The doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (EENS), or, that there is no salvation outside of the church, is one that comes primarily from St. Cyprian of Carthage, in Letter LXXII, wherein he wrote to to Jubaianus regarding the Baptism of the heretics that; “there is no salvation out of the Church1.” The context of this letter itself is one of a struggle between the Catholic Church and the Novatian Sect. The Novatians strove against the church to start their own group, began to re-baptize the Christians, and claim that they alone were the true Christian Church. Here Jubaianus asks Cyprian of his opinion regarding the re-baptism of the repentant sectarians who came back to the Catholic Church. Cyprian’s rely is simple. Those baptized as Novatians are not baptized. For baptism is found solely in the Catholic Church. Novatians are not the Church, therefore, Novatians subsequently cannot baptize, and in that they do not have baptism, neither do they have salvation. The doctrine set therein, as it has been applied since, is that membership within the church, as an institution, through sacramental initiation, communal fellowship, and submission to the Bishop in matters of doctrine and practice is necessary for salvation.
The letter itself begins with this question; can we consider the baptisms done by the heretics to be valid? St. Cyprian’s answer is a firm no. And he states, their baptisms are invalid because they are not in the church. Note that here St. Cyprian does not bank his reason for the invalidity of heretical baptisms on the basis of their doctrinal or moral errors, saying that their baptisms are false because they do not hold a true faith, nor that they are not leaders of their community. Rather he banks the whole of the cause here on their lack of membership in the church, from which flow the lack of valid offices in the church, and with that, the power to baptize. Therefore trying, as Cyprian says, to; “arrogate to themselves a matter neither within their right nor their power.”2
The schismatic in question, Novatian, is infamously known for his part in the rigorist/ controversy regarding those who apostatized during the Decian persecution.3 In this controversy, the rigorists put forth their belief that those who apostatized in the midst of this persecution could not be reconciled back into the church but were to be permanently excommunicated.4 One of such rigorists was Novatian, who, during this persecution was the acting bishop of Rome.5 Yet, although he expected and desired election to the office of bishop that he was acting in during this emergency, it was in the end Cornellius who was elected Bishop, and not him, in large part, due to Novatian’s rigorist ideas. In response to this election, Novatian then held his own gathering of rigorist Bishops, had them elect him to the office, and then claimed that he, rather than Cornellius, was the true Bishop of Rome.6 In a turn of events following the decision of two councils, one in Carthage and one in Rome which had take a firm position against the rigorists as well as their doctrines, in that not only did they let those who lapsed during the persecution back into the church, but that they removed from the church by excommunication the rigorists, who had insisted that the lapsed be kept out of the church. As a result, many rigorists became Novatians.7 Thus began the sect of the Novatians. This was a group of those who had come out of the church, with Baptisms gained in the church, and believing the same confession as the church, led by those who had offices given through the church, yet because they refuse to submit to the established bishops and collective councils of the church on this one matter of the reconciliation of the lapsed, as well as on their election of the Bishop of Rome, they were excommunicated and declared outside of the church.
Here already we have many of our questions answered. For as one might seek to soften Cyprian’s words through claims of more severe context than we see among Christians divisions today by asserting that Cyprian’s referent were those who believed something radically different theologically than the church, or that they did not have bishops or priests from the church, or that they baptized in some invalid form, it is seen from the context of St. Cyprian’s letter that the referent in fact, differed from the Christians within the church in only one singular matter, submission to the established bishops and official councils of the church. That is to say in the positive way, what makes one Christian is submission to and fellowship with the established Bishops of the Church.
This idea is one that floats under the text of Cyprian’s letter as a presupposed reality without dispute, yet is found explicitly throughout the work that he most certainly had drunk deeply from, namely the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch. Where he states 3 essential statements regarding the bishops of the church. Firstly, he states that the church is where the bishop is, there is the church, and that without the bishop, there in fact is no church.8 In this sense it is seen that the bishop, and relationship to it is an essential aspect of the church rather than a merely auxiliary circumstance. This is seen both causally, in that the sacraments come through the church, as well as constitutionally, in that the office of bishop serves as the sacramental presence of Christ as shepherd, present among His people. Secondly, as previously mentioned, he states that only those sacraments that are done by the bishop or by those to whom he has given authority are valid and lawful sacraments.9 This meaning that the laity of the church, though in the church by valid and lawful initiation through the sacraments, do not have the authority to celebrate or administer sacraments. Such authority, as Ignatius states, can be given to the presbyters through the bishop. The relationship between which he likens to that of a strings to a harp.10 Lastly, Ignatius himself states to refuse to submit to the bishops of the church is to sin against Christ and incur the wrath of God.11 Yet remission of sin will be granted to those who reconcile with the bishop and return to him in submission.12
It is from these ideas drawn from St. Ignatius, that St. Cyprian builds his argument for why the Novatians, despite their baptisms, their ordinations, and their shared theology with the Catholic Church are nevertheless by exemption from union and fellowship with the established bishops in councils are declared outside of the church and under God’s wrath, no longer being seen as having an ordination or a baptism that will count for them. For as St. Cyprian states, even though we may say that they have these things (in that they received them from the true Church), these things will not aid or benefit them, because they are outside of union with the Catholic Church, which is the source of their efficacy for salvation.13
It can then be seen from this letter in its context that there are three pillars on which St. Cyprian’s argument stands. The first of this is heresy. Which, as he is speaking of it, does not necessarily pertain to severe doctrinal deficiencies, or repugnance of truth. Rather, it refers to separation, namely from that of the established bishops of the church. Secondly, there is an efficacy of the sacraments that is had only within the context of the union and fellowship of the Church, which, when one leaves the church, they lose. Thirdly, there are no exceptions developed here in Cyprian’s own work, though they will come later by those who utilized his thoughts. All those who are outside of the church, if they were priests, as St. Cyprian sees it, are no longer effectually seen as priests, even if their priesthood was received from the Catholic Church. Their Eucharists are seen as neither lawful nor valid. Their baptisms and their faith are to no avail, and even if they are martyred for Christ, it will mean nothing. This was the original meaning and intent of St. Cyprian’s words. Looking then at these ideas, we will turn to the global reception and response to his words and ideas, in the broader world around him.
