In which the remaining judgments of the Council of
Carthage are examined, 195
ANSWER TO LETTERS OF PETILIAN.
BOOK I.
Written in the form of a letter addressed to the
Catholics, in which the first portion of the letter
which Petilian had written to his adherents is
examined and refuted, 231
BOOK II.
In which Augustine replies to all the several
statements in the letter of Petilianus, as though
disputing with an adversary face to face, 255
BOOK III.
In this Book Augustine refutes the second letter which
Petilianus wrote to him after having seen the first
of Augustine's earlier Books. This letter had been
full of violent language; and Augustine rather shows
that the arguments of Petilianus had been deficient
and irrelevant, than brings forward arguments in
support of his own statements, 405
ON THE CORRECTION OF THE DONATISTS.
A Letter of Augustine to Boniface, who, as we learn
from Epistle 220, was Tribune, and afterwards Count
in Africa. In it Augustine shows that the heresy of
the Donatists has nothing in common with that of
Arius; and points out the moderation with which it was
possible to recall the heretics to the communion of
the Church through awe of the imperial laws. He adds
remarks concerning the savage conduct of the Donatists
and Circumcelliones, concluding with a discussion of
the unpardonable nature of the sin against the Holy
Ghost, 479
INDEX. 521
PREFACE.
The schism of the Donatists, with which the treatises in the present
volume are concerned, arose indirectly out of the persecution under
Diocletian at the beginning of the fourth century. At that time
Mensurius, bishop of Carthage, and his archdeacon Cæcilianus, had
endeavoured to check the fanatical spirit in which many of the
Christians courted martyrdom; and consequently, on the death of
Mensurius in 311, and the elevation of Cæcilianus to the see of
Carthage in his place, the opposing party, alleging that Felix,
bishop of Aptunga, by whom Cæcilianus had been consecrated, had been
a _traditor_, and that therefore his consecration was invalid, set
up against him Majorinus, who was succeeded in 315 by Donatus. The
party had by this time gained strength, through the professions that
they made of extreme purity in the discipline which they maintained,
and had gone so far, under the advice of another Donatus, bishop
of Casæ Nigræ in Numidia, as to accuse Cæcilianus before the Roman
Emperor Constantine,--thus setting the first precedent for referring
a spiritual cause to the decision of a civil magistrate. Constantine
accepted the appeal, and in 313 the matter was laid for decision
before Melchiades, bishop of Rome, and three bishops of the province
of Gaul. They decided in favour of the validity of the consecration
of Cæcilianus; and a similar verdict was given by a council held at
Arles, by direction of the Emperor, in the following year. The party of
Majorinus then appealed to the personal judgment of the Emperor, which
was likewise given against them, not without strong expressions of his
anger at their pertinacity. This was followed by severe laws directed
against their schism; but so far from crushing them, the attack seemed
only to increase their enthusiasm and develope their resources. And,
under the leadership of Donatus, the successor of Majorinus, their
influence spread widely throughout Africa, and continued to prevail,
in spite of various efforts at their forcible suppression, during the
whole of the fourth century. They especially brought on themselves
the vengeance of the civil powers, by the turbulence of certain
fanatical ascetics who embraced their cause, and who, under the name of
Circumcelliones, spread terror through the country, seeking martyrdom
for themselves, and offering violence to every one who opposed them.[1]
Towards the close of the century, this schism attracted the attention
of Augustine, then a priest of Hippo Regius in Numidia. The controversy
seems to have had for him a special attraction, not merely because
of its intrinsic importance, but also because of the field which it
presented for his unrivalled powers as a dialectician. These the
Donatists had recently provoked, by inconsistently receiving back into
their body a deacon of Carthage named Maximianus who had separated
himself from them, and by recognising as valid all baptism administered
by his followers. Hence they naturally shrank from engaging in a
contest with an antagonist who was sure to make the most of such a
deviation from the very principles on which they based their schism;
and, on the other hand, Augustine was so firmly convinced that his
own position was impregnable, that he seems to have thought that if
he could only secure a thorough and dispassionate discussion of the
matter, the Donatists must necessarily be brought to acknowledge not
only their theoretical errors, but also the practical sinfulness of
their separation from the Church. Throughout the controversy, however,
he appears to have put out of sight two considerations: first, the
influence of party spirit and prejudice in blinding men to argument;
and, secondly, the necessity of treating his opponents in a logical
discussion as on an equal footing with himself. The first was in
some degree an unavoidable element of disappointment; but Augustine
made concession yet more difficult on the part of his opponents, by
expecting them to acknowledge his superior position as a member of the
Catholic Church, whose duty it was to expose the error of their views.
He practically begs the very point at issue, by assuming that he,
and not the Donatists, was in the Catholic communion; and though his
argument is conducted independently of this premiss, yet it naturally
rendered them more unwilling to admit its force.
This dogmatism was of less consequence in the first pamphlet which
Augustine published on the subject,--his _Alphabetical Psalm_, in which
he set forth the history and errors of the Donatists in a popular
form,--since it was not intended as a controversial treatise, but
only as a means of enlightening the less educated as to the Catholic
tenets on the question in dispute. His next work, written in answer
to a letter of Donatus of Carthage, in which the latter tried to
prove that the baptism of Christ existed only in his communion, is
unfortunately lost; and we can only gather hints as to the further part
which he took in the controversy during the next few years from certain
of his letters, especially those to the Donatist Bishops Honoratus
and Crispinus.[2] From the former he claims the admission that the
exclusiveness of the Donatists proves that they are not the Church of
Christ; and his letter to the latter contains an invitation to discuss
the leading points at issue, which Crispinus seems to have declined.
In the year 400 he wrote two books _Against the Party of Donatus_,
which are also lost; and about the same time he published his
refutation of the letter of Parmenianus in answer to Tichonius, in
which he handles and solves the famous question, whether, while abiding
in unity in the communion of the same sacraments, the wicked pollute
the good by their society.[3]
Then followed his seven books _On Baptism_, included in this volume, in
which he shows the emptiness of the arguments of the Donatists for the
repetition of baptism; and proves that so far was Cyprian from being on
their side, that his letters and conduct are of the highest value as
overthrowing their position, and utterly condemning their separation
from the Church.
