humble and meek, fearing and trembling before God, men who have always done great and noble works in their churches without ever demanding payment from the Lord for them, knowing that he said: "And when ye shall have done all these things, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which it was our duty to do."3 Keeping this in mind and taking no advantage of the certificate which they had received from the martyrs, they have written to me praying that their satisfaction may be acceptable to the Lord, telling me that they acknowledge their sin and are truly penitent, that they are not hurrying rashly or importunately to be reconciled, but are waiting for my presence. They say that the reconciliation which they receive in my presence will be all the sweeter to them. How warmly I have congratulated them, the Lord is witness, who deigned to show what such servants deserve of his goodness.

Having received their letter, and having now read your very different one, I must ask you to discriminate between your various desires, and whoever you are that have sent this letter, I must ask you to append your names to the certificate 4 and send it to me with all your names. I must first know whom I have to answer. Then I will answer each of your points as best fits my humble station and activity. I hope, brethren, that you are well and are living peacefully and quietly according to the discipline of the Lord. Farewell.

Letters 69 and 73: The Baptismal Controversy

INTRODUCTION

ETTER 69, WRITTEN TO AN UNKNOWN LAYMAN, Magnus, is the first document of the baptismal controversy between Carthage and Rome, and must date from A.D. 255. During that year thirty-one bishops of the proconsular province met at Carthage and informed eighteen Numidian bishops, who had consulted them, that they had confirmed the African practice of ignoring heretical or schismatic baptism and of baptizing, as for the first time, converts from heresy or schism to the Church. This decision was conveyed in Letter 70. About the same time, a Mauretanian bishop, Quintus, consulted the Bishop of Carthage direct, and Cyprian sent him Letter 71, enclosing a copy of Letter 70 with a few explanations of it, and referring also to the Council of bishops from Africa Proconsularis and Numidia held under Agrippinus of Carthage, which had come to the the same decision. This Council, mentioned also in Letter 73:3, cannot be exactly dated. Estimates range from c. 200 to c. 220.

The issue was being forced by the desire of Christians who had been baptized by Novatianists to enter what they had come to think, after all, the true Church. This was happening at Rome as well as in Africa. At Rome the new bishop, Stephen (254-257), held that, even outside the Church, baptism with water and the invocation of the Holy Trinity according to Christ's command ensured a "valid" baptism, that is, conferred the baptismal character, and need not and must not be repeated if the person concerned desired to enter the Church; it should be completed by the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Spirit. For Cyprian, as we have already seen, baptism outside the Church was meaningless and impossible. Each bishop claimed to have tradition behind him, and no doubt each was well supported by local custom. If Cyprian

could not claim that African custom was universally on his side, he could eventually quote the support of Asia, assured him by the letter of Firmilian, Metropolitan of Cappadocia (Letter 75). While Stephen wanted to secure uniformity of practice, even threatening to excommunicate the Africans if they would not conform to Rome, Cyprian adhered to his own theology and to his ecclesiastical principles. The matter should be decided for Africa within Africa by a Council, and even then, though the bishops would be obliged to take account of the moral authority of the Council and the duty of acting in concert, each bishop was in the last resort responsible for his own flock to God, and must follow his conscience.

Accordingly, a Council of seventy-one bishops met at Carthage in the spring of 256. Its synodal letter (72) was sent to Stephen. Here, too, it is declared that every bishop has complete freedom in the administration of his church, subject to his ultimate responsibility to God. The Council, it would seem, tended to treat the issue as a disciplinary one, though for Cyprian it was undoubtedly doctrinal as well, and mainly. The letter contains a hint that Stephen is a stubborn man (§3) and hopes that peace will be maintained. Once again Cyprian was consulted by a fellow-bishop, Jubaianus, to whom he sent copies of Letters 71 and 72 with his own long Letter 73. This letter is important in many ways, not least because Augustine, in his De Baptismo, tries to refute it without contravening his great respect for the memory of Cyprian. But it is disappointing in so far as, in contrast to Letter 69, where Cyprian faces the more difficult problem of orthodox schism, in this one he jumps at a mention of Marcion in a letter which Jubaianus has sent for comment, and takes the easier line of denouncing heretical baptism.

Stephen answered the synodical Letter 72. His reply has not survived, but Cyprian comments on it in his letter (74) to a Tripolitanian bishop, Pompeius. Under threat of excommunication by Rome (and whether that means a breach of communion or exclusion from the catholic Church depends partly on what Stephen threatened and partly on the truth about the Roman primacy) Cyprian held another Council at Carthage on the 1st September, 256, when eighty-seven bishops unanimously declared that baptism outside the Church was entirely null and void. Their Sententiae are extant among Cyprian's works. Rome and Carthage were still at logger-heads when Stephen died and fresh persecution broke out in August, 257. What

happened in the intervening year is obscure; Augustine says that no formal breach of communion took place.

The African tradition and theology was consonant with a certain severity in the genius of African Christianity, at least in these early centuries. Stephen was more politic and, in intention, more charitable (except to his opponents), whether or not he was theologically correct. In the fourth century the Donatist schism made the most of Cyprian, to the embarrassment of Augustine, while the catholic Church of the West, from the Council of Arles (314) onwards, if not before, adopted and developed the Roman practice.

Letter 69

THE TEXT

1. Cyprian to his son, Magnus, Greeting. In your concern for the duties of religion, dear son, you have asked me (a poor consultant!) whether those who come over from Novatian, after having received his profane washing, ought to be baptized and sanctified within the catholic Church, like all other heretics, with the only lawful and true baptism, that of the Church. On this point I will tell you what my own faith enables me to grasp and the holiness and truth of the divine Scriptures teach me, namely that no heretics or schismatics whatsoever have any power or right. Novatian therefore cannot properly be made an exception. He stays outside the Church, he works against the peace and love of Christ. Therefore he must be reckoned among the adversaries and the antichrists. When our Lord Jesus Christ testified in his Gospel that all who are not with him are his enemies, he did not point to any particular kind of heresy. In saying: "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth",1 he showed that all who are not with him and scatter his flock by not gathering with him are his adversaries. Similarly, the blessed Apostle John made no distinction between one form of heresy or schism and another, nor did he single out any special class of separatists. He called all who had gone out of the Church and worked against it antichrists, saying: "Ye have heard that antichrist cometh, and even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us."2 This makes it plain that all who are known to have withdrawn from the charity and unity of the catholic Church are adversaries of the Lord and antichrists. In addition, the Lord lays down in his Gospel: "But 1 Luke 11:23. 2 I John 2:18-19.