BOOK I.
ANTE-NICENE COUNCILS.
CHAPTER II
SYNODS OF THE THIRD CENTURY
4. First Half of the Third Century.
The series of synods of the third century
opens with that of Carthage, to which Agrippinus bishop
of that city had called the bishops of Numidia and of proconsular Africa. S. Cyprian speaks of this Synod
in his seventy-first and seventy-third letters, saying that all the bishops
present declared baptism administered by heretics to be void; and he supports
his own view on this subject by what had passed in this ancient Synod of
Carthage. This Synod was probably the most ancient of Latin Africa; for
Tertullian, who recalls the Greek synods as a glory, tells not of one single
council being held in his country. According to Uhlhorn it was about 205, according to Hesselburg about 212, that
the work of Tertullian, de Jejuniis, was composed; therefore the Synod in question must have been held either after 205 or after 212. It has
not been possible up to this time to verify this date more exactly, But the newly-discovered Philosophoumena, falsely attributed to
Origen, and which were probably written by Hippolytus, have given more exact
dates; and Dollinger, relying upon this
document, has placed the date of this Synod of Carthage between 218 and 222.
The Philosophoumena relate,
indeed, that the custom of rebaptizing that is to say, of repeating the baptism of those who had been baptized by heretics: was
introduced under the Bishop of Rome, Callistus (in
some churches in communion with him). One can scarcely doubt but that this
passage referred to Bishop Agrippinus and
his Synod at Carthage; for S. Augustine and S. Vincent of Lerins say expressly
that Agrippinus was the first who
introduced the custom of rebaptism. The Synod of Carthage, then, took place in
the time of Pope Callistus I, that is to say, between 218 and 222. This date agrees with
the well-known fact that Tertullian was the first of all Christian writers who declared the baptism of heretics invalid; and it may be
presumed that his book de Baptismo exerted
a certain influence upon the conclusions of the Council of Carthage. It is not
contradicted by the forty-sixth (forty-seventh) apostolic canon, which orders
bishops, under pain of deposition, to rebaptize those who had been baptized by
a heretic; for it is known that these so-called apostolic canons were composed
some centuries later.
S. Cyprian speaks, in
his sixty-sixth letter, of a synod held long before in Africa, and which
had decided that a clergyman could not be chosen by a dying person as a
guardian; but nothing shows that he understood by that, the synod presided over
by Agrippinus, or a second African council.
The great Origen gave occasion for two
synods at Alexandria. About the year 228, being called into Achaia on account
of the religious troubles reigning there, Origen passed through Palestine, and
was ordained priest at Caesarea by his friends Alexander Bishop of Jerusalem
and Theoctistus Bishop
of Caesarea, although there were two reasons for his non-admission to holy
orders: first, that he belonged to another diocese; and secondly, that he had
castrated himself. It is not known what decided him or the bishops of Palestine
to take this uncanonical step. Demetrius
of Alexandria, diocesan bishop of Origen, was very angry with what had been
done; and if we regard it from the ecclesiastical point of view, he was right.
When Origen returned to Alexandria, Demetrius told him of his displeasure, and
reproached him with, his voluntary mutilation. But the principal grievance,
without doubt, had reference to several false doctrines held by Origen: for he
had then already written his book de Principiis and his Stromata, which contain those errors; and it is
not necessary to attribute to the Bishop of Alexandria personal feelings of
hatred and jealousy in order to understand that he
should have ordered an inquiry into Origen's opinions under the circumstances.
Origen hastened to leave Alexandria of his own accord, according to Eusebius;
whilst Epiphanius says, erroneously, that Origen fled because, shortly before,
he had shown much weakness during a persecution. His bitterest enemies have
never cast a reproach of this nature at him. Demetrius, however, assembled a
synod of Egyptian bishops and priests of Alexandria in 231, who declared Origen
unworthy to teach, and excluded him from the Church of Alexandria. Demetrius
again presided over a second synod at Alexandria, without this time calling his
priests, and Origen was declared to be deprived of the sacerdotal dignity. An
encyclical letter published by Demetrius made these resolutions known in all
the provinces.
According to S. Jerome and Rufinus, a
Roman assembly, probably called under Pope Pontian,
shortly after deliberated upon this judgment; and Origen after that sent to
Pope Fabian (236-250) a profession of faith, to explain and retract his errors.
Several writers have thought that the word senatus must
not be understood in the sense of a synod, and that we are to consider it only
as an assembly of the Roman clergy. Dollinger,
on the contrary, presumes that Origen had taken part in the discussions of the
priest Hippolytus with Pope Callistus and
his successors (Origen had learned to know Hippolytus at Rome, and he partly
agreed with his opinions), and that for this reason Pontian had
held a synod against Origen.
A little before this period, and before
the accession of Pope Fabian, a synod was certainly held at Iconium in Asia Minor, which must have been of great
authority in the controversy which was soon to begin on the
subject of the baptism of heretics. Like the Synod of Carthage, presided
over by Agrippinus, that of Iconium declared every baptism conferred by a
heretic to be invalid. The best information upon this Council has been
furnished us by the letter which Bishop Firmilian of
Caesarea in Cappadocia, who showed himself so active in this controversy, addressed
to S. Cyprian. It says: “Some having raised doubts upon the validity of baptism
conferred by heretics, we decided long ago, in the Council held at Iconium in Phrygia, with the Bishops of Galatia,
Cilicia, and the other neighboring provinces, that the ancient practice against
heretics should be maintained and held firm (not to regard baptism conferred by
them)”. Towards the end of the letter we read: “Among
us, as more than one Church has never been recognized, so also have we never
recognized as holy any but the baptism of that Church. Some having had doubts
upon the validity of baptism conferred by those who receive new prophets
(the Montanists), but who, however, appear to
adore the same Father and the same Son as ourselves, we have assembled in great
number at Iconium : we have very carefully examined the question, and we have decided that all
baptism administered outside the Church must be rejected”. This letter then
speaks of the Council of Iconium as of a
fact already old; and it says also, that it was
occasioned by the question of the validity of baptism administered by Montanists. Now, as Firmilian wrote
this letter about the middle of the third century, it follows that the Council
of Iconium, of which he often speaks as of an
ancient assembly held long before (jampridem),
took place about twenty years before the writing of his letter. Dionysius
Bishop of Alexandria, about the middle of the third-century,
also says: “It is not the Africans (Cyprian) who have introduced the custom of
rebaptizing heretics: this measure had been taken long before Cyprian by other
bishops at the Synod of Iconium and
of Synnada”.
In these two passages of his letter to S.
Cyprian, Firmilian gives us a fresh means
of fixing the date of the Synod of Iconium,
saying formally several times: “We assembled ourselves at Iconium; we have examined the question; we have decreed”
etc. It results from this, that he was himself present at this Synod. On the
other side, the jampridem and
other similar expressions justify us in placing this Synod in the first years
of Firmilian’s episcopate. Now we know
from Eusebius that Firmilian flourished
so early as in the time of the Emperor Alexander Severus (222-235) as Bishop of
Caesarea; so that we can, with Valesius and Pagi, place the celebration of the Synod of Iconium in the years 230-235. Baronius, by a very evident error, assigns it to the year
258.
According to all probability, we must
refer to the Synod of Iconium a short
passage of S. Augustine, in the third chapter of his third book against Cresconius, in which he speaks
of a synod composed of fifty Eastern bishops.
Dionysius the Great, Bishop of Alexandria,
speaks, we have seen, not only of the Synod of Iconium,
but also of a Synod of Synnada,
a town also situated in Phrygia. In this Synod, he says, the baptism by
heretics was also rejected. We may conclude from his words that the two
assemblies took place about the same time. We have no other information on this
subject.