Not long after this, Petilianus, bishop of Cirta or Constantina, the
most eminent theologian among the Donatist divines, wrote a letter
to his clergy against the Catholics, of which Augustine managed to
obtain a copy, though the Donatists used their utmost care to keep
it from him; and he replied to it in two books, written at different
times,--the first in the year 400, before he was in possession of the
whole letter, the remainder in 402. To the first book Petilianus made
an answer, of which we gather the main tenour from a third book written
by Augustine in reply to it. It appears to have been full of vehement
abuse, and to have assumed the question in dispute, that the existence
of the true Church, and the catholicity of any branch of it, depended
on the purity and orthodoxy of all its ministers; so that the guilt or
heresy of any minister would invalidate the whole of his ministerial
acts. Hence he argued that Cæcilianus being the spiritual father of the
so-called Catholics, and having been a _traditor_, none of them could
possibly have been lawfully baptized, much less rightfully ordained.
Augustine admits neither of his assumptions; but, leaving the guilt
or innocence of Cæcilianus as a point which was irrelevant (though
practically the case against him utterly broke down), he addresses
himself to the other point, and argues most conclusively that all
the functions of the clergy in celebrating the rites of the Church
being purely ministerial, the efficacy of those rites could in no way
depend upon the excellence of the individual minister, but was derived
entirely from Christ. Hence there was a certainty of the grace bestowed
through the several ordinances, which otherwise there could not
possibly have been, had their virtue depended on the character of any
man, in whom even an unblemished reputation might have been the fruit
of a skilled hypocrisy.
The third treatise in this volume belongs to a later period, being
a letter written to Bonifacius, the Roman Count of Africa under
Valentinian the Third. He had written to Augustine to consult him
as to the best means of dealing with the Donatists; and Augustine
in his reply points out to him his mistake in supposing that the
Donatists shared in the errors of the Arians, whilst he urges him to
use moderation in his coercive measures; though both here and in his
answer to Petilianus we find him countenancing the theory that the
State has a right to interfere in constraining men to keep within the
Church. Starting with a forced interpretation of the words, "_Compel_
them to come in," in Luke xiv. 23, he enunciates principles of coercion
which, though in him they were subdued and rendered practically of
little moment by the spirit of love which formed so large an element
in his character, yet found their natural development in the despotic
intolerance of the Papacy, and the horrors of the Inquisition. It is
probable that he was himself in some degree misled by confounding the
necessity of repressing the violence of the Circumcelliones, which was
a real offence against the State, with the expediency of enforcing
spiritual unity by temporal authority.
The Donatist treatises have met with little attention from individual
editors. There is a dissertation, _De Aur. Augustino adversario
Donatistarum_, by Adrien Roux, published at Louvain in 1838;[4] but
it is believed that no treatises of this series have ever before been
translated into English, nor are they separately edited. They are in
themselves a valuable authority for an important scene in the history
of the Church, and afford a good example both of the strength and the
weakness of Augustine's writing,--its strength, in the exhaustive way
in which he tears to pieces his opponent's arguments, and the clearness
with which he exposes the fallacies of their reasoning; its weakness,
in the persistency with which he pursues a point long after its
discussion might fairly have been closed, as though he hardly knew when
he had gained the victory; and his tendency to claim, by right of his
position, a vantage-ground which did not in reality belong to him till
the superiority of his cause was proved.
J. R. KING.
OXFORD, _March 1870_.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Aug. _De Hoer._ c. 69; _Enarr. in Ps._ 132, secs. 3, 6; _C.
Cresc._ iii. 46, 47; _C. Gaudentium_ i. 32.
[2] _Epist._ xlix. li.
[3] Vol. ix p. 34, etc.
[4] The other works bearing on this controversy are mentioned in
the exhaustive volume of Ferd. Ribbeck, _Donatus und Augustinus_
(Elberfeld, 1858).--ED.
THE SEVEN BOOKS OF AUGUSTINE,
BISHOP OF HIPPO,
ON BAPTISM, AGAINST THE DONATISTS.[5]
BOOK FIRST.
HE PROVES THAT BAPTISM CAN BE CONFERRED OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC COMMUNION
BY HERETICS OR SCHISMATICS, BUT THAT IT OUGHT NOT TO BE RECEIVED FROM
THEM; AND THAT IT IS OF NO AVAIL TO ANY WHILE IN A STATE OF HERESY OR
SCHISM.
CHAP. I.--1. In the treatise which we wrote against the published
epistle of Parmenianus to Tichonius, we promised that at some future
time we would treat the question of baptism more thoroughly;[6] and
indeed, even if we had not made this promise, we are not unmindful
that this is a debt fairly due from us to the prayers of our brethren.
Wherefore in this treatise we have undertaken, with the help of God,
not only to refute the objections which the Donatists have been wont to
urge against us in this matter, but also to advance what God may enable
us to say in respect of the authority of the blessed martyr Cyprian,
which they endeavour to use as a prop, to prevent their perversity
from falling before the attacks of truth. And this we propose to do,
in order that all whose judgment is not blinded by party spirit may
understand that, so far from Cyprian's authority being in their favour,
it tends directly to their refutation and discomfiture.
