?
Of course into that which the Arians held. If on the other hand we are to
suppose that his own faith was correct, but that he was knowingly baptized
by heretics, he does not deserve the indulgence we grant to the erring. But
it is quite absurd to imagine that, going as a pupil to the master, he
understands his art before he has been taught. Can you suppose that a man
who has just turned from worshipping idols knows Christ better than his
teacher does? If you say, he sincerely believed in the Father, and the Son,
and the Holy Ghost, and therefore obtained baptism, what, let me ask, is
the meaning of being sincerely ignorant of what one believes? He sincerely
believed. What did he believe? Surely when he heard the three names, he
believed in three Gods, and was an idolater; or by the three titles he was
led to believe in a God with three names, and so fell into the[1] Sabellian
heresy. Or he was perhaps trained by the Arians to believe that there is
one true God, the Father, but that the Son and the Holy Spirit are
creatures. What else he may have believed, I know not: for we can hardly
think that a man brought up in the Capitol would have learnt the doctrine
of the co-essential Trinity. He would have known in that case that the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not divided in nature, but in person. He
would have known also that the name of Son was implied in that of Father
and the name of Father in that of Son. It is ridiculous to assert that any
one can dispute concerning the faith before he believes it; that he
understands a mystery before he has been initiated; that the baptizer and
the baptized hold different views respecting God. Besides, it is the custom
at baptism to ask, after the confession of faith in the Trinity, do you
believe in Holy Church? Do you believe in the remission of sins? What
Church do you say he believed in? The Church of the Arians? But they have
no Church. In ours? But the man was not baptized into it: he could not
believe in that whereof he was ignorant.
L. I see that you can prattle cleverly about each point that I raise;
and when we let fly a dart you elude it by a harangue which serves you for
a shield; I will therefore hurl a single spear which will be strong enough
to pierce your defences and the hail-storm of your words. I won't allow
strength any longer to be overcome by artifice. Even a layman baptized
without the Church, if he be baptized according to the faith, is received
only as a penitent: but a bishop either does no penance and remains a
bishop, or, if he does penance he ceases to be a bishop. Wherefore we do
right both in welcoming the penitent layman, and in rejecting the bishop,
if he wishes to continue in his office.
O. An arrow which is discharged from the tight-drawn bow is not easy to
avoid, for it reaches him at whom it was aimed before the shield can be
raised to stop it. On the other hand your propositions are pointless and
therefore cannot pierce an opponent. The spear then which you have hurled
with all your might and about which you speak such threatening words, I
turn aside, as the saying is, with my little finger. The point in dispute
is not merely whether a bishop is incapable of penitence and a layman
capable, but whether a heretic has received valid baptism. If he has not
(and this follows from your position), how can he be a penitent, before he
is a Christian? Show me that a layman coming from the Arians has valid
baptism, and then I will not deny him penitence. But if he is not a
Christian, if he had no priest to make him a Christian, how can he do
penance when he is not yet a believer?
14. L. I beseech you lay aside the methods of the philosophers and let
us talk with Christian simplicity; that is, if you are willing to follow
not the logicians, but the Galilean fishermen. Does it seem right to you
that an Arian should be a bishop?
O. You prove him a bishop because you receive those he has baptized.
And it is here that you are to blame:--Why are there walls of separation
between us when we are at one in faith and in receiving Arians?
L. I asked you before not to talk like a philosopher, but like a
Christian.
O. Do you wish to learn, or to argue?
L. Of course I argue because I want to know the reason for what you do.
O. If you argue, you have already had an answer. I receive an Arian
bishop for the same reason that you receive a person who is only baptized.
If you wish to learn, come over to my. side: for an opponent must be
overcome, it is only a disciple who can be taught.
L. Before I can be a disciple, I must hear one preach whom I feel to be
my master.
O. You are not dealing quite fairly: you wish me to be your teacher on
the terms that you may treat me as an opponent whenever you please. I will
teach you therefore in the same spirit. We agree in faith, we agree in
receiving heretics, let us also be at one in our terms of communion.
