The saints, he says, ought to be born from saints: because the Apostle said: Otherwise your children would be unclean; but now they are holy. And how do you understand this? How do you interpret a child born of believers as being so holy that he should not be baptized? Interpret this holiness however you wish. For there are many types of holiness, and many types of sanctification. Indeed, not everything that is sanctified is destined for the kingdom of heaven. The Apostle said concerning our food: It is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. Does this mean that because our food is sanctified, we do not know where it will go? Therefore, understand that there is a certain kind of sanctification, almost like a shadow, which is not sufficient for the attainment of salvation. There is a distinction, and what that distinction is, only God knows. However, when the child of believers is rushed to Baptism; parents should not err in believing that he was already born as a believer. For they can say he is born, but not reborn. For you must understand how the children of believers are sanctified, and I will not seek now, because it would take too long, the nature of this sanctification; where you also have an unbelieving husband, there you also have a believing wife. He said the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife by her believing husband. Does this mean that just because there is perhaps a certain kind of sanctification, so that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, he should therefore receive assurance that he is going to enter the kingdom of heaven, and does not need to be baptized, regenerated, or redeemed by the blood of Christ? Just as the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and yet perishes unless he is baptized—so too the children of believers, though sanctified to a certain extent, still perish if they are not baptized.
The authority of Cyprian concerning original sin.
I ask you to listen a little. I only read. It is Saint Cyprian, whose work I have taken in hand, an ancient bishop of this See: receive in a little what he thought concerning the Baptism of infants, indeed what shows that the Church has always thought. For it is of little concern that these people argue and dispute impious novelties, and strive to accuse us of saying something new. Therefore, I read Saint Cyprian, so that you may see how the canonical understanding and the catholic sense are in these words which I considered a little before. He was asked whether an infant ought to be baptized before the eighth day, because by the old Law it was not permitted to circumcise an infant except on the eighth day. The question arose from this, concerning the day of baptism: for concerning the origin of sin there was no question; and therefore from that matter, about which there was no question, the arisen question was resolved. Among other things which I mentioned above, Saint Cyprian said: For this reason, we think no one should be prevented from attaining grace by a law that is now established, nor should spiritual circumcision be hindered by carnal circumcision, but everyone should altogether be admitted to the grace of Christ: when even Peter speaks in the Acts of the Apostles and says: "God has shown me not to call any person common or unclean." Otherwise, if humans could impede anything to attain grace, then more adults, those advanced in age, and elders might be impeded by more serious sins. Nevertheless, if even to the gravest delinquents who sinned much before against the Lord, when later they have believed, forgiveness of sins is granted, and no one is prohibited from Baptism and grace: how much more should an infant not be prohibited, who, recently born, has committed no sin, except that having been carnally born according to Adam, contracted the contagion of ancient death through the first birth; who more easily approaches to receive the remission of sins precisely because their sins are pardoned, not personal ones, but those of another? See how, without doubting about this matter, he solves that from which doubt arose. He took this from the foundation of the Church, to confirm the wavering stone.
Enemies of the truth are to be endured to some extent patiently.
So let us ask our brothers, if we may, not to call us heretics, for we could perhaps call them so for disputing such things, if we wished, yet we do not do so. Let the mother bear them with loving affection to be healed, carry them to be taught, so that she does not mourn the dead. They go too far; it is too much, barely bearable, still borne with great patience. Let them not abuse this patience of the Church, let them be corrected, it is good. As friends, we exhort, not as enemies do we quarrel. They slander us, we endure: let them not slander the canon, let them not slander the truth; let them not contradict the holy Church laboring daily for the remission of original sin of infants. This matter is established. The disputant erring in other questions not diligently digested, not yet full of the authority of the Church, must be borne; there error must be tolerated: it should not go so far as to attempt to shake the very foundation of the Church. It is not expedient, perhaps our patience is not yet to be condemned: but we should fear lest negligence too be blamed. Let it suffice your Charity, treat them whom you know, treat with them amicably, fraternally, peacefully, lovingly, sorrowfully: let piety do whatever it can; because afterwards impiety will not be worthy of love. Turning to the Lord, etc.