2. In the treatise above mentioned, it has already been said that the
grace of baptism can be conferred outside the Catholic communion,
just as it can be also there retained. But no one of the Donatists
themselves denies that even apostates retain the grace of baptism;
for when they return within the pale of the Church, and are converted
through repentance, it is never given to them a second time, and so
it is ruled that it never could have been lost. So those, too, who
in the sacrilege of schism depart from the communion of the Church,
certainly retain the grace of baptism, which they received before
their departure, seeing that, in case of their return, it is not again
conferred on them; whence it is proved, that what they had received
while within the unity of the Church, they could not have lost in their
separation. But if it can be retained outside, why may it not also be
given there? If you say, "It is not rightly given without the pale;"
we answer, "As it is not rightly retained, and yet is in some sense
retained, so it is not indeed rightly given, but yet it is given." But
as, by reconciliation to unity, that begins to be profitably possessed
which was possessed to no profit in exclusion from unity, so, by the
same reconciliation, that begins to be profitable which without it
was given to no profit. Yet it cannot be allowed that it should be
said that that was not given which was given, nor that any one should
reproach a man with not having given this, while confessing that he
had given what he had himself received. For the sacrament of baptism
is what the person possesses who is baptized; and the sacrament of
conferring baptism is what he possesses who is ordained. And as the
baptized person, if he depart from the unity of the Church, does not
thereby lose the sacrament of baptism, so also he who is ordained, if
he depart from the unity of the Church, does not lose the sacrament
of conferring baptism. For neither sacrament may be wronged. If a
sacrament necessarily becomes void in the case of the wicked, both
must become void; if it remain valid with the wicked, this must be
so with both. If, therefore, the baptism be acknowledged which he
could not lose who severed himself from the unity of the Church, that
baptism must also be acknowledged which was administered by one who by
his secession had not lost the sacrament of conferring baptism. For
as those who return to the Church, if they had been baptized before
their secession, are not rebaptized, so those who return, having been
ordained before their secession, are certainly not ordained again; but
either they again exercise their former ministry, if the interests of
the Church require it, or if they do not exercise it, at any rate they
retain the sacrament of their ordination; and hence it is, that when
hands are laid on them,[7] to mark their reconciliation, they are not
ranked with the laity. For Felicianus, when he separated himself from
them with Maximianus, was not held by the Donatists themselves to have
lost either the sacrament of baptism or the sacrament of conferring
baptism. For now he is a recognised member of their own body, in
company with those very men whom he baptized while he was separated
from them in the schism of Maximianus. And so others could receive
from them, whilst they still had not joined our society, what they
themselves had not lost by severance from our society. And hence it
is clear that they are guilty of impiety who endeavour to rebaptize
those who are in Catholic unity; and we act rightly who do not dare to
repudiate God's sacraments, even when administered in schism. For in
all points in which they think with us, they also are in communion with
us, and only are severed from us in those points in which they dissent
from us. For contact and disunion are not to be measured by different
laws in the case of material or spiritual affinities. For as union of
bodies arises from continuity of position, so in the agreement of wills
there is a kind of contact between souls. If, therefore, a man who has
severed himself from unity wishes to do anything different from that
which had been impressed on him while in the state of unity, in this
point he does sever himself, and is no longer a part of the united
whole; but wherever he desires to conduct himself as is customary
in the state of unity, in which he himself learned and received the
lessons which he seeks to follow, in these points he remains a member,
and is united to the corporate whole.
CHAP. II.--3. And so the Donatists in some matters are with us; in
some matters have gone out from us. Accordingly, those things wherein
they agree with us we forbid them not to do; but in those things in
which they differ from us, we earnestly endeavour that they should come
and receive them from us, or return and recover them, as the case may
be. We do not therefore say to them, "Abstain from giving baptism,"
but "Abstain from giving it in schism." Nor do we say to those whom
we see them on the point of baptizing, "Do not receive the baptism,"
but "Do not receive it in schism." For if any one were compelled by
urgent necessity, being unable to find a Catholic from whom to receive
baptism, and so, while preserving Catholic peace in his heart, should
receive from one without the pale of Catholic unity the sacrament
which he was intending to receive within its pale, this man, should he
forthwith depart this life, we deem to be none other than a Catholic.
But if he should be delivered from the death of the body, on his
restoring himself in bodily presence to that Catholic congregation
from which in heart he had never departed, so far from blaming his
conduct, we should praise it with the greatest truth and confidence;
because he trusted that God was present to his heart, while he was
striving to preserve unity, and was unwilling to depart this life
without the sacrament of holy baptism, which he knew to be of God, and
not of men, wherever he might find it. But if any one who has it in his
power to receive baptism within the Catholic Church prefers, from some
perversity of mind, to be baptized in schism, even if he afterwards
bethinks himself to come to the Catholic Church, because he is assured
that there that sacrament will profit him, which can indeed be received
but cannot profit elsewhere, beyond all question he is perverse, and
guilty of sin, and that the more flagrant in proportion as it was
committed wilfully. For that he entertains no doubt that the sacrament
is rightly received in the Church, is proved by his conviction that it
is there that he must look for profit even from what he has received
elsewhere.
CHAP. III.--4. There are two propositions, moreover, which we
affirm,--that baptism exists in the Catholic Church, and that in it
alone can it be rightly received,--both of which the Donatists deny.
Likewise there are two other propositions which we affirm,--that
baptism exists among the Donatists, but that with them it is not
rightly received,--of which two they strenuously confirm the former,
that baptism exists with them; but they are unwilling to allow the
latter, that in their Church it cannot be rightly received. Of these
four propositions, three are peculiar to us; in one we both agree. For
that baptism exists in the Catholic Church, that it is rightly received
there, and that it is not rightly received among the Donatists, are
assertions made only by ourselves; but that baptism exists also among
the Donatists, is asserted by them and allowed by us. If any one,
therefore, is desirous of being baptized, and is already convinced that
he ought to choose our Church as a medium for Christian salvation, and
that the baptism of Christ is only profitable in it, even when it has
been received elsewhere, but yet wishes to be baptized in the schism
of Donatus, because not they only, nor we only, but both parties alike
say that baptism exists with them, let him pause and look to the other
three points. For if he has made up his mind to follow us in the points
which they deny, though he prefers what both of us acknowledge to what
only we assert, it is enough for our purpose that he prefers what they
do not affirm and we alone assert, to what they alone assert. That
baptism exists in the Catholic Church, we assert and they deny. That it
is rightly received in the Catholic Church, we assert and they deny.
That it is not rightly received in the schism of Donatus, we assert
and they deny. As, therefore, he is the more ready to believe what we
alone assert should be believed, so let him be the more ready to do
what we alone declare should be done. But let him believe more firmly,
if he be so disposed, what both parties assert should be believed, than
what we alone maintain. For he is inclined to believe more firmly that
the baptism of Christ exists in the schism of Donatus, because that
is acknowledged by both of us, than that it exists in the Catholic
Church, an assertion made alone by the Catholics. But again, he is
more ready to believe that the baptism of Christ exists also with
us, as we alone assert, than that it does not exist with us, as they
alone assert. For he has already determined and is fully convinced,
that where we differ, our authority is to be preferred to theirs. So
that he is more ready to believe what we alone assert, that baptism
is rightly received with us, than that it is not rightly so received,
since that rests only on their assertion. And, by the same rule, he
is more ready to believe what we alone assert, that it is not rightly
received with them, than as they alone assert, that it is rightly so
received. He finds, therefore, that his confidence in being baptized
among the Donatists is somewhat profitless, seeing that, though we both
acknowledge that baptism exists with them, yet we do not both declare
that it ought to be received from them. But he has made up his mind to
cling rather to us in matters where we disagree. Let him therefore feel
confidence in receiving baptism in our communion, where he is assured
that it both exists and is rightly received; and let him not receive it
in a communion, where those whose opinion he has determined to follow
acknowledge indeed that it exists, but say that it cannot rightly be
received. Nay, even if he should hold it to be a doubtful question,
whether or no it is impossible for that to be rightly received among
the Donatists which he is assured can rightly be received in the
Catholic Church, he would commit a grievous sin, in matters concerning
the salvation of his soul, in the mere fact of preferring uncertainty
to certainty. At any rate, he must be quite sure that a man can be
rightly baptized in the Catholic Church, from the mere fact that he has
determined to come over to it, even if he be baptized elsewhere. But
let him at least acknowledge it to be matter of uncertainty whether a
man be not improperly baptized among the Donatists, when he finds this
asserted by those whose opinion he is convinced should be preferred to
theirs; and, preferring certainty to uncertainty, let him be baptized
here, where he has good grounds for being assured that it is rightly
done, in the fact that when he thought of doing it elsewhere, he had
still determined that he ought afterwards to come over to this side.
