The Sources and Context of Augustine’s Rejection of Rebaptism

Abstract: Augustine’s engagement with the Donatist practice of rebaptism produced a sacramental theology that would mark one of his most enduring contributions to the history of doctrine. It resulted in a consistent if extreme position that baptism was never to be reiterated—at least, in all cases where it was properly administered. This article examines the context of Augustine’s categorical rejection of rebaptism against the more qualified acceptance of rebaptism in earlier Caecilianist Africa, his pro-Nicene contemporaries, and the emerging conciliar tradition. The exceptionality of Augustine’s position from both his predecessors and comparable precedents, it will be argued, lies in his rejection of any double standard between different groups of non-orthodox, some of whom were held to require rebaptism, and others who were not. Most importantly, the canon at Arles (314) regarding rebaptism, and its reception in Africa as shown in the Gratan Council of Carthage and Optatus of Milevis, seemed, or at least was understood, to permit rebaptism for those coming from communities whose faith was judged sufficiently defective. Similarly, Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381), together with a case study on Eastern pro-Nicene rebaptism of Montanists, evidence a qualified application of rebaptism along an emerging double standard. Previous scholarship has either downplayed this difference or assumed too much continuity between these predecessors or precedent and Augustine, who admits of no such double standard. This paper attempts to show that Augustine’s categorical rejection of rebaptism is most probably traced to his acquaintance with, and subsequent assimilation to, the specifically Roman tradition against rebaptism, primarily through his historical engagement with the literature of the third-century controversy over rebaptism between Stephen and Cyprian.