L. That is not teaching, but arguing.
O. As you ask for peace with a shield in your hand, I also must carry
my olive branch with a sword grafted in it.
L. I drop my hands in token of submission. You are conqueror. But in
laying down my arms, I ask the meaning of the oath you force me to take.
O. Certainly, but first I congratulate you, and thank Christ my God for
your good dispositions which have made you turn from the unsavoury teaching
of the[1] Sardinians to that which the whole world approves as true; and no
longer say as some do,[2] " Help, Lord; for the godly man teaseth." By
their impious words they make of none effect the cross of Christ, subject
the Son of God to the devil, and would have us now understand the Lord's
lamentation over sinners to apply to all men,[3] " What profit is there in
my blood, when I go down to the pit?" But God forbid that our Lord should
have died in vain.[4] The strong man is bound, and his goods are spoiled.
What the Father says is fulfilled,[5] "Ask of me, and I will give thee the
nations for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy
possession."[6] "Then the channels of water appeared, and the foundations
of the world were laid bare."[7] " In them hath he set a tabernacle for the
sun, and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof." The Psalmist fully
possessed by God sings,[8] " The swords of the enemy are come to an end,
and the cities which thou hast overthrown."
15. And what is the position, I should like to know, of those
excessively scrupulous, or rather excessively profane persons, who assert
that there are more synagogues than Churches? How is it that the devil's
kingdoms have been destroyed, and now at last in the consummation of the
ages, the idols have fallen? If Christ has no Church, or if he has one
only, in Sardinia, be has grown very poor. And if Satan owns Britain, Gaul,
the East, the races of India, barbarous nations, and the whole world at the
same time, how is it that the trophies of the cross have been collected in
a mere corner of the earth? Christ's powerful opponent, forsooth, gave over
to him the[9] serpent of Spain: he disdained to own a poor province and its
half-starved inhabitants. If they flatter themselves that they have on
their side that verse of the gospel,[10] "Howbeit when the Son of man
cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" let me remind them that the
faith in question is that of which the Lord himself said,[11] "Thy faith
hath made thee whole." And elsewhere, of the centurion,[12] "I have not
found so great faith, no, not in Israel." And again, to the Apostles,[13]
"Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith?" In another place also,[14] "If
ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain,
Remove hence to yonder place, and it shall remove." For neither the
centurion nor that poor woman who for twelve years was wasting away with a
bloody flux, had believed in the mysteries of the Trinity, for these were
revealed to the Apostles after the resurrection of Christ; so that the
faith of such as believe in the mystery of the Trinity might have its due
preeminence: but it was her singleness of mind and her devotion to her God
that met with our Lord's approval:[1] "For she said within herself, If I do
but touch his garment, I shall be made whole." This is the faith which our
Lord said was seldom found. This is the faith which even in the case of
those who believe aright is hard to find in perfection.[2] "According to
your faith, be it done unto you," says God. I do not, indeed, like the
sound of those words. For if it be done unto me according to my faith, I
shall perish. And yet I certainly believe in God the Father, I believe in
God the Son, and I believe in God the Holy Ghost. I believe in one God;
nevertheless, I would not have it done unto me according to my faith. For
the enemy often comes, and sows tares in the Lord's harvest. I do not mean
to imply that anything is greater than the purity of heart which believes
that mystery; but undoubted faith towards God it is hard indeed to find. To
make my meaning plain, let us suppose a case:--I stand to pray; I could not
pray, if I did not believe; but if I really believed, I should cleanse that
heart of mine with which God is seen, I should beat my hands upon my
breast, the tears would stream down my cheeks, my body would shudder, my
face grow pale, I should lie at my Lord's feet, weep over them, and wipe
them with my hair, I should cling to the cross and not let go my hold until
I obtained mercy. But, as it is, frequently in my prayers I am either
walking in the arcades, or calculating my interest, or am carried away by
base thoughts, so as to be occupied with things the mere mention of which
makes me blush. Where is our faith? Are we to suppose that it was thus that
Jonah prayed? or the three youths? or Daniel in the lion's den? or the
robber on the cross? I have given these illustrations that you may
understand my meaning. But let every one commune with his own heart, and he
will find throughout the whole of life how rare a thing it is to find a
soul so faithful that it does nothing through the love of glory, nothing on
account of the petty gossip of men. For he who fasts does not as an
immediate consequence fast unto God, nor he who holds out his hand to a
poor man, lend to the Lord. Vice is next-door neighbour to virtue. It is
hard to rest content with God alone for judge.