We know very little about the concilium Lambesitanum, which, says
S. Cyprian, in his fifty-fifth letter to Pope Cornelius, had been held long
before in the Lambesitana Colonia
(in Numidia) by ninety bishops, and condemned a heretic named Privatus (probably Bishop of Lambese) as guilty of several
grave offences. The Roman priests also mention this Privatus in
their letter to S. Cyprian; but they do not give any further information
concerning him.
A better known council was that which was held about the year 244, at Bostra in Arabia Petraea (now Bosrah and Bosserat), on account of the
errors of Beryllus, bishop of this town. It is
known that Beryllus belonged to the party
of the Monarchians, generally called Patripassianists. This bishop
held other erroneous opinions, which were peculiar to himself, and which it is
now very difficult to distinguish.
The attempt made by the Arabian bishops to
bring back Beryllus from his errors
having failed, they called in Origen to their aid, who then lived at Caesarea
in Palestine. Origen came and conversed with Beryllus,
first in private, then in presence of the bishops. The document containing the
discussion was known to Eusebius and S. Jerome; but it was afterwards
lost. Beryllus returned to the orthodox
doctrine, and later expressed, it is said, his gratitude to Origen in a private
letter.
Another controversy was raised in Arabia
about the soul, as to whether it passed away (fell asleep) with the body, to
rise (awake) at the resurrection of the body. At the request of one of the
great Arabian synods, as Eusebius remarks, Origen had to argue against
these Hypnopsychites,
and he was as successful as in the affair of Beryllus.
The Libellus Synodicus adds that
fourteen bishops were present at the Synod, but it does not mention, any more
than Eusebius, the place where it was held.
About the same period must also have been
held two Asiatic synods, on the subject of the anti-Trinitarian (Patripassian) Noetus; S. Epiphanius is the
only one to mention them, and he does so without giving any detail, and without
saying where they took place. The assertion of the author of Praedestinatus that about
this time a synod was held in Achaia against the Valesians, who taught voluntary mutilation, is
still more doubtful, and very probably false. The very existence of this sect
is doubtful.
We are on more solid historical ground
when we approach the tolerably numerous synods which were celebrated, chiefly
in Africa, about the middle of the third century. The letters of S. Cyprian
especially acquaint us with them. He first speaks, in his
sixty-sixth letter, of an assembly of his colleagues (the bishops of
Africa), and of his fellow-priests (the presbyters of Carthage), and so of a
Carthaginian Synod, which had to decide upon a particular case of
ecclesiastical discipline. A Christian named Geminius Victor, of Furni in Africa, had on the approach of death
appointed a priest named Geminius Faustinus as guardian to
his children. We have seen above, that an ancient
synod of Africa, perhaps that held under Agrippinus,
had forbidden that a priest should be a guardian, because a clergyman ought not
to occupy himself with such temporal business. The Synod of Carthage, held
under S. Cyprian, renewed this prohibition, and ordained, in the spirit of that
ancient council, that no prayers should be said or
sacrifices (oblationes)
offered for the deceased Victor, as he had no claim to the prayers of priests
who had endeavored to take a priest from the holy altar. In the letter of which
we speak, S. Cyprian gave an account of this decision to the Christians
of Furni. The
Benedictines of Saint Maur presume
that this letter was written before the outbreak of the persecution of Decius,
which would place this Synod in the year 249.
5. First Synods at Carthage and
Rome on account of Novatianism and the Lapsi (251).
The schism of Felicissimus and the
Novatian controversy soon afterwards occasioned several synods. When, in 248,
S. Cyprian was elected Bishop of Carthage, there was a small party of
malcontents there, composed of five priests, of whom he speaks himself in his
fortieth letter. Soon after the commencement of the persecution of Decius (at
the beginning of the year 250) the opposition to Cyprian became more violent,
because in the interest of the discipline of the Church he would not always
regard the letters of peace which some martyrs without sufficient consideration
gave to the lapsi. He
was accused of exaggerated severity against the fallen, and his own absence
(from February 250 until the month of April or May 251) served to strengthen
the party which was formed against him. An accident caused the schism to break
out. Cyprian had from his retreat sent two bishops and two priests to Carthage,
to distribute help to the faithful poor (many had been ruined by the
persecution). The deacon Felicissimus opposed the envoys of Cyprian, perhaps
because he considered the care of the poor as an exclusive right of the
deacons, and because he would not tolerate special commissioners from the
bishop on such a business. This took place at the end of 250, or at the
beginning of 251. Felicissimus had been ordained deacon by the priest Novatus unknown to Cyprian, and without his
permission, probably during his retreat. Now, besides the fact that such an
ordination was contrary to all the canons of the Church, Felicissimus was
personally unworthy of any ecclesiastical office, on account of his
deceitfulness and his corrupt manners.
Cyprian, being warned by his
commissioners, excommunicated Felicissimus and some of his partisans on account
of their disobedience; but the signal for revolt was given, and Felicissimus
soon had with him those five priests who had been the old adversaries of
Cyprian, as well as all those who accused the bishop of being too severe with regard to the lapsi, and of despising the letters of the martyrs.
These contributed to give to the opposition quite another character. Till then
it had only been composed of some disobedient priests; henceforth the party
took for a war-cry the severity of the bishop with regard to the lapsi. Thus not only the lapsi, but also some confessors (confessores) who had been
hurt by the little regard that Cyprian showed for the libelli pacis, swelled the ranks of the revolt.
It is not known whether Novatus was in the number of the five priests who
were the first movers of the party. By some it is asserted, by others denied.
After having in vain recalled the rebels to obedience Cyprian returned to
Carthage, a year after the festival of Easter in 251; and he wrote his book
de Lapsis as a
preparation for the Synod which he assembled soon afterwards, probably during
the month of May 251. The Council was composed of a great number of bishops,
and of some priests and deacons : he excommunicated
Felicissimus and the five priests after having heard them, and at the same time
set forth the principles to be followed with regard to the lapsi, after having carefully
examined the passages of Scripture treating of this question. All the separate
decrees upon this subject were collected into one book, which may be considered
as the first penitential book which had appeared in the Church; but unfortunately it is lost. Cyprian makes us acquainted with
the principal rules in his fifty-second letter: namely, that all hope must not
be taken away from the lapsed, that, in excluding them from the Church, they
may not be driven to abandon the faith, and to fall back again into a life of
heathenism; that, notwithstanding, a long penance must be imposed upon them,
and that they must be punished proportionally to their fault. It is evident,
continues Cyprian, that one must act differently with those who have gone, so
to speak, to meet apostasy, spontaneously taking part in the impious
sacrifices, and those who have been, as it were, forced to this odious
sacrilege after long struggles and cruel sufferings : so also with those who
have carried with them in their crime their wife, their children, their
servants, their friends, making them also share their fall, and those who have
only been the victims, who have sacrificed to the gods in order to serve their
families and their houses; that there should no less be a difference between
the sacrificati and
the libellatici,
that is to say, between those who had really sacrificed to the gods, and those
who, without making a formal act of apostasy, had profited by the weakness of
the Roman functionaries, had seduced them, and had made them give them false
attestations; that the libellatici must
be reconciled immediately, but that the sacrificati must submit to a long
penance, and only be reconciled as the moment of their death approached;
finally, that as for the bishops and priests, they must also be admitted to
penance, but not again permitted to discharge any episcopal or sacerdotal
function.
