¹ Manucci, U., Istituzioni di Patrologia (4ed. A. Casamassa, Roma 1936–1937) II, 312.Google Scholar

² Cayré, Apud F., Patrologie et histoire de la théologie II (deuxième édition, Paris 1933) 191.Google Scholar

³ Cf. Grabmann, M., Storia della teologia cattolica (trad. di Fabio, G., Milano 1937) 29.Google Scholar

⁴ Op. cit. 192; Godet, J., ‘Fulgence’, DThC 6, 1 (Paris 1924) 968–972, emphasizes these two points.Google Scholar

⁵ Cayré, , op. cit. 191.Google Scholar

⁶ Altaner, B., Patrologie (Freiburg im Breisgau 1938) 317, wrongly says 533. Shortly after Fulgentius’ death, his disciple, the Carthaginian deacon Ferrandus wrote his Vita (PL 65, 117–150). Though the work's authenticity has been contested, its historical value has not. It has been summarized by Guillon, M.-A., ‘S. Fulgence de Ruspe’, in Revue Augustinienne 8 (1906) 129–144. But all preceding works on the life of Fulgentius have been superseded by the study of Père Lapeyre, G.-G., S. Fulgence de Ruspe (Paris 1929). We are further indebted to the same scholar for a critical Latin text and French translation of Ferrandus’ Vita: Vie de S. Fulgence de Ruspe (Paris 1929).Google Scholar

⁷ Schanz, M., Hosius, C., Krüger, G., Geschichte der Römischen Literatur IV 2: Die Literatur des fünften und sechsten Jahrhunderts (München 1920) 577–578.Google Scholar

⁸ Thirty-nine fragments remain (PL 65, 749–834).Google Scholar

⁹ The Middle Ages considered this a work of St. Augustine, and it was accordingly used frequently as a compendium of dogma. Cf. Grabmann, , op. cit. 29; Altaner, , op. cit. 318.Google Scholar

¹⁰ This is now lost. A work of this title found in PL 65, 707–720 is perhaps identical with the Commonitorium de Spiritu Sancto. Altaner, , op. cit. 318.Google Scholar

¹¹ Cf. the preceding note.Google Scholar

¹² Lapeyre, , S. Fulgence de Ruspe 240–243.Google Scholar

¹³ Vol. 48, 221–234. Cf. Manucci-Casamassa, , op. cit. 315–316.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Genesis 7,23; I Peter 3,20. Fulgentius, , De remissione peccatorum 1, 20 (PL 65, 543); Ep. 11, 4 (PL 65, 379). The statement found in De remissione peccatorum here quoted agrees with that of St. Augustine, , Contra Faustum Manichaeum 12, 16 (ed. Zycha, I., CSEL 25,1, 345). The same comparison had been previously made by St. Cyprian, , Ep. 74 (ed, Hartel, , CSEL 3, 2, 809). Other authors also, especially Tertullian (De baptismo), St. Ambrose (De mysteriis), and St. Jerome (Ep. 69), had discussed prefigurations of baptism. They generally considered under this category all the wonderful acts of God related in the Old Testament in which water was employed.Google Scholar

¹⁵ De remissione peccatorum 1, 20 (PL 65, 543); Ep. 11, 4 (PL 65, 379). Cf. St. Augustine, , Contra Faustum Manichaeum 12, 17 (346, Zycha) Google Scholar