16. L. I was reserving that passage until last, and you have
anticipated my question about it. Almost all our party, or rather not mine
any more, use it as a sort of controversial battering ram: as such I am
exceedingly glad to see it broken to pieces and pulverized. But will you be
so good as to fully explain to me, not in the character of an opponent but
of a disciple, why it is that the Church receives those who come from the
Arians? The truth is I am unable to answer you a word, but I do not yet
give a hearty assent to what you say.
17. O. When Constantius was on the throne and Eusebius and Hypatius
were Consuls, there was composed, under the pretext of unity and faith,[1]
an unfaithful creed, as it is now acknowledged to have been. For at that
time, nothing seemed so characteristic of piety, nothing so befitting a
servant of God, as to follow after unity, and to shun separation from
communion with the rest of the world. And all the more because the current
profession of faith no longer exhibited on the face of it anything profane.
"We believe," said they, "in one true God, the Father Almighty. This we
also confess: We believe in the only begotten Son of God, who, before all
worlds, and before all their origins,[2] was born of God. The only-begotten
Son, moreover, we believe to be born alone of the Father alone, God of God,
like to his Father who begot Him, according to the Scriptures; whose birth
no one knows, but the Father alone who begot Him." Do we find any such
words inserted here as[3] " There was a time, when he was not?" Or, "The
Son of God is a creature though not made of things which exist." No. This
is surely the perfection of faith to say we believe Him to be God of God.
Moreover, they called Him the only begotten, " born alone of the Father."
What is the meaning of barn? Surely, not made. His birth removed all
suspicion of His being a creature. They added further, "Who came down from
heaven, was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified
by Pontius Pilate, rose again the third day from the dead, ascended into
heaven, sitteth at the right hand of the Father, who will come to judge the
quick and the dead." There was the ring of piety in the words, and no one
thought that poison was mingled with the honey of such a proclamation.
18. As regards the term [1]Usia, it was not rejected without a show of
reason for so doing. [2]"Because it is not found in the Scriptures," they
said, "and its novelty is a stumbling-block to many, we have thought it
best to dispense with it." The bishops were not anxious about the name, so
long as that which it implied was secured. Lastly, at the very time when
rumour was rife that there had been some insincerity in the statement of
the faith, Valens, bishop of Mursa, who had drawn it up, in the presence of
Taurus the pretorian prefect who attended the Synod by imperial command,
declared that he was not an Arian, and that he utterly abhorred their
blasphemies. However, the thing had been done in secret, and it had not
extinguished the general feeling. So on another day, when crowds of bishops
and laymen came together in the Church at Ariminum, Muzonius, bishop of the
province of Byzacena, to whom by reason of seniority the first rank was
assigned by all, spoke as follows: "One of our number has been authorized
to read to you, reverend fathers, what reports are being spread and have
reached us, so that the evil opinions which ought to grate upon our ears
and be banished from our hearts may be condemned with one voice by us all."
The whole body of bishops replied, Agreed. And so when Claudius, bishop of
the province of Picenum, at the request of all present, began to read the
blasphemies attributed to Valens, Valens denied they were his and cried
aloud, "If anyone denies Christ our Lord, the Son of God, begotten of the
Father before the worlds, let him be anathema." There was a general chorus
of approval, "Let him be anathema."[3] " If anyone denies that the Son is
like the Father according to the Scriptures, let him be anathema." All
replied, "Let him be anathema." "If anyone does not say that the Son of God
is co-eternal with the Father, let him be anathema." There was again a
chorus of approval, "Let him be anathema." "If anyone says that the Son of
God is a creature, like other creatures, let him be anathema." The answer
was the same, "Let him be anathema." "If anyone says that the Son was of no
existing things, yet not of God the Father, let him be anathema." All
shouted together, "Let him be anathema." "If anyone says, There was a time
when the Son was not, let him be anathema." At this point all the bishops
and the whole Church together received the words of Valens with clapping of
hands and stamping of feet. And if anyone thinks we have invented the story
let him examine the public records. At all events the muniment-boxes of the
Churches are full of it, and the circumstance is fresh in men's memory.