Jovinus and Maximus, two bishops of
the party of Felicissimus, who had been reproved before by nine bishops for
having sacrificed to the gods, and for having committed abominable sacrilege,
appeared before the Synod of Carthage. The Synod renewed the sentence
originally given against them; but in spite of this
decree, they dared again to present themselves, with several of their
partisans, at the Synod of Carthage, held the following year. Cyprian and the
bishops assembled around him decided to send their synodical decisions
of 251 to Rome, to Pope Cornelius, to obtain his consent with
regard to the measures taken against the lapsi. It was the more necessary to understand,
each other on the subject of these measures, as the
Roman Church had also been troubled by the Novatian schism.
Pope Cornelius assembled at Rome in the
autumn, probably in the month of October 251, a synod composed of sixty
bishops, without counting the priests and deacons. The Synod confirmed the
decrees of that of Carthage, and excommunicated Novatian and his partisans. The
two authors who have preserved these facts for us are Cyprian and Eusebius. It
must be remarked that several editors of the acts of the councils, and several
historians, misunderstanding the original documents, have turned the two Synods
of Carthage and Rome (251) into four councils.
The Libellus Synodicus also speaks of another council
which must have been held the same year at Antioch, again on
the subject of the Novatians; but one
can hardly rely on the Libellus Synodicus when it is
alone in relating a fact. The Novatian schism could not be extirpated by these
synods. The partisans of Felicissimus and of Novatian made great efforts to
recover their position. The Novatians of
Carthage even succeeded in putting at their head a bishop of their party named
Maximus, and they sent many complaints to Rome on the subject
of Cyprian's pretended severity, as, on the other side, the persecution
which was threatening made fresh measures necessary with regard to the lapsi.
Cyprian assembled a fresh council at
Carthage on the Ides of May 252, which sixty-six bishops attended. It was
probably at this council that two points were discussed which were brought
forward by the African Bishop Fidus. Fidus complained at first that Therapius Bishop of Bulla
(near Hippo) had received the priest Victor too soon into the communion of the
Church, and without having first imposed upon him the penance he deserved. The
Synod declared that it was evidently contrary to the former decisions of the
councils, but that they would content themselves for this time with blaming
Bishop Therapius,
without declaring invalid the reconciliation of the priest Victor, which he had effected.
In the second place, Fidus enunciated the opinion that infants should be
baptized, not in the first days after their birth, but eight days after; to
observe, with regard to baptism, the delay formerly
prescribed for circumcision. The Synod unanimously condemned this opinion,
declaring that they could not thus delay to confer grace on the new-born.
The next principal business of the Synod
was that concerning the lapsi;
and the fifty-fourth letter of S. Cyprian gives us an account of what passed on
this subject. The Synod, he says, on this subject decided that, considering the
imminent persecution, they might immediately reconcile all those who showed
signs of repentance, in order to prepare them for the
battle by means of the holy sacraments. In addressing its synodical letter to Pope Cornelius (it is the fifty-fourth
of S. Cyprian’s letters), the Council says formally:Placuit nobis, sancto Spiritu suggerente. The heretic Privatus, of the Lambesitana, probably bishop of that town, who,
we have seen, had been condemned, again appeared at the council; but he was not
admitted. Neither would they admit bishops Jovinus and
Maximus, partisans of Felicissimus, and condemned as he was; nor the false
Bishop Felix, consecrated by Privatus after
he became a heretic, who came with him. They then united themselves with the
fallen bishop Repostus Saturnicensis, who had
sacrificed during the persecution, and they gave the priest Fortunatus as
bishop to the lax party at Carthage. He had been one of S. Cyprian’s five
original adversaries.
A short time after, a new synod assembled
at Carthage on the subject of the Spanish bishops
Martial and Basilides. Both had been deposed for serious faults, especially for
having denied the faith. Basilides had judged himself to be unworthy of the
episcopal dignity, and declared himself satisfied if, after undergoing his
penance, he might be received into lay communion. Martial had also confessed
his fault; but after some time they both appealed to
Rome, and by means of false accounts they succeeded in gaining over Pope
Stephen, who demanded that Basilides should be replaced in his bishopric,
although Sabinus had been already elected to succeed
him. Several Spanish bishops seem to have supported the pretensions of
Basilides and Martial, and placed themselves, it appears, on their side; but
the Churches of Leon, of Asturia,
and of Emerita, wrote on this subject to the African bishops, and sent two
deputies to them Bishops Sabinus and Felix, probably
the elected successors of Basilides and Martial. Felix Bishop of Saragossa
supported them with a private letter. S. Cyprian then assembled a council
composed of thirty-seven bishops; and we possess the synodical letter
of the assembly, in his sixty-eighth epistle, in which the deposition of
Martial and Basilides is confirmed, the election of their successors is
declared to be legitimate and regular, the bishops who had spoken in favor of
the deposed bishops are censured, and the people are instructed to enter into ecclesiastical communion with their successors.
6. Synods relative to the Baptism
of Heretics (255-256).
To these synods concerning the lapsi, succeeded three African councils on the subject of baptism by heretics. We have seen that
three former councils, that of Carthage, presided over by Agrippinus; two of
Asia Minor, that of Iconium, presided over by Firmilian, and that of Synnada, held at the same period, had declared that baptism
conferred by heretics was invalid. This principle, and the consequent practice
in Asia Minor, would appear to have occasioned, toward the end of the year 253,
a conflict between Pope Stephen an the bishops of Asia
Minor, Helenus of Tarsus and Firmilian of Caesarea, sustained by all the
bishops of Cilicia, of Cappadocia, and the neighboring provinces; so that
Stephen, according to Dionysius the Great, threatened these bishops with
excommunication because they repeated the baptism conferred by heretics.
Dionysius the Great mediated with the Pope in favor of the bishops of Asia
Minor; and the letter which he wrote prevented their being excluded from the
Church. The first sentence of this letter would even allow it to be supposed
that peace was completely re-established, and that the bishops of Asia Minor
had conformed to the demand of the Pope. However, later on,
Firmilian is again found in opposition to Rome.
The Easterners then stirred up the
controversy on the baptism of heretics before S. Cyprian; Cyprian was the most
important, and in this sense the first, of those who demanded the re-baptism of
heretics.
Let us now turn our attention to Africa,
and particularly to S. Cyprian. Some African bishops being of
the opinion that those who abandoned heretical sects to enter the Church
must not be re-baptized, eighteen bishops of Numidia, who held a different
opinion, and rejected baptism by heretics, asked of the Synod of Carthage of
255 if it were necessary to re-baptize those who had been baptized by heretics
or schismatics, when they entered the Church. At this synod, presided over by
S. Cyprian, there were twenty-one Bishops present: the seventieth epistle of
Cyprian is nothing but the answer of the Synod to the eighteen Numidian
bishops. It declares “that their opinion about the baptism of heretics is
perfectly right; for no one can be baptized out of the Church, seeing there is
only one baptism which is in the Church”, etc.
Shortly afterwards, Cyprian being again
consulted on the same question by Quintus, bishop in Mauritania, who sent him
the priest Lucian, sent in answer the synodical letter of the Council which had
just separated; and besides, in a private letter joined to this official
document, he stated his personal opinion on the
validity of the baptism of heretics, and answered some objections.