¹⁶ De remissione peccatorum 1, 20 (PL 65, 444). This need of water corresponds, of course, to the earliest mention of the sacrament in the New Testament; cf. John 3, 5; Matthew 3, 11; Acts 8, 36; Acts 10, 47. It corresponds also to the constant practical usage of conferring the sacrament only when water was available. Cf. de Puniet, P., ‘Baptême,’ DACL 2, 1 (Paris 1925) 336. Tertullian stressed this throughout his whole work De baptismo. Augustine constantly repeated it, e. g.: ‘Tolle aquam, non est baptismus.’ Tractatus in Joannem 15, 4 (PL 35, 1512). As is well known, the African Christian authors, beginning with Tertullian and St. Cyprian, present doctrines which are mutually consonant and complementary. Paul Monceaux, in his Histoire Littéraire de l'Afrique chrétienne II (Paris 1902) 15, states that the Church of Carthage was almost completely constituted by MISCELLANY the end of the second century and thenceforth possessed its own traditions. De Puniet, , loc. cit. 340, affirms that only few changes were introduced into the baptismal rites in the half century between these two authors, but that the same is not true for the period of St. Augustine. Freedom from persecution allowed a development in the African liturgy. Hence, we might expect the earlier writers to be silent on many points mentioned by a later writer like Fulgentius. Yet most of the points mentioned in our study were already mentioned by Tertullian.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Matthew 28, 19. Tertullian is our witness that the Church of his day used a Trinitarian formula: De baptismo 6 (ed. Reifferscheid, A., CSEL 20, 206). St. Augustine makes it clear that the same type of formula was used in his day: De baptismo 6, 25, 47 (ed. Petschenig, M., CSEL 51, 324). In his Contra litteras Petiliani 3, 8, 9, Augustine shows how the question about the Holy Trinity was asked of the one to be baptized (171 Petschenig). So too another African writer, St. Optatus of Milevis, De schismate Donatistarum 3, 11 (PL 11, 1025).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ep. 17, 11, 21 (PL 65, 464–465). Cf. St. Augustine, Sermo 294, 15, 15 (PL 39, 1345); Sermo 352, 1, 3 (PL 39, 1551).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Ad Trasimundum 3, 35 (PL 65, 300). Cf. St. Augustine, , Contra Julianum 2, 105 (PL 45, 1185); Ep. 157, 3, 12 (ed. Goldbacher, , CSEL 44, 459).Google Scholar

²⁰ Ep. 8, 9, 19 (PL 65, 369). Tixeront, J., Histoire des dogmes (Paris 1922) III, 371, does not seem to speak with sufficient clearness on this point. His words are too general, so far as the present writer can judge from Fulgentius. These are Tixeront's words: ‘Omettre le nom d'une personne de la Trinité était rendre le baptême nul.’ This truly represents the thought of Fulgentius, who says that if the name of either the Father or the Son or the Holy Ghost were omitted, the Baptism conferred in the name of two Persons would be invalid. Contra Fabianum frag. 37 (PL 65, 830). But Tixeront immediately afterwards says that Fulgentius merely might recognize the validity of a baptism conferred in the name of Jesus. Cf. note 23.Google Scholar

²¹ E.g. Acts 2, 38; 8, 16; 10, 48; 19, 5.Google Scholar

²² Ibid. 4, 10–12.Google Scholar

²³ Op. cit. 371: ‘Fulgence n'ose au fond se prononcer pour ni contre.’ Lapeyre, , S. Fulgence de Ruspe 275, goes farther and says that Fulgentius seemed to consider this invalid: ‘Quant au baptême conféré au nom de Jesus, , in nomine Jesu, il n'ose pas se prononcer formellement, il le croirait cependant, semble-t-il, plutôt invalide.’ Yet, neither Tixeront nor Lapeyre cites any text of Fulgentius that declares such a form invalid. Cf. note 24, which contains the texts cited.Google Scholar

²⁴ ‘… et ex uno nomine, unum Deum necesse est sanctam confitearis continuo Trinitatem. Si vero baptizatos in nomine Jesu Christi dixeris non esse baptizatos in nomine Patris et Spiritus sancti, quid restat nisi ut ipsum baptismum verum esse non putes, sed ipsos sanctos apostolos praevaricationis reos esse pronunties? … audiens etiam beatum Petrum dicentem, excepto nomine Christi, nullum nomen esse in quo oporteat nos salvos fieri; certissime credit et indubitanter fatetur unum naturale nomen esse Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti… . quod docuit (Petrus) baptizari in nomine Jesu Christi, in uno baptizavit nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti. Nulla est enim in Trinitate diversitas naturalis nominis, ubi est ipsa unitas naturalis.’ Contra Fabianum frag. 37 (PL 65, 831–832). To the present writer, the words just quoted indicate that Fulgentius would certainly admit that baptism in nomine Jesu could be valid. Lapeyre himself admits this, op. cit. 275. How then can he claim that Fulgentius ‘le croirait cependant, semble-t-il, invalide’? Google Scholar