Some of those who took part in the Synod are still alive, and the Arians
themselves (a fact which may put the truth beyond dispute) do not deny the
accuracy of our account. When, therefore, all extolled Valens to the sky
and penitently condemned themselves for having suspected him, the same
Claudius who before had begun to read, said "There are still a few points
which have escaped the notice of my lord and brother Valens; if it seem
good to you, let us, in order to remove all scruples, pass a general vote
of censure upon them. If anyone says that the Son of God was indeed before
all worlds but was by no means before all time, so that he puts some thing
before Him, let him be anathema." And many other things which had a
suspicious look were condemned by Valens when Claudius recited them. If
anyone wishes to learn more about them he will find the account in the acts
of the Synod of Ariminum, the source from which I have myself drawn them.
19. After these proceedings the Council was dissolved. All returned in
gladness to their own provinces. For the Emperor and all good men had one
and the same aim, that the East and West should be knit together by the
bond of fellowship. But wickedness does not long lie hid, and the sore that
is healed superficially before the bad humour has been worked off breaks
out again. Valens and[1] Ursacius and others associated with them in their
wickedness, eminent Christian bishops of course, began to wave their palms,
and to say they had not denied that He was a creature, but that He was like
other creatures. At that moment the term Usia was abolished: the Nicene
Faith stood condemned by acclamation. The whole world groaned, and was
astonished to find itself Arian. Some, therefore, remained in their own
communion, others began to send letters to those Confessors who as
adherents of Athanasius were in exile; several despairingly bewailed the
better relations into which they had entered. But a few, true to human
nature, defended their mistake as an exhibition of wisdom. The ship of the
Apostles was in peril, she was driven by the wind, her sides beaten with
the waves: no hope was now left. But the Lord awoke and bade the tempest
cease; the[1] beast died, and there was a calm once again. To speak more
plainly, all the bishops who had been banished from their sees, by the
clemency of the new[2] emperor returned to their Churches. Then Egypt
welcomed the[3] triumphant Athanasius; then[4] Hilary returned from the
battle to the embrace of the Church of Gaul; then[5] Eusebius returned and
Italy laid aside her mourning weeds. The bishops who had been caught in the
snare at Ariminum and had unwittingly come to be reported of as heretics,
began to assemble, while they called the Body of our Lord and all that is
holy in the Church to witness that they had not a suspicion of anything
faulty in their own faith. We thought, said they, the words were to be
taken in their natural meaning, and we had no suspicion that in the Church
of God, the very home of simplicity and sincerity in the confession of
truth, one thing could be kept secret in the heart, another uttered by the
lips. We thought too well of bad men and were deceived. We did not suppose
that the bishops of Christ were fighting against Christ. There was much
besides which they said with tears, but I pass it over for brevity's sake.
They were ready to condemn their[6] former subscription as well as all the
blasphemies of the Arians. Here I ask our excessively scrupulous friends
what they think ought to have been done with those who made this
Confession? Deprive the old bishops, they will say, and ordain new ones.
The plan was tried. But how many whose conscience does not condemn them
will allow themselves to be deprived. Particularly when all the people who
loved their bishops flocked together, ready to stone and slay those who
attempted to deprive them. The bishops should, it may be said, have kept to
themselves within their own communion. That is to say, with senseless
cruelty they would have surrendered the whole world to the devil. Why
condemn those who were not Arians? Why rend the Church when it was
continuing in the harmony of the faith? Lastly, were they by obstinacy to
make Arians of orthodox believers? We know that at the Council of Nicaea,
which was assembled on account of the Arian perfidy, eight Arian bishops
were welcomed, and there is not a bishop in the world at the present day
whose ordination is not dependent on that Council. This being so, how could
they act in opposition to it, when their loyalty to it had cost them the
pain of exile?