All the bishops of Africa were probably
not satisfied with these decisions; and sometime after, about 256, Cyprian saw
himself obliged to assemble a second and larger council at Carthage, at which
no fewer than seventy-one bishops were present. S. Cyprian relates that they
treated of a multitude of questions, but the chief point was the baptism of
heretics. The synodical letter of this great assembly, addressed to Pope
Stephen, forms S. Cyprian’s seventieth letter. The Council also sent to the
Pope the letter of the preceding Synod to the eighteen Numidian bishops, as
well as the letter of S. Cyprian to Quintus, and reiterated the assertion “that
whoso abandoned a sect ought to be re-baptized”; adding, “that it was not
sufficient (parum est)
to lay hands on such converts ad accipiendum Spiritum sanctum, if they did not also receive the
baptism of the Church”. The same Synod decided that those priests and deacons
who had abandoned the catholic Church for any of the sects, as well as those
who had been ordained by the sectarian false bishops, on re-entering the
Church, could only be admitted into lay communion (communio laicalis). At the end of their letter, the Synod
express the hope that these decisions would obtain Stephen's approval: they
knew, besides, they said, that many do not like to renounce an opinion which
has once been adopted; and more than one bishop, without breaking with his
colleagues, will doubtless be tempted to persevere in the custom which he had
embraced. Besides this, it is not the intention of the Synod to do violence to anyone,
or to prescribe a universal law, seeing that each bishop can cause his will to
be paramount in the administration of his Church, and will have to render an
account of it to God. “These words”, Mattes has remarked, “betray either the
desire which the bishops of Africa had to see Stephen produce that agreement by
his authority, which did not yet exist, and which was not easy to establish; or
else their apprehensions, because they knew that there was a practice at Rome
which did not accord with the opinion of Cyprian”. This last was, in fact, the
case; for Pope Stephen was so little pleased with the decisions of the Council
of Carthage, that he did not allow the deputies of the African bishops to
appear before him, refused to communicate with them, forbade all the faithful
to receive them into their houses, and did not hesitate to call S. Cyprian a
false Christian, a false apostle, a deceitful workman (dolosus operarius). This is at least what Firmilian
relates. Pope Stephen then pronounced very explicitly, in opposition to the
Africans, for the validity of the baptism of heretics, and against the custom
of repeating the baptism of those who had already received it from heretics.
The letter which he wrote on this occasion to Cyprian has unfortunately been
lost, and therefore his complete argument is unknown to us; but Cyprian and
Firmilian have preserved some passages of the letter of Stephen in their
writings, and it is these short fragments, with the comments of Cyprian and
Firmilian, which must serve to make known to us with some certainty the view of
Stephen on the baptism of heretics.
It is commonly admitted that S. Cyprian
answered this violence of Stephen by assembling the third Council of Carthage;
but it is also possible that this assembly took place before the arrival of the
letter from Rome. It was composed of eighty-seven bishops (two were represented
by one proxy, Natalis Bishop of Oea) from proconsular
Africa, from Numidia, and from Mauritania, and of a great number of priests and
of deacons. A multitude of the laity were also present at the Synod. The acts
of this Synod, which still exist, inform us that it opened on the 1st September, but the year is not indicated. It is probable
that it was in 256.
First was read the letter of the African
Bishop Jubaianus to Cyprian on the baptism of
heretics, and the answer of Cyprian; then a second letter from Jubaianus, in which he declared himself now brought to
Cyprian's opinion. The Bishop of Carthage then asked each bishop present freely
to express his opinion on the baptism of heretics: he declared that no one
would be judged or excommunicated for differences of opinion; for, added he, no
one in the assembly wished to consider himself as episcopus episcoporum, or thought to oblige his colleagues
to yield to him, by inspiring them with a tyrannical fear (perhaps this was an
allusion to Pope Stephen). Thereupon the bishops gave their votes in order,
Cyprian the last, all declaring that baptism given by heretics was invalid, and
that, in order to admit them into the Church, it was
necessary to rebaptize those who had been baptized by heretics.
About the same time Cyprian sent the
deacon Rogatian with a letter to Firmilian Bishop of
Caesarea, to tell him how the question about the baptism of heretics had been
decided in Africa. He communicated to him at the same time, it appears, the
acts and documents which treated of this business. Firmilian hastened to
express, in a letter still extant, his full assent to Cyprian’s principles.
This letter of Firmilian’s forms No. 75 of the collection of the letters of S.
Cyprian : its contents are only, in general, an echo of what S. Cyprian had set
forth in defence of his own opinion, and in
opposition to Stephen; only in Firmilian is seen a much greater violence and
passion against Stephen, so much so, that Molkenbuhr,
[Roman Catholic] Professor at Paderborn, has thought that a letter so
disrespectful towards the Pope could not be genuine.
We are entirely ignorant of what then
passed between Cyprian and Stephen, but it is certain that church communion was
not interrupted between them. The persecution which soon afterwards broke out
against the Christians under the Emperor Valerian, in 257, probably appeased
the controversy. Pope Stephen died as a martyr during this persecution, in the
month of August 257. His successor Xystus received from Dionysius the Great,
who had already acted as mediator in this controversy on the baptism of heretics,
three letters in which the author earnestly endeavored to effect a
reconciliation; the Roman priest Philemon also received one from Dionysius.
These attempts were crowned with success; for Pontius, Cyprian's deacon and biographer, calls Pope Xystus bonus et pacificus sacerdos, and the
name of this Pope was written in the diptychs of Africa.
The eighty-second letter of Cyprian also
proves that the union between Rome and Carthage was not interrupted, since
Cyprian sent a deputation to Rome during the persecution, to obtain information
respecting the welfare of the Roman Church, that of Pope Xystus, and in general
about the progress of the persecution. Soon after, on the 14th September 258, Cyprian himself fell, in his turn, a victim to the persecution
of Valerian.
It remains for us now, in order fully to
understand the controversy on the baptism of heretics, to express with greater
precision the opinions and assertions of Cyprian and Stephen.
1. We must ask, first of
all, which of the two had Christian antiquity on his side.
a. Cyprian says, in his seventy-third
letter: “the custom of baptizing heretics who enter the Church is no innovation
amongst us: for it is now many years since, under the episcopate of Agrippinus
of holy memory, a great number of bishops settled this question in a synod; and
since then, up to our days, thousands of heretics have received baptism without
difficulty”. Cyprian, then, wishing to demonstrate the antiquity of his custom,
could not place it earlier than Agrippinus, that is to say,
than the commencement of the third century (about 220 years after
Christ); and his own words, especially the “since then” (exinde),
show that it was Agrippinus who introduced this custom into Africa.
b. In another passage of the same
letter, Cyprian adds: “Those who forbid the baptism of heretics, having been
conquered by our reasons (ratione), urge
against us the custom of antiquity”. If Cyprian had been able to deny that the
practice of his adversaries was the most ancient, he would have said: “They are
wrong if they appeal to antiquity (consuetudo); it is evidently for us”.
But Cyprian says nothing of the kind: he acknowledges that his adversaries have
antiquity on their side, and he only tries to take its force from this fact, by
asking, “Is antiquity, then, more precious than truth?”, and by adding, “In
spiritual things we must observe what the Holy Spirit has (afterwards) more
fully revealed”. He acknowledges, therefore, in his practice a progress brought
about by the successive revelations of the Holy Spirit.
c. In a third passage of this letter,
S. Cyprian acknowledges, if possible more plainly,
that it was not the ancient custom to rebaptize those who had been baptized by
heretics. “This objection”, he says, “may be made to me: What has become of
those who in past times entered the Church from heresy, without having been
baptized?”. He acknowledges, then, that in the past, in praeteritum, converts from heresy were not rebaptized.