The reception and development of EENS
While St. Cyprian’s concept of EENS has enjoyed nearly universally use by the church throughout the ages, the reception of it in the particular was often contrary to his original intention. For while he himself believed that the meaning of EENS was such that none in schism for whatever reason could be saved unless they repent and come back into the church, and that heretics, which he deemed all those in schism, had no valid baptism or orders due to the schism, thus ought to be baptized; the church around him developed this in a softer way. As this phrase and concept began to be received by the church it started immediately to gain exceptions and qualifications. Before long, many in the church had begun to state that those in schism retained their orders and offered valid baptisms, but that those baptisms were not effectual until they returned to full communion with the church. However, this was to say nothing, just yet, of the validity of their Chrismations, Eucharistics, and Ordinations. Then distinctions were drawn between those who intended schism and who did so only accidentally. Then it was also that the distinctions between heresy and schism arose. Then finally in the later stages of modern theology we see an acceptance of the Holy Orders and Eucharists among various Apostolic Communions that do not have fellowship with one another. These distinctions continued to develop and be drawn out until irreconcilable differences between established understandings had emerged.
The first response to this was that of St. Stephen of Rome. Who, while agreeing with St. Cyprian in general on the necessity of membership in the church for salvation, and thus that excommunication or schism meant the loss of salvation, did not agree with him on the implications of what this would mean for the validity of baptisms among those who committed schism against the church. For St. Stephen, it was not so much about whether or not the faith of the priest or one being baptized was orthodox, nor if they had formal communion with the church or not (both of which will come into play again in the Donatist controversy) but rather, whether the Baptism was done properly.14 It must be noted however, that, while later applications of this principle are emphasized by some Eastern Orthodox Theologians, such as the arguments made in On the Reception of of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church from Orthodox Ethos Publications which claim the invalidity of baptism by pouring or sprinkling, Stephen clarifies that his position is inclusive to such baptisms, as does even St. Cyprian himself.15 Thus, for St. Stephen, who had minimal requirements for baptismal validity, it was the Triune name into which the person was baptized, and Christ’s power which worked through said formula which constituted their baptism. However, as he later clarified, it was not until their entrance into formal communion with the church that their baptisms were effectual for them unto salvation.16 Yet still, Stephen did not extend this admission of sacramental validity to the schismatics beyond that of baptism, denying them the ability to grant Chrismation as well as ordain, or the celebratio nof the Eucharist.17 From this we can see that the difference between Cyprian and Stephen is merely on baptism, with Cyprian having a more level approach to the issue, denying to the schismatics all that which pertains to the church, including baptism, while Stephen believed that they had power to baptize, but not to do anything more than this, thus, logically denying the existence of valid orders outside of formal union with the church, and thus valid sacraments in schismatic assemblies beyond that of baptisms, which themselves did not effectually grant salvation unless they then came into formal union with the church. These perspectives were not held exclusively by St. Stephen, but were shared also with the anonymous author of the treatise On Rebaptism.18
However, things continued to progress with further qualifications and concessions towards the schismatic groups as time went on. As such, we see that while Stephen did not accept the heretical or schismatic bishops ordinations as valid, the Council of Nicea in Canon VIII did; stating that the Cathari, that is, the Novatians which Cyprian and Stephen disagreed over, might retain their orders when they convert into the Catholic Church19. Yet, seemingly contrary to St. Stephen’s writings, which proclaimed that Trinitarian Baptisms were valid regardless of the faith of the one Baptizing, the Nicene Council declared that certain heretics, namely the Paulianists, were to be Baptized, who, as St. Athansius tells us (under the name Samosatens), did use the Triune name, but did not believe that Jesus Christ was the eternal God made flesh (though it should be noted that the second and sixth councils permit Arian Baptisms).20 Yet at the same time, the canon also states that even though unbaptized, if they were heretical clergy they are to be ordained into whatever rank they had previously held. This shows what we might consider to be the church’s balanced synthesis of Cyprian and Stephen’s positions: accepting the baptisms of some sectarian groups, if done in the Triune name and with a Triune faith, but which, at the same time, rejects the validity of baptisms done in the Triune name but without such a Triune faith. Added to this is the pastoral care that this canon seems to grant toward such heretics, not treating them as atheists or heathens by requiring a mutli-year catechetical process, but instead granting to them what might be termed a corrective baptism, and even an ordination for those who served invalidly as priests and bishops, yet who in fact seemingly had no valid holy orders. What we see in all of this is a solid delineation between valid and invalid baptisms and ordinations tied together with a warm-hearted pastoral approach to those attempting to come into the church, where those baptisms and ordinations are granted to those who, by their own honest mistakes, did not have them, though they thought they did.