20. L. Were Arians really then received after all? Pray tell me who
they were.
O.[1] Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia,[2] Theognis, bishop of Nicaea,
Saras, at the time presbyter of Libya,[3] Eusebius, bishop of Csarea in
Palestine, and others whom it would be tedious to enumerate; Arius also the
presbyter, the original source of all the trouble; Euzoius the deacon,[4]
who succeeded Eudoxius as bishop of Antioch, and Achillas, the reader.
These three who were clerics of the Church of Alexandria were the
originators of the heresy.
L. Suppose a person were to deny that they were welcomed back, how is
he to be refuted?
O. There are men still living who took part in that Council. And if
that is not enough, because owing to the time that has elapsed they are but
few, and it is impossible for witnesses to be everywhere, if we read the
acts and names of the bishops of the Council of Nicaea, we find that those
who we saw just now were welcomed back, did subscribe the homoousion along
with the rest.
L. Will you point out how, after the Council of Nicaea, they relapsed
into their unfaithfulness?
O. A good suggestion, for unbelievers are in the habit of shutting
their eyes and denying that things which they dislike ever happened. But
how could they afterwards do anything but relapse, when it was owing to
them that the Council was convened, and their letters and impious treatises
which were published before the Council, remain even to the present day?
Seeing, therefore, that at that time three hundred bishops or more welcomed
a few men whom they might have rejected without injury to the Church, I am
surprised that certain persons, who are certainly upholders of the faith of
Nicaea, are so harsh as to think that[1] three Confessors returning from
exile were not bound in the interests of the world's salvation to do what
so many illustrious men did of their own accord. But, to go back to our
starting point, on the return of the Confessors it was determined, in a
synod afterwards[2] held at Alexandria, that, the authors of the heresy
excepted (who could not be excused on the ground of error), penitents
should be admitted to communion with the Church: not that they who had been
heretics could be bishops, but because it was clear that those who were
received had not been heretics. The West assented to this decision, and it
was through this conclusion, which the necessities of the times demanded,
that the world was snatched from the jaws of Satan. I have reached a very
difficult subject, where I am compelled against my wishes and my purpose,
to think somewhat otherwise of that saintly man Lucifer than his merits
demand, and my own courtesy requires. But what am I to do? Truth opens my
mouth and urges my reluctant tongue to utter the thoughts of my heart. At
such a crisis of the Church, when the wolves were wildly raging, he
separated off a few sheep and abandoned the remnant of the flock. He
himself was a good shepherd, but he was leaving a vast spoil to the beasts
of prey. I take no notice of reports originating with certain evil
speakers, though maintained by them to be authenticated facts; such as that
he acted thus through the love of glory, and the desire of handing down his
name to posterity; or again that he was influenced by the grudge he bore
against Eusebius on account of the[3] quarrel at Antioch. I believe none of
these reports in the case of such a man; and this I will constantly affirm
even now--that the difference between us and him is one of words, not of
things, if he really does receive those who have been baptized by the
Arians.
21. L. The account I used before to hear given of these things was
widely different, and, as I now think, better calculated to promote error
than hope. But I thank Christ my God for pouring into my heart the light of
truth, that I might no longer profanely call the Church, which is His
Virgin, the harlot of the devil. There is one other point I should like you
to explain. What are we to say about[1] Hilary who does not receive even
those who have been baptized by the Arians?
O. Since Hilary when he left the Church was only a deacon, and since
the Church is to him, though to him alone, a mere worldly multitude, he can
neither duly celebrate the Eucharist, for he has no bishops or priests, nor
can he give baptism without the Eucharist. And since the man is now dead,
inasmuch as he was a deacon and could ordain no one to follow him, his sect
died with him. For there is no such thing as a Church without bishops. But
passing over a few very insignificant persons who are in their own esteem
both laymen and bishops, let me point out to you what views we should hold
respecting the Church at large.