CHAP. IV.--5. Further, if any one fails to understand how it can be
that we assert that the sacrament is not rightly conferred among the
Donatists, while we confess that it exists among them, let him observe
that we also deny that it exists rightly among them, just as they deny
that it exists rightly among those who quit their communion. Let him
also consider the analogy of the military mark, which, though it can
both be retained, as by deserters, and also be received by those who
are not in the army, yet ought not to be either received or retained
outside its ranks; and, at the same time, it is not changed or renewed
when a man is enlisted or brought back to his service. However, we must
distinguish between the case of those who unwittingly join the ranks of
these heretics, under the impression that they are entering the true
Church of Christ, and those who know that there is no other Catholic
Church save that which, according to the promise, is spread abroad
throughout the whole world, and extends even to the utmost limits of
the earth; which, rising amid tares, and seeking rest in the future
from the weariness of offences, says in the Book of Psalms, "From the
end of the earth I cried unto Thee, while my heart was in weariness:
Thou didst exalt me on a rock."[8] But the rock was Christ, in whom the
apostle says that we are now raised up, and set together in heavenly
places, though not yet actually, but only in hope.[9] And so the psalm
goes on to say, "Thou wast my guide, because Thou art become my hope,
a tower of strength from the face of the enemy."[8] By means of His
promises, which are like spears and javelins stored up in a strongly
fortified place, the enemy is not only guarded against, but overthrown,
as he clothes his wolves in sheep's clothing,[10] that they may say,
"Lo, here is Christ, or there;"[11] and that they may separate many
from the Catholic city which is built upon a hill, and bring them down
to the isolation of their own snares, so as utterly to destroy them.
And these men, knowing this, choose to receive the baptism of Christ
without the limits of the communion of the unity of Christ's body,
though they intend afterwards, with the sacrament which they have
received elsewhere, to pass into that very communion. For they propose
to receive Christ's baptism in antagonism to the Church of Christ, well
knowing that it is so even on the very day on which they receive it.
And if this is a sin, who is the man that will say, Grant that for a
single day I may commit sin? For if he proposes to pass over to the
Catholic Church, I would fain ask why. What other answer can he give,
but that it is ill to belong to the party of Donatus, and not to the
unity of the Catholic Church? Just so many days, then, as you commit
this ill, of so many days' sin are you going to be guilty. And it may
be said that there is greater sin in more days' commission of it, and
less in fewer; but in no wise can it be said that no sin is committed
at all. But what is the need of allowing this accursed wrong for a
single day, or a single hour? For the man who wishes this licence to be
granted him, might as well ask of the Church, or of God Himself, that
for a single day he should be permitted to apostatize. For there is no
reason why he should fear to be an apostate for a day, if he does not
shrink from being for that time a schismatic or a heretic.
CHAP. V.--6. I prefer, he says, to receive Christ's baptism where both
parties agree that it exists. But those whom you intend to join say
that it cannot be received there rightly; and those who say that it can
be received there rightly are the party whom you mean to quit. What
they say, therefore, whom you yourself consider of inferior authority,
in opposition to what those say whom you yourself prefer, is, if
not false, at any rate, to use a milder term, at least uncertain. I
entreat you, therefore, to prefer what is true to what is false, or
what is certain to what is uncertain. For it is not only those whom
you are going to join, but you yourself who are going to join them,
that confess that what you want can be rightly received in that body
which you mean to join when you have received it elsewhere. For if you
had any doubts whether it could be rightly received there, you would
also have doubts whether you ought to make the change. If, therefore,
it is doubtful whether it be not sin to receive baptism from the party
of Donatus, who can doubt but that it is certain sin not to prefer
receiving it where it is certain that it is not sin? And those who are
baptized there through ignorance, thinking that it is the true Church
of Christ, are guilty of less sin in comparison than these, though
even they are wounded by the impiety of schism; nor do they escape a
grievous hurt, because others suffer even more. For when it is said
to certain men, "It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in
the day of judgment than for you,"[12] it is not meant that the men of
Sodom shall escape torment, but only that the others shall be even more
grievously tormented.
7. And yet this point had once, perhaps, been involved in obscurity and
doubt. But that which is a source of health to those who give heed and
receive correction, is but an aggravation of the sin of those who, when
they are no longer suffered to be ignorant, persist in their madness to
their own destruction. For the condemnation of the party of Maximianus,
and their restoration after they had been condemned, together with
those whom they had sacrilegiously, to use the language of their own
Council,[13] baptized in schism, settles the whole question in dispute,
and removes all controversy. There is no point at issue between
ourselves and those Donatists who hold communion with Primianus,
which could give rise to any doubt that the baptism of Christ may not
only be retained, but even conferred by those who are severed from
the Church. For as they themselves are obliged to confess that those
whom Felicianus baptized in schism received true baptism, inasmuch as
they now acknowledge them as members of their own body with no other
baptism than that which they received in schism, so we say that that is
Christ's baptism, even without the pale of Catholic communion, which
they confer who are cut off from that communion, inasmuch as they had
not lost it when they were cut off. And what they themselves think that
they conferred on those persons whom Felicianus baptized in schism,
when they admitted them to reconciliation with themselves, viz., not
that they should receive that which they did not as yet possess, but
that what they had received to no advantage in schism, and were already
in possession of, should be of profit to them, this God really confers
and bestows through the Catholic communion on those who come from any
heresy or schism in which they received the baptism of Christ; viz.
not that they should begin to receive the sacrament of baptism as not
possessing it before, but that what they already possessed should now
begin to profit them.
