Chapter 23.—Further References to Cyprian.

And in the epistle which he wrote with sixty-six of his joint-bishops to Bishop Fidus, when he was consulted by him in respect of the law of circumcision, whether an infant might be baptized before the eighth day, this matter is treated in such a way as if by a divine forethought the catholic Church would already confute the Pelagian heretics who would appear so long afterwards. For he who had consulted had no doubt on the subject whether children on birth inherited original sin, which they might wash away by being born again. For be it far from the Christian faith to have at any time doubted on this matter. But he was in doubt whether the washing of regeneration, by which he made no question but that original sin was put away, ought to be given before the eighth day. To which consultation the most blessed Cyprian in reply said: “But as regards the case of infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of the ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For to the course which you thought was to be taken no one agreed, but we all rather judged that the grace of a merciful God was not to be denied to any one born of men; for, as the Lord says in His gospel, ‘the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.’ 322    Luke ix. 56. As far as we can, we must strive that, if possible, no soul be lost.”323    Cyprian’s Letters, No. 64, chs. 2, 4, 5: see The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. v. p. 353 (Ep. 58). And a little afterwards he says: “Nor ought any of us to shudder at what God hath condescended to make. For although the infant is still fresh from its birth, yet it is not such that any one should shudder at kissing it in giving grace and in making peace, since in the kiss of an infant every one of us ought for his very religion’s sake to consider the still recent hands of God themselves, which in some sort we are kissing in the man just formed and newly born, when we are embracing that which God has made.”324    Ibid. as cited. A little after, also, he says: “But if anything could hinder men from obtaining grace, their more heinous sins might rather hinder those who are mature and grown up and older. But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who have before sinned much against God, when they have subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted, and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace; how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at his earliest birth; who approaches more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins, in that to him are remitted not his own sins, but the sins of another!”325    Cyprian, as cited.

23. In epistola autem quam scripsit ad episcopum 0625 Fidum, cum sexaginta sex coepiscopis suis, a quo fuerat consultus propter circumcisionis legem, utrum ante octavum diem baptizari liceret infantem, haec causa sic agitur, tanquam provisione divina tam longe futuros haereticos Pelagianos jam catholica confutaret Ecclesia. Neque enim qui consuluerat inde dubitabat utrum nascentes traherent originale peccatum, quod renascendo diluerent: absit enim ut hinc aliquando fides christiana dubitaverit: sed ille dubitabat, utrum regenerationis lavacrum, quo non dubitabat solvendum originale peccatum, ante diem tradi deberet octavum. Ad quam consultationem respondens beatissimus Cyprianus: «Quantum vero,» inquit, «ad causam infantum pertinet, quos dixisti, intra secundum vel tertium diem quo nati sunt constitutos baptizari non oportere, et considerandam esse legem circumcisionis antiquae» (Gen. XVII, 12), «ut intra octavum diem eum qui natus est baptizandum et sanctificandum non putares, longe aliud in concilio nostro omnibus visum est . In hoc enim quod putabas esse faciendum, nemo consensit: sed universi potius judicavimus nulli hominum nato misericordis Dei gratiam denegandam. Nam cum Dominus in Evangelio suo dicat, Filius hominis non venit animas perdere, sed salvare (Luc. IX, 56): quantum in nobis est, si fieri potest, nulla anima perdenda est.» Et paulo post: «Nec aliquis,» inquit, «nostrum id debet horrere, quod Dominus dignatus est facere. Nam etsi adhuc infans a partu novus est, non ita est tamen, ut quisquam illum in gratia danda atque in pace facienda horrere debeat osculari: quando in osculo infantis unusquisque nostrum pro sua religione ipsas adhuc recentes Dei manus debeat cogitare, quas in homine modo formato et recens nato quodam modo exosculamur, quando id quod Deus fecit amplectimur.» Item paulo post: «Caeterum si homines,» inquit, «impedire aliquid ad consecutionem gratiae posset, magis adultos et provectos et majores natu possent impedire peccata graviora. Porro autem si etiam gravissimis delictoribus, et in Deum multo ante peccantibus, cum postea crediderint, remissa peccatorum datur, et a Baptismo atque gratia nemo prohibetur: quanto magis prohiberi non debet infans, qui recens natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus, contagium mortis antiquae prima nativitate contraxit; qui ad remissam peccatorum accipiendam, hoc ipso facilius accedit, quod illi remittuntur non propria, sed aliena peccata?»