L. You have settled a great question in three words, as the saying is,
and indeed while you speak, I feel that I am on your side. But when you
stop, some old misgivings arise as to why we receive those who have been
baptized by heretics.
O. That is just what I had in mind when I said I would point out what
views we ought to hold concerning the Church at large. For many are
exercised by the misgivings you speak of. I shall perhaps be tedious in my
explanation, but it is worth while if the truth gains.
22. Noah's ark was a type of the Church, as the Apostle Peter says--[2]
"In Noah's ark few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water: which
also after a true likeness doth now save us, even baptism." As in the ark
there were all kinds of animals, so also in the Church there are men of all
races and characters. As in the one there was the leopard with the kids,
the wolf with the lambs, so in the other there are found the righteous and
sinners, that is,[3] vessels of gold and silver with those of wood and of
earth. The ark had its rooms: the Church has many mansions. Eight souls
were saved in Noah's ark. And[4] Ecclesiastes bids us "give a portion to
seven yea, even unto eight," that is to believe both Testaments. This is
why some psalms bear the inscription[5] for the octave, and why the one
hundred and nineteenth psalm is divided into portions of eight verses each
beginning with its own letter for the instruction of the righteous. The
beatitudes which our Lord spoke to his disciples on the mountain, thereby
delineating the Church, are eight. And Ezekiel for the building of the
temple employs the number eight. And you will find many other things
expressed in the same way in the Scriptures. The raven also is sent forth
from the ark but does not return, and afterwards the dove announces peace
to the earth. So also in the Church's baptism, that most unclean bird the
devil is expelled, and the dove of the Holy Spirit announces peace to our
earth. The construction of the ark was such that it began with being thirty
cubits broad and gradually narrowed to one. Similarly the Church,
consisting of many grades, ends in deacons, presbyters, and bishops. The
ark was in peril in the flood, the Church is in peril in the world. When
Noah left the ark he planted a vineyard, drank thereof, and was drunken.
Christ also, born in the flesh, planted the Church and suffered. The elder
son made sport of his father's nakedness, the younger covered it: and the
Jews mocked God crucified, the Gentiles honoured Him. The daylight would
fail me if I were to explain all the mysteries of the ark and compare them
with the Church. Who are the eagles amongst us? Who the doves and lions,
who the stags, who the worms and serpents? So far as our subject requires I
will briefly show you. It is not the sheep only who abide in the Church,
nor do clean birds only fly to and fro there; but amid the grain other seed
is sown,[1] "amidst the neat corn-fields burrs and caltrops and barren oats
lord it in the land." What is the husbandman to do? Root up the darnel? In
that case the whole harvest is destroyed along with it. Every day the
farmer diligently drives the birds away with strange noises, or frightens
them with scarecrows: here he cracks a whip, there he spreads out some
other object to terrify them. Nevertheless he suffers from the raids of
nimble roes or the wantonness of the wild asses; here the mice convey the
corn to their garners underground, there the ants crowd thickly in and
ravage the corn-field. Thus the case stands. No one who has land is free
from care.[2] While the householder slept the enemy sowed tares among the
wheat, and when the servants proposed to go and root them up the master
forbade them, reserving for himself the separation of the chaff and the
grain.[3] There are vessels of wrath and of mercy which the Apostle speaks
of in the house of God. The day then will come when the storehouses of the
Church shall be opened and the Lord will bring forth the vessels of wrath;
and, as they depart, the saints will say,[1] "They went out from us, but
they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have
continued with us." No one can take to himself the prerogative of Christ,
no one before the day of judgment can pass judgment upon men. If the Church
is already cleansed, what shall we reserve for the Lord?[2] "There is a way
which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."
When our judgment is so prone to error, upon whose opinion can we rely?