* * * * *
CHAP. VI.--8. Between us, then, and what we may call the genuine[14]
Donatists, whose bishop is Primianus at Carthage, there is now no
controversy on this point. For God willed that it should be ended by
means of the followers of Maximianus, that they should be compelled
by the precedent of his case to acknowledge what they would not
allow at the persuasion of Christian charity. But this brings us to
consider next, whether those men do not seem to have something to say
for themselves, who refuse communion with the party of Primianus,
contending that in their body there remains greater sincerity of
Donatism, just in proportion to the paucity of their numbers. And even
if these were only the party of Maximianus, we should not be justified
in despising their salvation. How much more, then, are we bound to
consider it, when we find that this same party of Donatus is split up
into many most minute fractions, all which small sections of the body
blame the one much larger portion which has Primianus for its head,
because they receive the baptism of the followers of Maximianus; while
each endeavours to maintain that it is the sole receptacle of true
baptism, which exists nowhere else, neither in the whole of the world
where the Catholic Church extends itself, nor in that larger main body
of the Donatists, nor even in the other minute sections, but only in
itself. Whereas, if all these fragments would listen not to the voice
of man, but to the most unmistakeable manifestation of the truth, and
would be willing to curb the fiery temper of their own perversity, they
would return from their own barrenness, not indeed to the main body of
Donatus, a mere fragment of which they are a smaller fragment, but to
the never-failing fruitfulness of the root of the Catholic Church. For
all of them who are not against us are for us; but when they gather not
with us, they scatter abroad.
* * * * *
CHAP. VII.--9. For, in the next place, that I may not seem to rest
on mere human arguments,--since there is so much obscurity in this
question, that in earlier ages of the Church, before the schism of
Donatus, it has caused men of great weight, and even bishops whose
hearts were full of charity, so to dispute and doubt among themselves,
saving always the peace of the Church, that the several statutes of
their Councils in their different districts long varied from each
other, till at length the most wholesome opinion was established,
to the removal of all doubts, by a general Council of the whole
world:[15]--I therefore bring forward from the gospel clear proofs,
by which I propose, with God's help, to prove how rightly and truly
in the sight of God it has been determined, that in the case of every
schismatic and heretic, the wound which caused his separation should
be cured by the medicine of the Church; but that what remained sound
in him should rather be recognised with approbation, than wounded by
condemnation. It is indeed true that the Lord says in the gospel, "He
that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me
scattereth abroad."[16] Yet when the disciples had brought word to
Him that they had seen one casting out devils in His name, and had
forbidden him, because he followed not them, He said, "Forbid him not:
for he that is not against us is for us. For there is no man which
shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me."[17]
If, indeed, there were nothing in this man requiring correction, then
any one would be safe, who, setting himself outside the communion of
the Church, severing himself from all Christian brotherhood, should
gather in Christ's name; and so there would be no truth in this, "He
that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me
scattereth abroad." But if he required correction in the point where
the disciples in their ignorance were anxious to check him, why did our
Lord, by saying, "Forbid him not," prevent this check from being given?
And how can that be true which He then says, "He that is not against
you is for you?" For in this point he was not against, but for them,
when he was working miracles of healing in Christ's name. That both,
therefore, should be true, as both are true,--both the declaration,
that "he that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not
with me scattereth abroad;" and also the injunction, "Forbid him not;
for he that is not against you is for you,"--what must we understand,
except that the man was to be confirmed in his veneration for that
mighty Name, in respect of which he was not against the Church, but for
it; and yet he was to be blamed for separating himself from the Church,
whereby his gathering became a scattering; and if it should have so
happened that he sought union with the Church, he should not have
received what he already possessed, but be made to set right the points
wherein he had gone astray?
* * * * *
CHAP. VIII.--10. Nor indeed were the prayers of the Gentile Cornelius
unheard, nor did his alms lack acceptance; nay, he was found worthy
that an angel should be sent to him, and that he should behold the
messenger, through whom he might assuredly have learned everything
that was necessary, without requiring that any man should come to
him. But since all the good that he had in his prayers and alms could
not benefit him unless he were incorporated in the Church by the
bond of Christian brotherhood and peace, he was ordered to send to
Peter, and through him learned Christ; and, being also baptized by
his orders, he was joined by the tie of communion to the fellowship
of Christians, to which before he was bound only by the likeness of
good works.[18] And indeed it would have been most fatal to despise
what he did not yet possess, vaunting himself in what he had. So
too those who, by separating themselves from the society of their
fellows, to the overthrow of charity, thus break the bond of unity,
if they observe none of the things which they have received in that
society, are separated in everything; and so any one whom they have
joined to their society, if he afterwards wish to come over to the
Church, ought to receive everything which he has not already received.
But if they observe some of the same things, in respect of these
they have not severed themselves; and so far they are still a part
of the framework of the Church, while in all other respects they are
cut off from it. Accordingly, any one whom they have associated with
themselves is united to the Church in all those points in which they
are not separated from it. And therefore, if he wish to come over to
the Church, he is made sound in those points in which he was unsound
and went astray; but where he was sound in union with the Church, he
is not cured, but recognised,--lest in desiring to cure what is sound
we should rather inflict a wound. Therefore those whom they baptize
they heal from the wound of idolatry or unbelief; but they injure them
more seriously with the wound of schism. For idolaters among the people
of the Lord were smitten with the sword;[19] but schismatics were
swallowed up by the earth opening her mouth.[20] And the apostle says,
"Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have
not charity, I am nothing."[21]
11. If any one is brought to the surgeon, afflicted with a grievous
wound in some vital part of the body, and the surgeon says that unless
it is cured it must cause death, the friends who brought him do not, I
presume, act so foolishly as to count over to the surgeon all his sound
limbs, and, drawing his attention to them, make answer to him, "Can it
be that all these sound limbs are of no avail to save his life, and
that one wounded limb is enough to cause his death?" They certainly do
not say this, but they entrust him to the surgeon to be cured. Nor,
again, because they so entrust him, do they ask the surgeon to cure
the limbs that are sound as well; but they desire him to apply drugs
with all care to the one part from which death is threatening the
other sound parts too, with the certainty that it must come, unless
the wound be healed. What will it then profit a man that he has sound
faith, or perhaps only soundness in the sacrament of faith, when
the soundness of his charity is done away with by the fatal wound of
schism, so that by the overthrow of it the other points, which were in
themselves sound, are brought into the infection of death? To prevent
which, the mercy of God, through the unity of His holy Church, does
not cease striving that they may come and be healed by the medicine of
reconciliation, through the bond of peace. And let them not think that
they are sound because we admit that they have something sound in them;
nor let them think, on the other hand, that what is sound must needs be
healed, because we show that in some parts there is a wound. So that in
the soundness of the sacrament, because they are not against us, they
are for us; but in the wound of schism, because they gather not with
Christ, they scatter abroad. Let them not be exalted by what they have.