Cyprian makes answer to this question : “Divine mercy
may well come to their aid; but because one has erred once, it is no reason for
continuing to err”. That is to say, formerly converts
were not rebaptized; but it was a mistake, and for the future the Holy Spirit
has revealed what is best to be done.
d. When Pope Stephen appealed to
tradition, Cyprian did not answer by denying the fact : he acknowledges it; but he seeks to diminish the value of it, by calling this
tradition a human tradition, and not legitimate (humana traditio, non legitima).
e. Firmilian also maintained that the
tradition to which Stephen appealed was purely human, and he added that the Roman
Church had also in other points swerved from the practice of the primitive
Church for example, in the celebration of Easter. This example, however, was
not well chosen, since the Easter practice of the Roman Church dates back to the prince of the apostles.
f. Firmilian says, in another passage
of this same letter, that it was anciently the custom also in the African
Churches not to re-baptize the converts: “You Africans”, he says, “can answer
Stephen, that having found the truth, you have renounced the error of your
(previous) custom”. Nevertheless, Firmilian thought that it was otherwise in
Asia Minor, and that the custom of rebaptizing converts was traced back to a
very far-off period; but when he wishes to give the proof of it, he only finds
this one: “We do not remember (!) when this practice began amongst us”. He
appeals, in the last place, to the Synod of Iconium, which we know was not held
until about the year 230.
g. It is worthy of remark, that even in
Africa all the bishops did not pronounce in favor of the necessity of a fresh
baptism, which would certainly have been the case if the practice of Agrippinus
and Cyprian had always prevailed in Africa.
h. A very important testimony in favor
of Stephen, and one which proves that the ancient custom was not to rebaptize,
is given by the anonymous author of the book de Rebaptismate,
a contemporary and probably a colleague of Cyprian. This author says that the
practice maintained by Stephen, that of simply laying hands on the converts
without rebaptizing them, is consecrated by antiquity and by ecclesiastical
tradition, consecrated as an ancient, memorable, and solemn observance by all
the saints, and all the faithful, which has in its favor the authority of all
the churches, but from which unhappily some have departed, from the mania for
innovations.
i. S. Vincent of Lerins agrees with the author we have just quoted, when he says that Agrippinus of
Carthage was the first who introduced the custom of rebaptizing, contra divinum canonem, contra
universalis Ecclesiae regulam, contra morem atque instituta majorum; but that Pope Stephen condemned the
innovation and re-established the tradition, retenta est antiquitas, explosa novitas.
k. S. Augustine also believes that the
custom of not rebaptizing heretics is an apostolical tradition, and that it was
Agrippinus who was the first to abolish this wholesome custom, without
succeeding in replacing it by a better custom, as Cyprian thought.
l. But the gravest testimony in this
question is that of the Philosophoumena,
in which Hippolytus, who wrote about 230, affirms that the custom of
re-baptizing was only admitted under Pope Callistus, consequently between 218
and 222.
m. Before arriving at the conclusion to
be deduced from all these proofs, it remains for us to examine some
considerations which appear to point in an opposite direction.
(A.) In his book de Baptismo, which he wrote when he was still a
Catholic, and still earlier in a work written in Greek, Tertullian shows that
he did not believe in the validity of baptism conferred by heretics. But, on
considering it attentively, we find that he was not speaking of all baptism by
heretics, but only of the baptism of those who had another God and another
Christ. Besides, we know that Tertullian is always inclined to rigorism, and he
certainly is so on this point; and then, living at Carthage at the commencement
of the third century, being consequently a contemporary of Agrippinus, perhaps
even being one of his clergy, he naturally inclined to
resolve this question as Agrippinus resolved it, and his book de Baptismo perhaps exerted an influence upon the
resolutions of the Synod of Carthage. Besides, Tertullian does not pretend that
it was the primitive custom of the Church to rebaptize: his words rather
indicate that he thought the contrary. He says: “It would be useful if someone
would study afresh (or examine more attentively) what ought to be done about
heretics, that is to say, in relation to their baptism”.
(B.) Dionysius the Great says, in a
passage which Eusebius has preserved: “The Africans were not the first to
introduce this practice (that of rebaptizing converts): it is more ancient; it
was authorized by bishops who lived much earlier, and in populous Churches”.
However, as he only mentions the Synods of Iconium and of Synnada before the Africans, his expression much earlier can only refer to these
assemblies, and he adduces no earlier testimony for the practice of Cyprian.
(C.) Clement of Alexandria certainly
speaks very disdainfully of baptism by heretics, and calls it foreign water; he
does not, however, say that they were in the habit of renewing this baptism.
(D.) The Apostolical Canons 45 and 46 (or
46 and 47, according to another order) speak of the non-validity of baptism by
heretics; but the question is to know what is the date of
these two canons: perhaps they are contemporary with the Synods of
Iconium and of Synnada, perhaps even more recent. We
are hardly able to doubt, then, that in the ancient Church, those who returned
to the orthodox faith, after having been baptized by heretics, were not rebaptized,
if they had received baptism in the name of the Trinity, or of JESUS.
2. Let us see now whether Pope Stephen
considered as valid baptism conferred by all heretics, without any exception or
condition. “We know that the Synod of Aries in 314, as well as the Council of
Trent, teaches that the baptism of heretics is valid only when it is
administered in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Were
the opinions and assertions of Stephen agreeable to this doctrine of the
Church?”
At first sight Stephen appears to have
gone too far, and to have admitted all baptism by heretics, in whatever manner
it was conferred. His chief proposition was, then, to declare valid all baptism
by heretics, in whatever manner it might have been administered, with or
without the formula of the Trinity. Cyprian argues, in a measure, as if he
under stood Stephen's proposition in this sense. However:
A. From several passages in the letters of
S. Cyprian, we see that Pope Stephen did not thus understand it.
(1.) Thus (Epist. 73, p. 130) Cyprian
says: “Those who forbid the baptism of heretics lay great stress upon this,
that even those who had been baptized by Marcion were
not rebaptized, because they had already been baptized in the name of Jesus
Christ”. Thus Cyprian acknowledges that Stephen, and
those who think with him, attribute no value to the baptism of heretics, except
it be administered in the name of Jesus Christ.
(2) Cyprian acknowledges in the same
letter (p. 133), that heretics baptize in nomine Christi.
(3.) Again, in this letter, he twice
repeats that his adversaries considered as sufficient baptism administered out
of the Church, but administered in nomine Christi.
(4.) Cyprian, in answering this particular question if baptism by the Marcionites is valid
acknowledges that they baptize in the name of the Trinity; but he remarks that,
under the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, they
understand something different from what the Church understands. This argument
leads us to conclude that the adversaries of S. Cyprian considered baptism by
the Marcionites to be valid, because they conferred it in the name of the
Trinity.
B. Firmilian also gives testimony on the
side of Stephen. He relates, indeed, that about twenty-two years before he had baptized
a woman in his own country who professed to be a prophetess, but who, in fact,
was possessed by an evil spirit. Now, he asks, would Stephen and his partisans
approve even of the baptism which she had received, because it had been
administered with the formula of the Trinity?
C. If, then,
Cyprian and Firmilian affirm that Pope Stephen held baptism to be valid only
when conferred in the name of Christ, we have no need to have recourse to the
testimony either of S. Jerome, or of S. Augustine, or of S. Vincent of Lerins, who also affirm it.
D. The anonymous author of the book de Rebaptismate, who was a contemporary even of S.
Cyprian, begins his work with these words: “There has been a dispute as to the
manner in which it is right to act towards those who have been baptized by
heretics, but still in the name of Jesus Christ”.
E. It may again be asked if Stephen
expressly required that the three divine Persons should be named in the
administration of baptism, and if he required it as a condition sine qua non,
or if he considered baptism as valid when given only in the name of Jesus
Christ. S. Cyprian seems to imply that the latter was the sentiment of Pope
Stephen, but he does not positively say so anywhere; and if he had said it,
nothing could have been legitimately concluded against Pope Stephen, for
Cyprian likes to take the words of his adversaries in their worst sense. What
we have gathered tends to prove that Pope Stephen regarded the formula of the
Trinity as necessary. Holy Scripture had introduced the custom of calling by
the short phrase, baptism in the name of Christ, all baptism which was
conferred in virtue of faith in Jesus Christ, and conformably to His precepts,
consequently in the name of the Holy Trinity, as is seen in the Acts of the Apostles
and in the Epistle to the Romans. It is not, then, astonishing that Pope
Stephen should have used an expression which was perfectly intelligible at that
period.