23. Cyprian of blessed memory tried to avoid broken cisterns and not to
drink of strange waters: and therefore, rejecting heretical baptism, he
summoned his[3] African synod in opposition to Stephen,[4] who was the
blessed Peter's twenty-second successor in the see of Rome. They met to
discuss this matter; but the attempt failed. At last those very bishops who
had together with him determined that heretics must be re- baptized,
reverted to the old custom and published a fresh decree. Do you ask what
course we must pursue? What we do our forefathers handed down to us as
their forefathers to them. But why speak of later times? When the blood of
Christ was but lately shed and the apostles were still in Jud�a, the Lord's
body was asserted to be a phantom; the Galatians had been led away to the
observance of the law, and the Apostle was a second time in travail with
them; the Corinthians did not believe the resurrection of the flesh, and he
endeavoured by many arguments to bring them back to the right path. Then
came[5] Simon Magus and his disciple Menander. They asserted themselves to
be[6] powers of God. Then[7] Basilides invented the most high god Abraxas
and the three hundred and sixty-five manifestations of him. Then[8]
Nicolas, one of the seven Deacons, and one whose lechery knew no rest by
night or day, indulged in his filthy dreams. I say nothing of the Jewish
heretics who before the coming of Christ destroyed the law delivered to
them: of[9] Dositheus, the leader of the Samaritans who rejected the
prophets: of the Sadducees who sprang from his root and denied even the
resurrection of the flesh: of the Pharisees who separated themselves from
the Jews[1] on account of certain superfluous observances, and took their
name from the fact of their dissent: of the Herodians who accepted Herod as
the Christ. I come to those heretics who have mangled the Gospels,[2]
Saturninus, and the[3] Ophites,[4] the Cainites and[5] Sethites, and[6]
Carpocrates, and[7] Cerinthus, and his successor[8] Ebion, and the other
pests, the most of which broke out while the apostle John was still alive,
and yet we do not read that any of these men were re-baptized.
24. As we have made mention of that distinguished saint, let us show
also from his Apocalypse that repentance unaccompanied by baptism ought to
be allowed valid in the case of heretics. It is imputed (Rev. ii. 4) to the
angel of Ephesus that he has forsaken his first love. In the angel of the
Church of Pergamum the eating of idol-sacrifices is censured (Rev. ii. 14),
and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans (ib. 15). Likewise the angel of
Thyatira is rebuked (ib. 20) on account of Jezebel the prophetess, and the
idol meats, and fornication. And yet the Lord encourages all these to
repent, and adds a threat, moreover, of future punishment if they do not
turn. Now he would not urge them to repent unless he intended to grant
pardon to the penitents. Is there any indication of his having said, Let
them be re-baptized who have been baptized in the faith of the Nicolaitans?
or let hands be laid upon those of the people of Pergamum who at that time
believed, having held the doctrine of Balaam? Nay, rather, "Repent
therefore,"[1] he says, "or else I come to thee quickly, and I will make
war against them with the sword of my mouth."
25. If, however, those men who were ordained by Hilary, and who have
lately become sheep without a shepherd, are disposed to allege Scripture in
support of what the blessed Cyprian[2] left in his letters advocating the
re-baptization of heretics, I beg them to remember that he did not
anathematize those who refused to follow him. At all events, he remained in
communion with such as opposed his views. He was content with exhorting
them, on account of[3] Novatus and the numerous other heretics then
springing up, to receive no one who did not condemn his previous error. In
fact, he thus concludes the discussion of the subject with Stephen, the
Roman Pontiff: "These things, dearest brother, I have brought to your
knowledge on account of our mutual respect and love unfeigned, believing,
as I do, that from the sincerity of your piety and your faith you will
approve such things as are alike consonant with piety and true in
themselves. But I know that some persons are unwilling to abandon views
which they have once entertained, and are averse to a change of purpose;
they would rather, without breaking the bond of peace and concord between
colleagues, adhere to their own plans, when once they have been adopted.
This is a matter in which we do not force anyone, or lay down a law for
anyone; let each follow his own free choice in the administration of the
Church: let each be ruler in his own sphere since he must give account of
his action to the Lord." In the letter also to Jubaianus on the re-
baptization of heretics, towards the end, he says this: "I have written
these few remarks, my dearest brother, to the best of my poor ability,
without dictating to anyone, or prejudicing the case of anyone: I would not
hinder a single bishop from doing what he thinks right with the full
exercise of his own judgment. So far as is possible, we avoid disputes with
colleagues and fellow-bishops about the heretics, and maintain with them a
divine harmony and the Lord's peace, particularly since the Apostle
says:[1] 'But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom,
neither the churches of God.' With patience and gentleness we preserve
charity at heart, the honour of our order, the bond of faith, the harmony
of the episcopate."