²⁵ Cf. the end of the text quoted in note 24.Google Scholar

²⁶ De fide 3, 41 (PL 65, 692); De trinitate 11 (PL 65, 506). The distinction between the validity and the efficacy of a sacrament was made by St. Augustine. St. Cyprian and those who insisted on rebaptizing had demanded faith in the minister for the validity of a sacrament. The Donatists demanded in addition at least the exterior sanctity of the minister. Cf. De baptismo 1, 12, 18 (80 Petschenig); 4, 10, 16 (ibid. 240); 6, 9, 14 (ibid. 308); Contra litteras Parmeniani 2, 13, 28 (ed. Petschenig, M., CSEL 51, 79); Contra Cresconium 1, 30, 35 (ed. Petschenig, M., CSEL 52, 355); Tractatus in Joannem 6, 8 (PL 35, 1428–1429). The question had been decided with regard to the Novatians and Montanists by Pope St. Innocent I (401–417) in his letter to Bishop Victricius in 404. Cf. Denzinger-Bannwart-Umberg, Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum (23d ed. Friburgi Brisgoviae 1937) 47 n. 94.Google Scholar

²⁷ Cayré, op. cit. I (Paris 1927) 256. Cf. St. Cyprian, , Ep. 73, 5 (ed. Hartel, G., CSEL 3, 2, 781–782). Cf. St. Augustine, , De baptismo 2, 7, 12 (186 Petschenig); 3, 10, 13 (ibid. 205); 6, 9, 14 (ibid. 380).Google Scholar

²⁸ Cf. note 26.Google Scholar

²⁹ De fide 3, 41 (PL 65, 692). Cf. St. Augustine, , Tractatus in Joannem 6, 8 (PL 35, 1428).Google Scholar

³⁰ De fide 36, 77 (PL 65, 703). Cf. the famous statement of St. Augustine: ‘… quos … baptizavit Judas, Christus baptizavit. Sic ergo quos baptizavit ebriosus, quos baptizavit homicida, quos baptizavit adulter, si baptismus Christi erat, Christus baptizavit.’ Tractatus in Joannem 5, 18 (PL 35, 1424).Google Scholar

³¹ De fide 3, 41 (PL 65, 692). This is the doctrine of St. Augustine also. Cf. Sermo 294, 2, 2 (PL 38, 1336); De anima et ejus origine 3, 9, 12 (PL 44, 516); De baptismo 4, 22, 29 (257 Petschenig); Ep. 28 (ed. Goldbacher, A., CSEL 34, 1, 107). The doctrine of the necessity of Baptism had been made very clear by the Second Canon of the Sixteenth Council of Carthage (418) approved by Pope Zosimus against the Pelagians. Cf. Denzinger-Bannwart-Umberg, op. cit. 51 n. 102. On Baptism of desire cf. note 33.Google Scholar

³² The same reason had been assigned by the Sixteenth Council of Carthage and by St. Augustine. Cf. note 31.Google Scholar

³³ De veritate praedestinationis 1, 12, 27 (PL 65, 617); De fide 27, 68 (PL 65, 701); Ep. 17, 30, 58–59 (PL 65, 488). It is stated in the second quotation here given that adults as well as infants are included here. St. Augustine had taught the efficacy of Baptism of desire as well as the efficacy of Baptism of blood. Cf. De baptismo 4, 21, 28 and 4, 22, 29 (255 and 257 Petschenig).Google Scholar

³⁴ But cf. De remissione peccatorum 22: ‘Nunc omnis qui Deum malis operibus exacerbat, transeat ad vitam bonam, per quam propitius Deus acquiritur, ut accipiat vitam aeternam, quam Deus bonis sine fine largitur… . Totum sibi speret relaxari posse converso, nec dimittendum tamen aliquid existimet obdurato. Hoc tempore mutet iniquus vitam, et non inveniet poenam’ (PL 65, 573). This might imply that a man who tries to avoid evil and do good has the votum baptismi. But Fulgentius seems to indicate that this implies actual entry into the true Church, for his concluding sentence runs thus: ‘… omnis qui in hoc tempore divinis praeceptis obediens, a malis suis conversus fuerit, si in fide recta et bona vita intra Ecclesiam catholicam perseveraverit usque in finem, hie salvus erit.’ Ibid. 574. Perhaps the statement in Ep. 7, 2, 3 (PL 65, 353) that charity does not allow sin to rule, and not only causes us to avoid present sins but makes our past sins to be forgiven (relaxari) could be quoted here; but the letter is addressed to a lady named Venantia who intended to become a Christian and therefore to receive Baptism. St. Ambrose is the author of what is possibly the best statement on this subject in the early Church: De obitu Valentiniani 51 (PL 16, 1374).Google Scholar