Why do they pass the eyes of pride over those parts only which are
sound? Let them condescend also to look humbly on their wound, and give
heed not only to what they have, but also to what is wanting in them.
* * * * *
CHAP. IX.--12. Let them see how many things, and what important things,
are of no avail, if a certain single thing be wanting, and let them
see what that one thing is. And herein let them hear not my words,
but those of the apostle: "Though I speak with the tongues of men and
of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a
tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand
all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that
I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing."[22] What
does it profit them, therefore, if they have both the voice of angels
in the sacred mysteries, and the gift of prophecy, as had Caiaphas[23]
and Saul,[24] that so they may be found prophesying, of whom Holy
Scripture testifies that they were worthy of condemnation? If they not
only know, but even possess the sacraments, as Simon Magus did;[25]
if they have faith, as the devils confessed Christ (for we must not
suppose that they did not believe when they said, "What have we to do
with Thee? I know Thee who Thou art, the Holy One of God"[26]); if they
distribute of themselves their own substance to the poor, as many do,
not only in the Catholic Church, but in the different heretical bodies;
if, under the pressure of any persecution, they give their bodies with
us to be burned for the faith which they like us confess: yet because
they do all these things apart from the Church, not "forbearing one
another in love," nor "endeavouring to keep the unity of the spirit in
the bond of peace,"[27] insomuch as they have not charity, they cannot
attain to eternal salvation, even with all those good things which
profit them not.
* * * * *
CHAP. X.--13. But they think within themselves that they show very
great subtlety in asking whether the baptism of Christ in the party of
Donatus makes men sons or not; so that, if we allow that it does make
them sons, they may assert that theirs is the Church, the mother which
could give birth to sons in the baptism of Christ; and since the Church
must be one, they may allege that ours is no Church. But if we say that
it does not make them sons, "Why then," say they, "do you not cause
those who pass from us to you to be born again in baptism, after they
have been baptized with us, if they are not thereby born as yet?"
14. Just as though their party gained the power of generation in virtue
of what constitutes its division, and not from what causes its union
with the Church. For it is severed from the bond of peace and charity,
but it is joined in one baptism. And so there is one Church which
alone is called Catholic; and whenever it has anything of its own in
these communions of different bodies which are separate from itself,
it is most certainly in virtue of this which is its own in each of
them that it, not they, has the power of generation. For neither is
it their separation that generates, but what they have retained of
the essence of the Church; and if they were to go on to abandon this,
they would lose the power of generation. The generation, then, in each
case proceeds from the Church, whose sacraments are retained, from
which any such birth can alone in any case proceed,--although not all
who receive its birth belong to its unity, which shall save those who
persevere even to the end. Nor is it those only that do not belong to
it who are openly guilty of the manifest sacrilege of schism, but also
those who, being outwardly joined to its unity, are yet separated by
a life of sin. For the Church had herself given birth to Simon Magus
through the sacrament of baptism; and yet it was declared to him that
he had no part in the inheritance of Christ.[28] Did he lack anything
in respect of baptism, of the gospel, of the sacraments? But in that
he wanted charity, he was born in vain; and perhaps it had been well
for him that he had never been born at all. Was anything wanting to
their birth to whom the apostle says, "I have fed you with milk, and
not with meat, even as babes in Christ?" Yet he recalls them from the
sacrilege of schism, into which they were rushing, because they were
carnal: "I have fed you," he says, "with milk, and not with meat: for
hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet are ye able. For ye
are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and
divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I
am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?"[29] For
of these he says above: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of
our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there
be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together
in the same mind, and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared
unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chlöe,
that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one
of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I
of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye
baptized in the name of Paul?"[30] These, therefore, if they continued
in the same perverse obstinacy, were doubtless indeed born, but yet
would not belong by the bond of peace and unity to the very Church in
respect of which they were born. Therefore she herself bears them in
her own womb, and in the womb of her handmaids, by virtue of the same
sacraments, as though by virtue of the seed of her husband. For it is
not without meaning that the apostle says that all these things were
done by way of figure.[31] But those who are too proud, and are not
joined to their lawful mother, are like Ishmael, of whom it is said,
"Cast out this bond-woman and her son: for the son of the bond-woman
shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac."[32] But those who
peacefully love the lawful wife of their father, whose sons they are by
lawful descent, are like the sons of Jacob, born indeed of handmaids,
but yet receiving the same inheritance.[33] But those who are born
within the family, of the womb of the mother herself, and then neglect
what they have received, are like Isaac's son Esau, who was rejected,
God Himself bearing witness to it, and saying, "I loved Jacob, and I
hated Esau;"[34] and that though they were twin-brethren, the offspring
of the same womb.
* * * * *
CHAP. XI.--15. They ask also, "Whether sins are remitted in baptism in
the party of Donatus:" so that, if we say that they are remitted, they
may answer, then the Holy Spirit is there; for when by the breathing
of our Lord the Holy Spirit was given to the disciples, He then went
on to say, "Baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost."[35] "Whose soever sins ye remit, they
are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are
retained."[36] And if it is so, they say, then our communion is the
Church of Christ; for the Holy Spirit does not work the remission
of sins except in the Church. And if our communion is the Church of
Christ, then your communion is not the Church of Christ. For that is
one, wherever it is, of which it is said, "My dove is but one; she is
the only one of her mother;"[37] nor can there be just so many churches
as there are schisms. But if we should say that sins are not there
remitted, then, say they, there is no true baptism there; and therefore
ought you to baptize those whom you receive from us. And since you do
not do this, you confess that you are not in the Church of Christ.
16. To these we reply, following the Scriptures, by asking them to
answer themselves what they ask of us. For I beg them to tell us
whether there is any remission of sins where there is not charity;
for sins are the darkness of the soul. For we find St. John saying,
"He that hateth his brother is in darkness."[38] But none would
create schisms, if they were not blinded by hatred of their brethren.
If, therefore, we say that sins are not remitted there, how is he
regenerate who is baptized among them? And what is regeneration in
baptism, except the being renovated from the corruption of the old man?