26. There is another argument which I shall adduce, and against that
not even Hilary,[2] the modern Deucalion, will venture to mutter a
syllable. If heretics are not baptized and must be re-baptized because they
were not in the Church, Hilary himself also is not a Christian. For he was
baptized in that Church which always allowed heretical baptism. Before the
Synod of Ariminum was held, before Lucifer went into exile, Hilary when a
deacon of the Roman Church welcomed those who came over from the heretics
on account of the baptism which they had previously received. It can hardly
be that Arians are the only heretics, and that we are to accept all but
those whom they have baptized. You were a deacon, Hilary (the Church may
say), and received those whom the Manich�ans had baptized. You were a
deacon, and acknowledged Ebion's baptism. All at once after Arius arose you
began to be quite out of conceit with yourself. You and your household
separated from us, and opened a new layer of your own. If some angel or
apostle has re-baptized you, I will not disparage your procedure. But since
you who raise your sword against me are the son of my womb, and nourished
on the milk of my breasts, return to me what I gave you, and be, if you
can, a Christian in some other way. Suppose I am a harlot, still I am your
mother. You say, I do not keep the marriage bed undefiled: still what I am
now I was when you were conceived. If I commit adultery with Arius, I did
the same before with Praxias, with Ebion, with Cerinthus, and Novatus. You
think much of them and welcome them, adulterers as they are, to your
mother's home. I don't know why one adulterer more than others should
offend you.
27. But if anyone thinks it open to question whether heretics were
always welcomed by our ancestors, let him read the letters of the blessed
Cyprian in which he applies the lash to Stephen, bishop of Rome, and his
errors which had grown inveterate by usage.[3] Let him also read the
pamphlets of Hilary on the re-baptization of heretics which he published
against us, and he will there find Hilary himself confessing that[1]
Julius, Marcus, Sylvester, and the other bishops of old alike welcomed all
heretics to repentance; and, further, to shew that he could not justly
claim possession of the true custom; the Council of Nic�a also, to which we
referred not long ago, welcomed all heretics with the exception of[2] the
disciples of Paul of Samosata. And, what is more, it allows a Novatian
bishop on conversion to have the rank of presbyter,[3] a decision which
condemns both Lucifer and Hilary, since the same person who is ordained is
also baptized.
28. I might spend the day in speaking to the same effect, and dry up
all the streams of argument with the single Sun of the Church. But as we
have already had a long discussion and the protracted controversy has
wearied out the attention of our audience, I will tell you my opinion
briefly and without reserve. We ought to remain in that Church which was
rounded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any
that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus
Christ, but from some other, for instance, Marcionites, Valentinians, Men
of the mountain or the plain,[1] you may be sure that you have there not
the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that
they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they
are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter
themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their
assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of
the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow
the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as
wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church.
L. You must not suppose that victory rests with you only. We are both
conquerors, and each of us carries off the palm,--you are victorious over
me, and I over my error. May I always when I argue be so fortunate as to
exchange wrong opinions for better ones. I must, however, make a
confession, because I best know the character of my party, and own that
they are more easily conquered than convinced.
Taken from "The Early Church Fathers and Other Works" originally published
by Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. in English in Edinburgh, Scotland, beginning in
1867. (LNPF II/VI, Schaff and Wace). The digital version is by The
Electronic Bible
Society, P.O. Box 701356, Dallas, TX 75370, 214-407-WORD.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
Copyright (c) Eternal Word Television Network 1996.
Provided courtesy of:
EWTN On-Line Services
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
FTP: ftp.ewtn.com
Telnet: ewtn.com
WWW:
http://www.ewtn.com.
Email address:
[email protected]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