³⁵ Ep. 12, 5, 13 (PL 65, 385). The same point was well made by St. Augustine in De peccatorum meritis et remissione 1, 9, 10 (PL 44, 114).Google Scholar

³⁶ Ep. 12, 7, 18 (PL 65, 387–388). This thought was constantly stressed by St. Augustine. Cf. Enchiridion 41 (ed. Scheel, O., Freiburg im Breisgau 1903, 28); De nuptiis et concupiscentia 1, 33, 38 (ed. Urba, et Zycha, , CSEL 42, 250); De adulterinis coniugiis 2, 16, 16 (ed. Zycha, I., CSEL 41, 401); De symbolo 1, 7, 15 (PL 40, 636); De baptismo 1, 12, 20 (164 Petschenig); De peccatorum meritis et remissione 2, 27, 43 and 2, 28, 46 (PL 44, 177 and 179); De civitate dei 20, 6, 2 (ed. Hoffmann, E., CSEL 40, 2, 439).Google Scholar

³⁷ Ep. 17, 20, 40 (PL 65, 476). Cf. St. Augustine, , De peccatorum meritis et remissione 2, 27, 43 (PL 44, 177).Google Scholar

³⁸ Ep. 16, 16 (PL 65, 441). Cf. St. Augustine, , De fide et operibus 9, 14 (ed. Zycha, I., CSEL 41, 51); Sermo 34, 3, 6 (PL 38, 211); Enarr. in Ps. 75, 15 (PL 36, 966); Ep. 190, 16 (152 Goldbacher); Epistolae ad Galatas expositio 27 (PL 35, 2124).Google Scholar

³⁹ Ep. 12, 10, 23 (PL 65, 396). Cf. St. Augustine, , Contra Julianum Pelagianum 6, 13, 40 (PL 44, 844).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ep. 12, 11, 24 (PL 65, 390). Cf. St. Augustine, , De peccatorum meritis et remissione 1, 9, 10 (PL 44, 114).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Ep. 12, 11, 26 (PL 65, 392). Cf. St. Augustine, , Ep. 166, 7, 21 (550 Goldbacher); Ep. 194, 7, 32 (202 ibid.);Google Scholar

⁴² Contra Fabianum frag. 29 (PL 65, 795). Cf. St. Augustine, , Sermo 3 (PL 38, 33); De baptismo 5, 23, 33 and 6, 9, 14 (290 and 308 Petschenig).Google Scholar

⁴³ De remissione peccatorum 1, 23 (PL 65, 546). Cf. St. Augustine, , De baptismo 2, 7, 12 (186 Petschenig).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ De trinitate 11 (PL 65, 506); De fide 36, 77 (PL 65, 703); so strict is Fulgentius on this point that he claims that even bounteous almsgiving and martyrdom itself for the name of Christ will be of no avail to a formal heretic. Cf. St. Augustine, , Sermo 3 (PL 38, 33); De baptismo 1, 12, 18; 3, 13, 18; 7, 53, 102 (162, 208, and 373 Petschenig).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ De fide 3, 41 (PL 65, 692). Cf. St. Augustine, , De baptismo 6, 9, 14 (308 Petschenig).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ De fide 3, 42 and 40, 81 (PL 65, 692–693 and 704). Cf. St. Augustine, , In epist. Joann. tr. 1, 6 (PL 35, 1982).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Ep. 12, 7, 18 (PL 65, 387). Cf. St. Augustine, , De Genesi ad litteram 10, 11, 18 (PL 34, 416).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Ep. 12, 9, 20 (PL 65, 388). Cf. St. Augustine, , De adulterinis conjugiis 1, 26, 33 (ed. Zycha, I., CSEL 41, 380).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ De Trinitate 11 (PL 65, 506–507). This thought had been constantly stressed by St. Augustine, especially in his controversies with the Donatists. Cf. Contra Cresconium Donatistam 1, 30, 35 (ed. Petschenig, M., CSEL 52, 547).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Ep. 12, 3, 6–7 and 5, 13 (PL 65, 382 and 385). Cf. St. Augustine, De baptisrno 1, 12, 18 (162 Petschenig).Google Scholar