This progressive softening of the churches position on EENS continued through the distinction between heretics and schismatics, as seen explicitly in Jerome, and then with his contemporary Augustine, who even goes so far as to permit the reception of Baptism from schismatics if necessary, so long as does so out of necessity, while desiring unity with the Catholic Church in his heart.21 This meaning that for St. Augustine, it was not a lack of formal union with the church that consigned one to condemnation, but an intentional rejection of the church and or her teachings. Against these developments came the Donatist heresy, which attempted to stop the softening of EENS in its tracks by declaring that the sacraments of heretical or immortal priests were invalid. Yet this itself was declared heresy by the church at the council of Arles in 314 and at Carthage in 411.22
Conclusion
In conclusion then, St. Cyprian’s quote within its context that EENS is not one that stops at where the bounds of salvation are, but includes several interrelated questions, such as what the church is, what excommunication is, whose baptisms, ordinations, and Eucharists are valid, and how we relate to one another as bodies of Christians that accuse one another of schism or heresy. The development of the Churches understanding of EENS in the Patristic age is one in which we see a tempering of Cyprian’s own intentions with EENS, as well as a tempering of St. Stephen’s reply to it. We see over time that there is somewhat of a softening with EENS, yet, even so it must be acknowledged that this softening happened much more in the West than it did in the East, wit the East still insisting on the rebaptism of heretics.23 In this way, though EENS has undergone several stages of controversy and synthesis, it remains a matter of contention between Apostolic communions, as those communions themselves find one another on the other side of formal inclusion and fellowship from themselves, and even finding itself to be a matter of contention within singular communions as in the Eastern Orthodox Church. It may thus be said that even after 2000 years of repeated disagreement and conciliar dialogue that there is not one understanding or application of EENS, but several.
Bibliography
Augustine of Hippo, “On Baptism, against the Donatists,” in St. Augustin: The Writings against the Manichaeans and against the Donatists, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. R. King, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887.
Bettenson, Henry. Documents of the Christian Church. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Cyprian of Carthage, “The Epistles of Cyprian,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886.
Henry R. Percival, “The Canons of the 318 Holy Fathers Assembled in the City of Nice, in Bithynia,” in The Seven Ecumenical Councils, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 14, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1900.
Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885.
Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philidelphians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885.
Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrneans,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885.
Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885.
On the Reception of of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church: The Patristic Consensus and Criteria. Uncut Mountain Press, 2023.
Papandrea, James L. “Reading the Early Church Fathers: From the Didache to Nicea. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2012.
Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., “A Treatise on Re-Baptism by an Anonymous Writer,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886.
St. Jerome’s Commentaries on Galatians, Titus, and Philemon. trans. Thomas P Scheck. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010.
Tertullian, “Ad Martyres,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. S. Thelwall, vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885.
1 Cyprian of Carthage, “The Epistles of Cyprian,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 384.
2 Cyprian of Carthage, “The Epistles of Cyprian,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 379.
3 James L. Papandrea, “Reading the Early Church Fathers: From the Didache to Nicea,” (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2012), 107.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 67.
9 ,Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrneans,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885) 89.
10 Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 50.
11 Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 51.
12Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philidelphians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885, 84.
13 Cyprian of Carthage, “The Epistles of Cyprian,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 384.
14 Papandrea, James L. “Reading the Early Church Fathers: From the Didache to Nicea (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2012), 113
15Cyprian of Carthage, “The Epistles of Cyprian,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 384. 401.
16 Ibid, 395.
17 Papandrea, James L. “Reading the Early Church Fathers: From the Didache to Nicea (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2012), 113.
18 Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., “A Treatise on Re-Baptism by an Anonymous Writer,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 673.
19 Henry R. Percival, “The Canons of the 318 Holy Fathers Assembled in the City of Nice, in Bithynia,” in The Seven Ecumenical Councils, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 14, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1900), 40.
20 Council of Nicea, Canon XIX; Athanasius of Alexandria, “Four Discourses against the Arians,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. John Henry Newman and Archibald T. Robertson, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 371.
21 Jerome, Commentary on Titus 3:10-11; Augustine of Hippo, “On Baptism, against the Donatists,” in St. Augustin: The Writings against the Manichaeans and against the Donatists, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. R. King, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 413.
22 Papandrea, James L. “Reading the Early Church Fathers: From the Didache to Nicea (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2012), 135
23 Henry Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, (Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 83
