NPNF2-08. Basil: Letters and Select Works - Holy Bible Institute

To Amphilochius, concerning the Canons.receive them on their repentance, into the same rank. Now the Pepuzeni are plainlyheretical, for, by unlawfully and shamefully applying to Montanus and Priscilla the title ofthe Paraclete, they have blasphemed against the Holy Ghost. They are, therefore, to becondemned for ascribing divinity to men; and for outraging the Holy Ghost by comparingHim to men. They are thus also liable to eternal damnation, inasmuch as blasphemy againstthe Holy Ghost admits of no forgiveness. What ground is there, then, for the acceptanceof the baptism of men who baptize into the Father and the Son and Montanus or Priscilla?For those who have not been baptized into the names delivered to us have not been baptizedat all. So that, although this escaped the vigilance of the great Dionysius, we must by nomeans imitate his error. The absurdity of the position is obvious in a moment, and evidentto all who are gifted with even a small share of reasoning capacity.The Cathari are schismatics; but it seemed good to the ancient authorities, I meanCyprian and our own 2621 Firmilianus, to reject all these, Cathari, Encratites, 2622 and Hydroparastatæ,2623 by one common condemnation, because the origin of separation arose throughschism, and those who had apostatized from the Church had no longer on them the graceof the Holy Spirit, for it ceased to be imparted when the continuity was broken. The firstseparatists had received their ordination from the Fathers, and possessed the spiritual giftby the laying on of their hands. But they who were broken off had become laymen, and,because they are no longer able to confer on others that grace of the Holy Spirit from whichthey themselves are fallen away, they had no authority either to baptize or to ordain. Andtherefore those who were from time to time baptized by them, were ordered, as thoughbaptized by laymen, to come to the church to be purified by the Church’s true baptism.Nevertheless, since it has seemed to some of those of Asia that, for the sake of managementof the majority, their baptism should be accepted, let it be accepted. We must, however,perceive the iniquitous action of the Encratites; who, in order to shut themselves out frombeing received back by the Church have endeavoured for the future to anticipate readmissionby a peculiar baptism of their own, violating, in this manner even their own special practice.2624 My opinion, therefore, is that nothing being distinctly laid down concerning them,it is our duty to reject their baptism, and that in the case of any one who has received baptismfrom them, we should, on his coming to the church, baptize him. If, however, there is any2252621 As being one of Basil’s predecessors in the see of Cæsarea.2622 “Hoc Encratitarum facinore non corrupta essentialis baptismi forma. Sed novæ quædam adjectæ cærimoniæ.”Ben. Ed.2623 i.e.those who used water instead of wine in the Eucharist, as Tatian and his followers. cf. Clem. Al.,Strom. i. 19 and Cyprian. Ep. lxiii.2624 The Ben. note points out that the improper proceeding of the Encratites consisted not in any corruptionof the baptismal formula, but in the addition of certain novel ceremonies, and proceeds: “Nam in canone 47 sic651