F. In this discussion Pope Stephen seems
to believe that all the heretics of his time used the true formula of baptism,
consequently the same formula among themselves, and the same as the Church, and
it was on this account, added the Pope, that the heretics did not re-baptize
those who passed from one sect to another. To speak thus, was certainly to
affirm that all the sects agreed in administering baptism with the formula
prescribed by our Lord.
S. Cyprian also attributes to Pope Stephen
words which can be explained very well if we study them with reference to those
quoted by Firmilian. According to S. Cyprian, Stephen had said: “We must not rebaptize
those who have been baptized by heretics; that is to say, the different sects
have not a special baptism of their own: and it is for this reason that
heretics do not rebaptize those who pass from one sect to another.” Now if the
different sects have not special baptism, if they baptize in the same way as
Firmilian makes Pope Stephen affirm, they hold necessarily the universal and
primitive mode of Christian baptism; consequently, they use the formula of the
Trinity. It is difficult to say whether, in admitting this hypothesis, Stephen
falls into an historical error: for, on one side, S. Irenaeus accuses the
Gnostics of having falsified the baptismal formula, and of having used
different erroneous formulas; and consequently he
contradicts Stephen; and, on the other side, S. Augustine appears to agree with
him.
G. We may be inclined to make an objection
against Stephen on the subject of the Montanists.
There is no doubt, in fact, that Stephen considered the baptism of these
heretics to be valid, while the Church afterwards declared it to be of no
value. But Stephen's opinion is not in this contrary to the doctrine of the
Church; neither did the Council of Nicaea (can. 19) mention the Montanists among
those whose baptism it rejected. It could not do so any more than Stephen; for
it was not until long after the time of Stephen and of the Council of Nicaea
that a degenerate sect of Montanists fell away into formal anti-Trinitarianism.
3. It remains for us to understand what,
according to Stephen’s opinion, was to be done with the converts after their
reception into the Church. These are Stephen’s words on this subject: “No
innovation shall be made; only what is conformable to tradition shall be
observed; hands shall be laid on the convert in sign of penitence”. But this
interpretation is contrary to grammatical rules. If Stephen had wished to speak
in this sense, he would have said: “Nothing shall be changed (as regards the
convert) but what it is according to tradition to change; that is to say, that
hands shall be laid upon him”, etc. Stephen adds, in poenitentiam, that is, that “it is necessary that a
penance should be imposed on the convert”. According to the practice of the
Church, a heretic who enters into the Church ought
first to receive the sacrament of penance, then that of confirmation. One may
ask, if Stephen required these two sacraments, or if he only required that of
penance? Each of these sacraments comprehended the imposition of hands, as some
words of Pope Vigilius clearly indicate; and consequently by the expression, manus illi imponatur, Stephen may understand the administration of
the two sacraments. To say that there is only in poenitentiam in
the text, is not a very strong objection; for this text is only a fragment, and
Cyprian has transmitted to us elsewhere other texts of Stephen’s thus abridged.
The manner in which the adversaries of Pope Stephen
analyzed his opinions shows that this Pope really required, besides penance,
the confirmation of the converts. Thus, in his seventy-third letter, Cyprian
accuses his adversaries of self-contradiction, saying: “If baptism out of the
Church is valid, it is no longer necessary even to lay hands on the converts”,
that is to say: “You contradict yourselves if you attribute a real value to
baptism by heretics; you must also equally admit the validity of confirmation
by heretics. Now you require that those who have been confirmed by heretics
should be so again. S. Cyprian here forgets the great difference which exists
between the value of baptism and of confirmation, but his words prove that
Stephen wished that not only penance but also confirmation should be bestowed
upon converts”.
The same conclusion is to be drawn from
certain votes of the bishops assembled at the third Council of Carthage (256). Thus Secundinus Bishop of Carpi
said: “The imposition of hands (without the repetition of baptism, as Stephen
required) cannot bring down the Holy Spirit upon the converts, because they
have not yet even been baptized”. Nemesianus Bishop
of Thubuni speaks still more clearly: “They (the
adversaries) believe that by imposition of hands the Holy Spirit is imparted,
whilst regeneration is possible only when one receives the two sacraments
(baptism and confirmation ) in the Church”. These two
testimonies prove that Stephen regarded confirmation as well as penance to be
necessary for converts.
4. What precedes shows that we must
consider as incorrect and unhistorical the widespread opinion, that Stephen as
well as Cyprian carried things to an extreme, and that the proper mean was
adopted by the Church only as the result of their differences.
5. It is the part of Dogmatic Theology,
rather than of a History of the Councils, to show why Cyprian was wrong, and
why those who had been baptized by heretics should not be re-baptized. Some
short explanation on this point will, however, not be out of place here.
S. Cyprian repeated essentially
Tertullian’s argument, yet without naming it, and thus summed it up: “As there
is only one Christ, so there is only one Church : she
only is the way of salvation; she only can administer the sacraments; out of
her pale no sacrament can be validly administered”. He adds: “Baptism forgives sins : now Christ left only to the apostles the power of
forgiving sins; then heretics cannot be possessed of it, and consequently it is
impossible for them to baptize”. Finally, he concludes: “Baptism is a new
birth; by it children are born to God in Christ: now
the Church only is the bride of Christ; she only can, therefore, be the means
of this new birth”.
In his controversy against the Donatists
(who revived Cyprian's doctrine on this point), S. Augustine demonstrated with
great completeness, and his accustomed spiritual power, two hundred and fifty
years afterwards, that this line of argument was unsound, and that the
strongest grounds existed for the Church's practice defended by Stephen. The
demonstration of S. Augustine is as simple as powerful. He brought out these
three considerations:
a. Sinners are separated spiritually
from the Church, as heretics are corporally. The former are as really out of the Church as the latter: if heretics could not legally
baptize, sinners could not either; and thus the validity of the sacrament would
absolutely depend upon the inward state of the minister.
b. We must distinguish between the
grace of baptism and the act of baptism : the minister
acts, but it is God who gives the grace; and He can give it even by means of an
unworthy minister.
c. The heretic is, without any doubt,
out of the Church but the baptism which he confers is not an alien baptism for
it is not his, it is Christ's baptism, the baptism which He confers, and
consequently a true baptism, even when conferred out of the Church. In leaving
the Church, the heretics have taken many things away with them, especially
faith in Jesus Christ and baptism. These fragments of Church truth are the
elements, still pure (and not what they have as heretics), which enable them by
baptism to give birth to children of God.
After S. Augustine, S. Thomas Aquinas, S.
Bonaventura, the editors of the Roman Catechism, and others, have discussed the
question anew; and the principal propositions upon which the whole subject
turns are the following:
(a.) He who baptizes is a simple
instrument, and Christ can use any instrument whatever, provided
that he does what Christ (the Church) wills that he should do. This
instrument only performs the act of baptism; the grace of baptism comes from
God. Thus any man, even a heathen, can administer
baptism, provided that he will do as the Church does; and this latitude with
respect to the administrant of baptism is not without reason: it is founded
upon this, that baptism is really necessary as a means of salvation.
(b.) Baptism, then, by a heretic
will be valid, if it is administered in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost, and with the intention of doing as the Church does.
(c.) Should he who has thus been
baptized, after remaining a long time in heresy, acknowledge his error and his
separation from the Church, he ought, in order to be
admitted into the Church, to submit to a penance; but it is not necessary to rebaptize
him.