And how can he be so renovated whose past sins are not remitted? But
if he be not regenerate, neither does he put on Christ; from which it
seems to follow that he ought to be baptized again. For the apostle
says, "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on
Christ;"[39] and if he has not so put on Christ, neither should he be
considered to have been baptized in Christ. Further, since we say that
he has been baptized in Christ, we confess that he has put on Christ;
and if we confess this, we confess that he is regenerate. And if this
be so, how does St. John say, "He that hateth his brother remaineth
still in darkness," if remission of his sins has already taken place?
Can it be that schism does not involve hatred of one's brethren? Who
will maintain this, when both the origin of, and perseverance in schism
consists in nothing else save hatred of the brethren?
17. They think that they solve this question when they say: "There
is then no remission of sins in schism, and therefore no creation of
the new man by regeneration, and accordingly neither is there the
baptism of Christ." But since we confess that the baptism of Christ
exists in schism, we propose this question to them for solution: Was
Simon Magus endued with the true baptism of Christ? They will answer,
Yes; being compelled to do so by the authority of holy Scripture. I
ask them whether they confess that he received remission of his sins.
They will certainly acknowledge it. So I ask why Peter said to him
that he had no part in the lot of the saints. Because, they say, he
sinned afterwards, wishing to buy with money the gift of God, which he
believed the apostles were able to sell.
* * * * *
CHAP. XII.--18. What if he approached baptism itself in deceit? were
his sins remitted, or were they not? Let them choose which they will.
Whichever they choose will answer our purpose. If they say they
were remitted, how then shall "the Holy Spirit of discipline flee
deceit,"[40] if in him who was full of deceit He worked remission
of sins? If they say they were not remitted, I ask whether, if he
should afterwards confess his sin with contrition of heart and true
sorrow, it would be judged that he ought to be baptized again. And
if it is mere madness to assert this, then let them confess that a
man can be baptized with the true baptism of Christ, and that yet his
heart, persisting in malice or sacrilege, may not allow remission of
sins to be given; and so let them understand that men may be baptized
in communions severed from the Church, in which Christ's baptism is
given and received in the said celebration of the sacrament, but that
it will only then be of avail for the remission of sins, when the
recipient, being reconciled to the unity of the Church, is purged from
the sacrilege of deceit, by which his sins were retained, and their
remission prevented. For, as in the case of him who had approached
the sacrament in deceit there is no second baptism, but he is purged
by faithful discipline and truthful confession, which he could not be
without baptism, so that what was given before becomes then powerful
to work his salvation, when the former deceit is done away by the
truthful confession; so also in the case of the man who, while an enemy
to the peace and love of Christ, received in any heresy or schism the
baptism of Christ, which the schismatics in question had not lost from
among them, though by his sacrilege his sins were not remitted, yet,
when he corrects his error, and comes over to the communion and unity
of the Church, he ought not to be again baptized: because by his very
reconciliation to the peace of the Church he receives this benefit,
that the sacrament now begins in unity to be of avail for the remission
of his sins, which could not so avail him as received in schism.
19. But if they should say that in the man who has approached the
sacrament in deceit, his sins are indeed removed by the holy power of
so great a sacrament at the moment when he received it, but return
immediately in consequence of his deceit: so that the Holy Spirit
has both been present with him at his baptism for the removal of his
sins, and has also fled before his perseverance in deceit so that they
should return: so that both declarations prove true,--both, "As many of
you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ;" and also,
"The holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit;"--that is to say,
that both the holiness of baptism clothes him with Christ, and the
sinfulness of deceit strips him of Christ; like the case of a man who
passes from darkness through light into darkness again, his eyes being
always directed towards darkness, though the light cannot but penetrate
them as he passes;--if they should say this, let them understand that
this is also the case with those who are baptized without the pale of
the Church, but yet with the baptism of the Church, which is holy in
itself, wherever it may be; and which therefore belongs not to those
who separate themselves, but to the body from which they are separated;
while yet it avails even among them so far, that they pass through its
light back to their own darkness, their sins, which in that moment had
been dispelled by the holiness of baptism, returning immediately upon
them, as though it were the darkness returning which the light had
dispelled while they were passing through it.
20. For that sins which have been remitted do return upon a man, is
most clearly taught by our Lord, in the case of the servant whom He
found owing Him ten thousand talents, and to whom He yet forgave all at
his entreaty. But when he refused to have pity on his fellow-servant
who owed him a hundred pence, the Lord commanded him to pay what He
had forgiven him. The time, then, at which pardon is received through
baptism is as it were the time for rendering accounts, so that all
the debts which are found to be due may be remitted. Yet it was not
afterwards that the servant lent his fellow-servant the money, which
he had so pitilessly exacted when the other was unable to pay it; but
his fellow-servant already owed him the debt, when he himself, on
rendering his accounts to his master, was excused a debt of so vast
an amount. He had not first excused his fellow-servant, and so come
to receive forgiveness from his Lord. This is proved by the words of
the fellow-servant: "Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all."
Otherwise he would have said, "You forgave me it before; why do you
again demand it?" This is made more clear by the words of the Lord
Himself. For He says, "But the same servant went out, and found one
of his fellow-servants which was owing[41] him a hundred pence."[42]
He does not say, "To whom he had already forgiven a debt of a hundred
pence." Since then He says, "was owing him," it is clear that he had
not forgiven him the debt. And indeed, it would have been better, and
more in accordance with the position of a man who was going to render
an account of so great a debt, and expected forbearance from his lord,
that he should first have forgiven his fellow-servant what was due to
him, and so have come to render the account when there was such need
for imploring the compassion of his lord. Yet the fact that he had
not yet forgiven his fellow-servant, did not prevent his lord from
forgiving him all his debts on the occasion of receiving his accounts.
But what advantage was it to him, since they all immediately returned
with redoubled force upon his head, in consequence of his persistent
want of charity? So the grace of baptism is not prevented from giving
remission of all sins, even if he to whom they are forgiven continues
to cherish hatred towards his brother in his heart. For the guilt
of yesterday is remitted, and all that was before it, nay, even the
guilt of the very hour and moment previous to baptism, and during
baptism itself. But then he immediately begins again to be responsible,
not only for the days, hours, moments which ensue, but also for the
past,--the guilt of all the sins which were remitted returning on him,
as happens only too frequently in the Church.