⁵¹ Ep. 12, 5, 14 (PL 65, 386). Cf. St. Augustine, , Contra litteras Petiliani 3, 8, 9 (171 Petschenig); De peccatorum meritis et remissione 1, 34 (PL 44, 146); Sermo 294, 11, 12 (PL 38, 1342).Google Scholar

⁵² Ad Trasimundum 1, 1 (PL 65, 225).Google Scholar

⁵³ Ep. 12,7, 18 (PL 65, 387). Here Fulgentius is paraphrasing, by his words ‘… si quando illa aetas est, cui propria non possit inesse confessio, aliis credentibus et confitentibus, datur parvulis salus, quibus, aliis peccantibus, est reatus ascriptus,’ the expression of St. Augustine: ‘Credit in altero, quia peccavit in altero.’ Sermo 294, 11, 12 (PL 38, 1342). Augustine has another striking expression of the same thought in Sermo 176, 2, 2: ‘Accommodat illis mater Ecclesia aliorum pedes ut veniant, aliorum cor ut credant, aliorum linguam ut fateantur; ut quoniam quod aegri sunt alio peccante praegravantur, sic cum hi sani sunt, alio pro eis confitente salventur’ (PL 38, 950).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Ep. 12, 5, 14 (PL 65, 386). St. Augustine had indicated the redditio symboli as the last trial of the catechumenate. Cf. Sermones 58–59 (PL 38, 393–402). This was distinct from the profession of faith which was still closely united to the renunciation of the devil and to the threefold immersion, just as in the time of Tertullian and St. Cyprian. The profession consisted in the early form of questions and answers, while the redditio symboli merely consisted in a recitation of the formula by the catechumen. Cf. de Puniet, DACL 2, 1, 315. By the time of Fulgentius the solemn recitation of the creed no longer occurred on the day of baptism. On the baptismal day, merely questions and answers took place instead. Cf. Ep. Ferrandi ad Fulgentium (PL 65, 379) and Fulgentius’ Ep. 12 (ibid. 386). We know from St. Augustine that the questions put on this occasion included renunciation of the devil and confession of faith, both together. Contra litteras Petiliani 3, 8, 9 (171 Petschenig); De peccatorum meritis et remissione 1, 34 (PL 44, 146). St. Optatus of Milevis supplies us with the same information for a slightly earlier period in De schismate Donatistarum 5, 7 (PL 11, 1057).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ De veritate praedestinationis 1, 9, 22 (PL 65, 614). The custom of infant baptism was very ancient in the Church. Although Tertullian did not approve of the custom, it was maintained in the African Church. Cf. his work De baptismo 18 (edd. Reifferscheid et Wissowa, CSEL 20, 216). St. Cyprian noted in the Carthaginian Council of 252 that there was no need to wait until the eighth day after birth. Ep. 64, 2 (718 Hartel). St. Augustine considered the usage to be of apostolic origin and testified to its propriety and frequency. He used the practice as an argument for original sin against the Pelagians. It was he also who stated that children of seven years or more should pronounce their own baptismal vows. Cf. De anima et ejus origine 3, 9, 12 (PL 44, 517); Sermo 176, 2, 2 (PL 38, 950). Before children reached that age, their sponsors should answer for them. De conjugiis adulterinis 1, 26 (PL 40, 469). Cf. de Puniet, , loc. cit. Google Scholar

⁶⁶ De veritate praedestinationis 1, 12, 28 (PL 65, 617). St. Augustine had occasion to discuss this question often, especially against the Pelagians. Cf. De anima et ejus origine 4, 11, 16 (PL 44, 523); De correptione et gratia 10, 28 (PL 44, 933); Sermo 27, 6, 6 (PL 38, 181). This may have been in Fulgentius’ mind when he wrote upon the subject. Both Augustine in Sermo 27 and Fulgentius in De veritate praedestinationis refer to the way in which some are saved through Baptism by no merits of their own. Cf. also Augustine's Enchiridion 95 (58 Scheel); De praedestinatione sanctorum 18, 36 (PL 44, 987); De dono perseverantiae 9, 21 (PL 45, 1004); Contra Julianum. 1, 48 (PL 45, 1071).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Ad Trasimundum 2, 20 (PL 65, 268). Cf. St. Augustine, , De Trinitate 15, 28, 51 (PL 42, 1097).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Ep. 17, 11, 21 (PL 65, 465). Cf. St. Augustine, , De symbolo 1, 7, 15 (PL 40, 636); De peccatorum meritis et remissione 1, 9, 10 (PL 44, 114).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Cf. note 54 and notes 60–64.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Ep. 12, 5, 13–14 (PL 65, 385–386). Cf. St. Augustine, , Tractatus in Joannem 80, 3 (PL 35, 1810).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Ep. 11, 2 (PL 65, 378). The regular time for Baptism in Christian antiquity was Holy Saturday and the Vigil of Pentecost. St. Augustine referred to the observance of this time in his day in Africa in De fide et operibus 6, 9 (PL 40, 203) and in Sermo 132, 1 (PL 38, 734). He explains in his Sermo ad competentes his understanding of the word competentes as meaning simul petentes (PL 38, 1076–1077). Cf. Eisenhofer, L., Grundriss der katholischen Liturgik (Freiburg im Breisgau 1937) 114–120 and 118–189.Google Scholar

