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 i. Its Valid- be regarded if the administrant did not ity Denied, belong to the true communion? If the Controversy working of the Spirit was effective ex-
between clusively in the Church, a new baptism Cyprian and of those baptized into a heretical body
Stephen, 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 Synnada, 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 Ixvii. [lxviii. and Ixvii.] 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
Heretic Baptism Herkeniie
THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
decision was not to be binding upon bishops who represented another tradition. Nevertheless, the rupture with Rome could not be avoided (Cyprian, Epist., lxxiii. [lxxiv.]), and this because Stephen refused all concessions. Cyprian now tried to place against the authority of Rome the " unanimity " of the other bishops. Firrnilian of CaBsarea 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 Aries 2. The in 314 it was decided (canon viii.) that Donatist schismatics are to be received by mere Contro- imposition of hands. CaBcilian gave versy. up the previously existing African Augustine, 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, hi. 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 sacramcntorum, 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 schismatics 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 baptismo, 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
3. Attitude Council of Nicsea recognizes the bap-
of the tism of the Novatians; canon xix.
Eastern rejects that of the adherents of Paul
Church, 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.,
4. The dist. 6 A) says that persons baptized Roman by heretics with the Christian baptis-
Catholic mal formula are to be received by Position, 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., qucest. 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, Wiirzburg, 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
5. The of necessity, the administration of Protestant baptism even by a Roman Catholic
Position, 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