(d.) The sacraments are often
compared to channels through which divine grace comes to us. Then, when any one
is baptized in a heretical sect, but is baptized according to the rules, the
channel of grace is truly applied to him, and there flows to him through this
channel not only the remission of sins (remissio peccatorum), but also sanctification and the
renewal of the inner man (sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis);
that is to say, he receives the grace of baptism.
(e.) It is otherwise with
confirmation. From the time of the apostles, they only, and never the deacons,
their fellow-workers, had the power of giving confirmation. Now, too, it is
only the legitimate successors of the apostles, the bishops, who can administer
this sacrament in the Church. If, therefore, any one has been confirmed whilst
he was in heresy, he can have been so only by a schismatical or heretical bishop or priest; so that his confirmation must be invalid, and it
is necessary that the imposition of hands should be repeated.
Doctor Mattes has brought out, with much
depth, in the dissertation which we have already frequently quoted, the
different reasons for believing that baptism and marriage may be administered
by those who are not Christians.
7. Synod
of Narbonne (255-260).
The councils of Christian
Africa have chiefly occupied our attention so far : we
are now to direct attention to those of the other countries of the Roman
Empire, and first to those of Gaul. It is known that, about the middle of the
third century, seven missionary bishops were sent into Gaul by Pope Fabian, and
that one of them was S. Paul, first bishop of Narbonne. The acts of his life
which have reached us speak of a synod held at Narbonne on his account between
255 and 260. Two deacons, whom the holy bishop had often blamed for their
incontinence, wished to revenge themselves on him in a diabolical manner. They
secretly put a pair of women’s slippers under his bed, and then showed them in
proof of the bishop’s impurity. Paul found himself obliged to assemble his
colleagues in a synod, that they might judge of his innocence or culpability.
While the bishops continued the inquiry for three days, an eagle came and
placed itself upon the roof of the house where they were assembled. Nothing
could drive it away, and during those three days a raven brought it food. On
the third day Paul ordered public prayer that God would make known the truth.
The deacons were then seized by an evil spirit, and so tormented, that they
ended by confessing their perfidy and calumny. They could only be delivered
through prayer, and they renewed their confession. Instead of judging Paul, the
bishops threw themselves at his feet, and with all the people entreated his
intercession with God. The eagle then took flight towards the East.
Such is the account given
in the Acts. They are ancient, but full of fables, and, as Remi Ceillier and
others have already shown, cannot be regarded as a serious historical document.
8. Synods at
Arsinoe and Rome (255-260).
We have, unlike the case
last considered, the most thoroughly historical records of the assembly over
which Dionysius the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria, presided at Arsinoe, and
of which he speaks himself in Eusebius. Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, also a very
venerable man, and author of some Christian canticles, had fallen into the
error of the Millenarians, and had endeavored to spread it. Dying sometime
after, he could not be judged; and his primate, Dionysius the Great, had to
content himself with refuting the opinions which he had propagated. He did so
in two books. Besides this, about 255, Dionysius being near to Arsinoe, where
the errors of Nepos had made great progress, assembled the priests (of Nepos)
and the teachers of the place, and prevailed upon them to submit their doctrine
to a discussion which should take place before all their brethren, who would be
present at it. In the debate they relied upon a work by Nepos, which the
Millenarians much venerated. Dionysius disputed with them for three days; and
both parties, says Dionysius himself, showed much moderation, calmness, and
love of truth. The result was, that Coration, chief of the party of
Nepos, promised to renounce his error, and the discussion terminated to the
satisfaction of all.
Some years later, about
260, the same Dionysius the Great, from his manner of combating Sabellius, gave occasion for the
holding of a Roman synod, of which we shall speak more at length in giving the
history of the origin of Arianism.
9. Three Synods at Antioch on
account of Paul of Samosata (264-269).
Three synods at Antioch
in Syria occupied themselves with the accusation and deposition of the bishop
of that town, the well-known anti-Trinitarian, Paul of Samosata. Sabellius had
wished to strengthen the idea of unity in the doctrine of the Trinity, by
suppressing the difference between the persons, and only admitting, instead of
the persons, three different modes of action in the one person of God; consequently denying the personal difference between
the Father and the Son, and identifying them both.
In his doctrinal
explanation of the mystery of the Trinity, Paul of Samosata took
an opposite course: he separated the one from the other, the Father and the
Son, far too much. He set off, as Sabellius did,
from a confusion of the divine persons, and regarded the Logos as an impersonal
virtue of God in no way distinct from the Father. In JESUS he saw only a man
penetrated by the Logos, who, although miraculously born of a virgin, was yet
only a man, and not the God-man. The Logos had dwelt
in the man Jesus, not in person, but in quality, as virtue or power. Moreover,
by an abiding penetration, He sanctified him, and rendered him worthy of a
divine name.
Paul of Samosata further taught, that as the Logos is not a
person, so also the Holy Spirit is only a divine virtue, impersonal, belonging
to the Father, and distinct from Him only in thought. Thus, while Paul on one
side approached Sabellianism, on the other side
he inclined towards the Subordinatians of
Alexandria. We will not discuss whether Jewish errors, of which Philastrius accuses him,
were mixed with this monarchianism,
as this is merely an accessory question. Theodoret says more accurately, that Paul sought, by his anti-Trinitarian doctrines, to
please his protectress and sovereign Zenobia, who was a Jewess, and consequently held
anti-Trinitarian opinions. The new error was so much the more dangerous, as the
ecclesiastical and political position of its author was of great importance. He
filled the highest see in the East.
We know also, that in 264
or 265 a great number of bishops assembled at Antioch; particularly Firmilian
of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Gregory Thaumaturgus and
his brother Athenodorus,
the Archbishop Helenus of Tarsus in
Cilicia, Nicomas of Iconium, Hymenaeus of
Jerusalem, Theotecnus of
Caesarea in Palestine (the friend of Origen), Maximus of Bostra, and many other bishops,
priests, and deacons. Dionysius the Great of Alexandria had also been invited
to the Synod; but his age and infirmities prevented him from going in person,
and he died a short time after. He had wished at least to be able in writing to
defend the doctrine of the Church against Paul of Samosata,
as he had before defended it against Sabellius. According to Eusebius, he addressed a
letter to the church at Antioch, in which he would not even salute the bishop.
Without entirely confirming this statement furnished by Eusebius, Theodoret relates that in that letter Dionysius exhorted
Paul to do what was right, whilst he encouraged the assembled bishops to redoubled
zeal for orthodoxy. From these testimonies we may conclude that Dionysius wrote
three letters one to Paul, another to the bishops in Synod, a third to the
church at Antioch; but it is also true that one single letter might easily
contain all that Eusebius and Theodoret attribute to
Dionysius.
In a great number of
sessions and discussions they sought to demonstrate the errors of Paul, and entreated him to return to orthodoxy; but the
latter, cleverly dissembling his doctrine, protested that he had never
professed such errors, and that he had always followed the apostolic dogmas.
After these declarations, the bishops being satisfied, thanked God for this
harmony, and separated.
But they found that they
were soon obliged to assemble again, at Antioch. Firmilian appears to have
presided over this fresh assembly, as he had over the first: its exact date is
not certainly known. The Synod explicitly condemned the new doctrine introduced
by Paul. As, however, Paul promised to renounce and retract his errors (as he
had absolutely rejected them as his in the first Synod), Firmilian and the
bishops allowed themselves to be deceived a second time.