⁶² Ep. 11, 2 (PL 65, 378). A fine example of St. Augustine's way of instructing is contained in his De catechizandis rudibus, written about 400. A useful edition of the Benedictine text, with translation and commentary, is offered by J. P. Cristopher (Catholic University of America Patristic Studies, Vol. 8: Washington 1926).Google Scholar

⁶³ Ep. 12, 5, 14 (PL 65, 465). Cf. note 66. It is unfortunate that we have no baptismal formularies for the African Church, but we know from many texts in Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Optatus, and St. Augustine that they contained all the essentials employed in other places from which formularies have come down, Milan, for example. Cf. de Puniet, DACL 2, 1, 318–323. Tertullian is very helpful for his account of the African practice in his day. Three acts were considered important: the public and solemn renunciation of the devil, the profession of faith, and the immersion performed in the name of the Holy Trinity. The blessing of the water preceded the ceremony, and was made obligatory by at least the time of Cyprian. Ep. 70 (767 Hartel).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Ep. 11, 2 (PL 65, 378–379). Cf. St. Augustine, , De baptismo 6, 47 (324 Petschenig); Tertullian, , De spectaculis 4 (edd. Reifferscheid et Wissowa, CSEL 20, 2 6); Ad martyras 3 (PL 1, 624); De carnis resurrectione 48 (ed. Kroymann, A., CSEL 47, 238); St. Cyprian, , Ep. 70, 2 (768 Hartel). Tertullian does not make it clear that the symbolum was recited in full, but Ep. 69 of St. Cyprian makes it seem that the questions about it alternated with the immersions. He used the expression symbolo baptizare (756 Hartel). The same expression is used by Facundus of Hermiane, Epistola fidei catholicae (PL 67, 867). St. Augustine makes it clear that in his day the ceremonies of examination of the recipient's faith and the renunciation of the devil were closely united. Cf. his De anima et ejus origine, 3, 9, 12 (PL 44, 517); De conjugiis adulterinis 1, 26 (PL 40, 469); De peccatorum meritis et remissione 1, 39 (PL 44, 146); cf. also de Puniet, , loc. cit. 311–317. St. Augustine explained in Sermo 212, 2 (PL 38, 1060) why the Creed should be memorized; in Sermo 58, 1 (PL 38, 393) he showed how the redditio symboli, or recitation of the creed, was a ceremony in itself.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Ep. 11, 2 (PL 65, 379). In the anonymous De sacramentis 5, 4, the Lord's Prayer is explained to the newly baptized after he has been immersed and has heard at the altar a sermon on the sacrament received. Puniet, De, loc. cit. 320. Cf. St. Augustine, , Sermo 213, 8, 8 (PL 38, 1064–1065); Sermo 58, 1, 1 (PL 38, 393).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Ep. 11, 2 (PL 65, 379). Cf. St. Augustine, , De baptismo 1, 14, 21 and 6, 24, 43 (43 and 320 Petschenig).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Cf. Ep. 12, 11, 25–26 (PL 65, 391–392). Cf. St. Augustine, , Sermo 216, 6, 6 (PL 38, 1080).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Ep. 11, 2 (PL 65, 378). Cf. St. Augustine, , Sermo 216, 6, 6 (PL 38, 1080); Ep. 194, 10, 46 (44 Goldbacher).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Ep. 11, 2 (PL 65, 378). St. Augustine indicated by interrogationes baptismi both the renunciation of the devil and the confession of faith taken together. Cf. Sermo 215, 1 (PL 38, 1072); De anima et ejus origine 3, 9, 12 (PL 44, 517); De conjugiis adulterinis 1, 26 (PL 40, 469); De peccatorum meritis et remissione 1, 36 (PL 44, 146). St. Optatus of Milevis also represents the two as being closely connected in De schismate Donatistarum 5, 7 (PL 11, 1057). Cf. de Puniet, , loc. cit. 316, who informs us that this was true for the time of Tertullian also.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Ep. 11, 2 (PL 65, 379). Cf. Duchesne, L., Christian Worship: Its Origin and Evolution (London 1903) 305 n. 1: ‘This redditio symboli was a ceremony; in Africa (see Aug., Serm., 58, 59) and in Jerusalem (Peregrinato) it was preceded by a private rehearsal in order to make certain before the solemn ceremony of Thurdsay in Holy Week that the candidates knew the Creed by heart.’ Google Scholar

⁷¹ Eisenhofer, , op. cit. 194; de Puniet, , loc. cit. 261, 268, 282. It is most probable that in the time of Tertullian and St. Cyprian the questions about faith were asked between the threefold immersions. This is not so certain for the time of St. Augustine. The latest discussion on the method of baptizing in his day is found in Van Der Meer, F., Augustinus de Zielzorger (Utrecht-Brussel 1947) 306–341, especially 318–326.Google Scholar

⁷² Cf. Benoist-Goelzer, , Nouveau Dictionnaire Latin-Francais (onzième édition, Paris n. d.) 1557. Cf. St. Augustine, , Tractatus in Joannem 15, 3: ‘Baptizabat enim, quia ipse mundabat; non baptizabat, quia non ipse tingebat’ (PL 35, 1511). It is probable that Tertullian preferred tinguere rather than baptizare, for tinguere was far more familiar to him. The version of the Bible he used read in Matthew 28, 19: ‘Ite docete nationes tinguentes eas in nomen Patris et Fillii et Spiritus Sancti.’ De baptismo 13 (213 Reifferscheid). St. Cyprian also cited this term: Epp. 27, 3; 63, 18; 73, 5 (543, 716, 782, Hartel); but in practice he avoided it because of its use by the Montanists. Cf. de Puniet, , loc. cit. 315.Google Scholar

⁷³ Ep. 12, 5, 13 (PL 65, 385); ibid. 10, 23 (PL 65, 391). Cf. Duchesne, , op. cit. 313: ‘The actual ceremony of baptism was not performed by the Pope alone. Priests, deacons, and even clerics of inferior order, entered the water, clothed in long linen tunics, and administered the sacred washing to the crowd of neophytes.’ Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Contra Fabianum frag. 29 (PL 65, 795). Cf. Tertullian, , De corona 3 (PL 2, 79); De baptismo 6 (206 Reifferscheid); Adversus Praxean 26 (279 Kroymann); St. Cyprian, , Ep. 73, 5 (781–782 Hartel); St. Augustine, , De baptismo 3, 15, 20 (278 Petschenig); Contra litteras Petiliani 3, 8, 9 (171 Petschenig).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Ep. 12, 10, 23 (PL 65, 390). This had been decided at least as early as 397 in the Third Council of Carthage, which in its thirty-fourth canon had stated: ‘Ut aegrotantes si pro se respondere non possunt, cum voluntatis eorum testimonium hi qui sui sunt periculo proprio dixerint, baptizentur. Similiter et de poenitentibus agendum est.’ Hardouin, J., Acta Conciliorum 1 (Paris 1715) 964.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Cf. notes 29 and 30. This doctrine had been enunciated by Pope St. Stephen I (254–257) in his letter to St. Cyprian: ‘Si qui ergo a quacumque haeresi venient ad vos, nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est, ut manus illis imponatur in poenitentiam, cum ipsi haeretici proprie alterutrum ad se venientes non baptizent, sed communicent tantum.’ St. Cyprian, , Ep. 74, 1 (799 Hartel). St. Augustine explained at length the position of St. Cyprian in this controversy. Cf. De baptismo 2, 7, 12 (186 Petschenig).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ De trinitate 1, 11 (PL 65, 506). Cf. also note 76.Google Scholar