Paul did not keep his
promise, and soon, says Theodoret, the report was
spread that he professed his former errors as before. However, the bishops
would not cut him off immediately from communion with the Church: they tried
again to bring him back to the right way by a letter which they addressed to
him; and it was only when this last attempt had failed that they assembled for
the third time at Antioch, towards the close of the year 269. Bishop Firmilian
died at Tarsus in going to this Synod. According to Athanasius, the number of
assembled bishops reached seventy, and eighty according to Hilarius. The deacon Basil, who
wrote in the fifth century, raises it even to a hundred and eighty. Firmilian
being dead, Helenus presided over the
assembly, as we are expressly assured by the Libellus Synodicus. Besides Helenus, Hymenaeus of Jerusalem, Theotecnus of Caesarea in Palestine, Maximus
of Bostra, Nicomas of Iconium, and others, were present. Among the priests who
were present at the Synod, Malchion was
especially remarkable, who, after having taught rhetoric with much success at
Antioch, had been ordained priest there on account of the purity of his manners
and the ardour of
his faith. He was chosen by the bishops assembled at Antioch as the opponent in
discussion of Paul of Samosata, on account of
his vast knowledge and his skill in logic. The notaries kept an account of all that
was said. These documents still existed in the time of Eusebius and of Jerome;
but we have only some short fragments preserved by two writers of the sixth
century Leontius of Byzantium and Peter the deacon.
In these disputations
Paul of Samosata was convicted of error.
The Council deposed him, excommunicated him, and chose in his place Domnus, son of his
predecessor Demetrian Bishop
of Antioch. Before dissolving itself, the Council sent to Dionysius Bishop of
Rome, to Maximus of Alexandria, and to the bishops of all the provinces, an
encyclical letter, which we still possess in greater part, in which was an
account of the errors and manners of Paul of Samosata,
as well as of the deliberations of the Council respecting him. It is there
said, "that Paul, who was very poor at first, had acquired great riches by
illegal proceedings, by extortions and frauds, professedly promising his
protection in lawsuits, and then deceiving those who had paid him. Besides, he
was extremely proud and arrogant: he had accepted worldly employments,
and preferred to be called ducenarius rather
than bishop; he always went out surrounded by a train of servants. He was
reproached with having, out of vanity, read and dictated letters while walking;
with having, by his pride, caused much evil to be said of Christians; with
having had a raised throne made for him in the church; with acting in a
theatrical manner striking his thigh, spurning things with his foot,
persecuting and scorning those who during his sermons did not join with the
clappers of hands bribed to applaud him; with having spoken disparagingly of
the greatest doctors of the Church, and with applause of himself; with having
suppressed the Psalms in honor of Christ, under the pretext that they were of
recent origin, to substitute for them at the feast of Easter hymns sung by
women in his honor; with having caused himself to be praised in the sermons of
his partisans, priests and chorepiscopi. The letter further declared that he
had denied that the Son of God descended from heaven, but that he personally
had allowed himself to be called an angel come from on high; that, besides, he
had lived with the subintroductae,
and had allowed the same to his clergy. If he could not be reproached with
positive immorality, he had at least caused much scandal. Finally, he had
fallen into the heresy of Artemon; and the
Synod had thought it sufficient to proceed only on this last point. They had
therefore excommunicated Paul, and elected Domnus in his place. The Synod prayed all the
bishops to exchange the litteras communicatorias with Domnus, whilst Paul, if he
wished, could write to Artemon.
It is with this ironical
observation that the great fragment of the synodical letter
preserved by Eusebius terminates. It is thought that in Leontius of Byzantium
are to be found some more fragments of this letter treating of Paul’s doctrine.
Much more important is an ancient tradition, that the Synod of Antioch must
have rejected the expression omousios.
This is, at least, what semi-Arians have maintained; whilst S. Athanasius says “that he had not the synodical letter
of the Council of Antioch before his eyes, but that the semi-Arians had
maintained, in their Synod of Ancyra of 358, that this letter denied that the
Son was God fom God”.
What the semi-Arians affirmed is also reported by Basil the Great and Hilary of
Poitiers. Thus it is impossible to maintain the
hypothesis of many learned men, viz. that the semi-Arians had falsified the
fact, and that there was nothing true about the rejection of the
expression omousios by
the Synod of Antioch. The original documents do not, however, show us why this
Synod of Antioch rejected the word omousios;
and we are thrown upon conjectures for this point.
Athanasius says that Paul
argued in this way : If Christ, from being a man, did not become God that is to
say, if He were not a man deified then He is omousios with the Father; but then
three substances must be admitted, one first substance (the Father), and two
more recent (the Son and the Spirit); that is to say, that the divine substance
is separated into three parts.
In this case Paul must
have used the word omousios in
that false sense which afterwards many Arians attributed to the orthodox: in
his mind omousios must
have signified the possessor of a part of the divine substance, which is not
the natural sense of the word. Then, as Paul abused this expression, it may be
that for this reason the Synod of Antioch should absolutely forbid the use of
the word omousios.
Perhaps Paul also maintained that the omousios answered much better to his
doctrine than to that of the orthodox: for he could easily name as omousios with the
Father, the divine virtue which came down upon the man Jesus, since according
to him this virtue was in no way distinct from the Father; and in this case,
again, the Synod would have sufficient ground for rejecting this expression.
These explanations would
be without any use if the two creeds which were formerly attributed to this
Council of Antioch really proceeded from it. In these creeds the word omousios is not only
adopted, but great stress is laid upon it. The two creeds also have expressions
evidently imitated from the Nicene Creed, a fact which shows that they could
not have proceeded from the Synod of Antioch. If in 269 such a profession of
faith in the mystery of the Holy Trinity had been written at Antioch, the
Fathers of Nicaea would have had much easier work to do, or rather Arianism
would not have been possible.
We have already said that
the synodical letter of the Council of
Antioch was addressed to Dionysius Bishop of Rome. The Synod did not know that
this Pope died in the month of December 269: thus the
letter was given to his successor, Felix I, who wrote immediately to Bishop
Maximus and the clergy of Alexandria to define the orthodox faith of the Church
with greater clearness against the errors of Paul of Samosata.
Paul continued to live in
the episcopal palace, notwithstanding his deposition, being probably supported
by Zenobia; and he thus obliged the orthodox to
appeal to the Emperor Aurelian after this prince had conquered Zenobia and taken Antioch in 272. The Emperor decided that “he should occupy the episcopal house
at Antioch who was in connection with the bishops of Italy and the see of
Rome”. Paul was then obliged to leave his palace with disgrace, as Eusebius
relates.
We have up to this time
spoken of three Synods of Antioch, all of them held with reference to Paul
of Samosata; but a certain number of historians
will admit only two, as we think, wrongly. The synodical letter
of the last Council of Antioch says distinctly that Firmilian went twice on
this account to Antioch, and that on his third journey to be present at a new
synod, consequently at a third, he died. As the synodical letter
is the most trustworthy source which can be quoted in this case, we ought to
prefer its testimony to Theodoret’s account,
who mentions only two Synods of Antioch.
As for Eusebius, whose
authority has been quoted, it is true that he first mentions only one synod,
then in the following chapter another Synod of Antioch; but this other he does
not call the second he calls it the last. What he says in the twenty-seventh
chapter shows that he united into one only the first and second Synods. “The
bishops”, he says, “assembled often, and at different periods”. But even if
Eusebius had spoken of only two synods, his testimony would evidently be of less
value than the synodical letter.
It is with these Synods
of Antioch that the councils of the third century terminate. The Libellus Synodicus certainly
mentions another synod held in Mesopotamia; but it was only a religious
conference between Archelaus Bishop of Carchara (or, more correctly, Caschara) in Mesopotamia, and
the heretic Manes. As for the pretended Eastern Synod in the year 300, in which
the patriarchs of Rome, of Constantinople (an evident anachronism), of Antioch,
and of Alexandria, are said to have granted to the Bishop of Seleucia the
dignity of patriarch of the whole of Persia, it is a pure invention.