* * * * *
CHAP. XIII.--21. For it often happens that a man has an enemy whom
he hates most unjustly; although we are commanded to love even our
unjust enemies, and to pray for them. But in some sudden danger of
death he begins to be uneasy, and desires baptism, which he receives
in such haste, that the emergency scarcely admits of the necessary
formal examination of a few words, much less of a long conversation,
so that this hatred should be driven from his heart, even supposing
it to be known to the minister who baptizes him. Certainly cases of
this sort are still found to occur not only with us, but also with
them. What shall we say then? Are this man's sins forgiven or not?
Let them choose just which alternative they prefer. For if they are
forgiven, they immediately return: this is the teaching of the gospel,
the authoritative announcement of truth. Whether, therefore, they are
forgiven or not, medicine is necessary afterwards; and yet if the man
lives, and learns that his fault stands in need of correction, and
corrects it, he is not baptized anew, either with them or with us.
So in the points in which schismatics and heretics neither entertain
different opinions nor observe different practice from ourselves, we
do not correct them when they join us, but rather commend what we find
in them. For where they do not differ from us, they are not separated
from us. But because these things do them no good so long as they are
schismatics or heretics, on account of other points in which they
differ from us, not to mention the most grievous sin that is involved
in separation itself, therefore, whether their sins remain in them, or
return again immediately after remission, in either case we exhort them
to come to the soundness of peace and Christian charity, not only that
they may obtain something which they had not before, but also that what
they had may begin to be of use to them.
CHAP. XIV.--22. It is to no purpose, then, that they say to us, "If
you acknowledge our baptism, what do we lack that should make you
suppose that we ought to think seriously of joining your communion?"
For we reply, We do not acknowledge any baptism of yours; for it is
not the baptism of schismatics or heretics, but of God and of the
Church, wheresoever it may be found, and whithersoever it may be
transferred. But it is in no sense yours, except because you entertain
false opinions, and do sacrilegious acts, and have impiously separated
yourselves from the Church. For if everything else in your practice
and opinions were true, and still you were to persist in this same
separation, contrary to the bond of brotherly peace, contrary to
the union of all the brethren, who have been manifest, according to
the promise, in all the world; the particulars of whose history,
and the secrets of whose hearts, you never could have known or
considered in every case, so as to have a right to condemn them; who,
moreover, cannot be liable to condemnation for submitting themselves
to the judges of the Church rather than to one of the parties to
the dispute,--in this one thing, at least, in such a case, you are
deficient, in which he is deficient who lacks charity. Why should we go
over our argument again? Look and see yourselves in the apostle, how
much there is that you lack. For what does it matter to him who lacks
charity, whether he be carried away outside the Church at once by some
blast of temptation, or remain within the Lord's harvest, so as to be
separated only at the final winnowing? And yet even such, if they have
once been born in baptism, need not be born again.
* * * * *
CHAP. XV.--23. For it is the Church that gives birth to all, either
within her pale, of her own womb; or beyond it, of the seed of her
bridegroom,--either of herself, or of her handmaid. But Esau, even
though born of the lawful wife, was separated from the people of God
because he quarrelled with his brother. And Asher, born indeed by the
authority of a wife, but yet of a handmaid, was admitted to the land
of promise on account of his brotherly good-will. Whence also it was
not the being born of a handmaid, but his quarrelling with his brother,
that stood in the way of Ishmael, to cause his separation from the
people of God; and he received no benefit from the power of the wife,
whose son he rather was, inasmuch as it was in virtue of her conjugal
rights that he was both conceived in and born of the womb of the
handmaid. Just as with the Donatists it is by the right of the Church,
which exists in baptism, that whosoever is born receives his birth;
but if they agree with their brethren, through the unity of peace they
come to the land of promise, not to be again cast out from the bosom of
their true mother, but to be acknowledged in the seed of their father;
but if they persevere in discord, they will belong to the line of
Ishmael. For Ishmael was first, and then Isaac; and Esau was the elder,
Jacob the younger. Not that heresy gives birth before the Church, or
that the Church herself gives birth first to those who are carnal or
animal, and afterwards to those who are spiritual; but because, in the
actual lot of our mortality, in which we are born of the seed of Adam,
"that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and
afterward that which is spiritual."[43] But from mere animal sensation,
because "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
God,"[44] arise all dissensions and schisms. And the apostle says[45]
that all who persevere in this animal sensation belong to the old
covenant, that is, to the desire of earthly promises, which are indeed
the type of the spiritual; but "the natural man receiveth not the
things of the Spirit of God."[44]
24. At whatever time, therefore, men have begun to be of such a
nature in this life, that, although they have partaken of such divine
sacraments as were appointed for the dispensation under which they
lived, they yet savour of carnal things, and hope for and desire
carnal things from God, whether in this life or afterwards, they are
yet carnal. But the Church, which is the people of God, is an ancient
institution even in the pilgrimage of this life, having a carnal
interest in some men, a spiritual interest in others. To the carnal
belongs the old covenant, to the spiritual the new. But in the first
days both were hidden, from Adam even to Moses. But by Moses the old
covenant was made manifest, and in it was hidden the new covenant,
because after a secret fashion it was typified. But so soon as the
Lord came in the flesh, the new covenant was revealed; yet, though
the sacraments of the old covenant passed away, the dispositions
peculiar to it did not pass away. For they still exist in those whom
the apostle declares to be already born indeed by the sacrament of
the new covenant, but yet incapable, as being natural, of receiving
the things of the Spirit of God. For, as in the sacraments of the old
covenant some persons were already spiritual, belonging secretly to the
new covenant, which was then concealed, so now also in the sacrament
of the new covenant, which has been by this time revealed, many live
who are natural. And if they will not advance to receive the things of
the Spirit of God, to which the discourse of the apostle urges them,
they will still belong to the old covenant. But if they advance, even
before they receive them, yet by their very advance and approach they
belong to the new covenant; and if, before becoming spiritual, they
are snatched away from this life, yet through the protection of the
holiness of the sacrament they are reckoned in the land of the living,
where the Lord is our hope and our portion. Nor can I find any truer
interpretation of the scripture, "Thine eyes did see my substance, yet
being imperfect;"[46] considering what follows, "And in Thy book shall
all be written."[47]
* * * * *
CHAP. XVI.--25. But the same mother which brought forth Abel, and
Enoch, and Noah, and Abraham, brought forth also Moses and the prophets
who succeeded him till the coming of our Lord; and the mother which
gave birth to them gave birth also to our apostles and martyrs, and all
good Christians. For all these that have appeared have been born indeed
at different times, but are included in the society of our people; and
it is as citizens of the same state that they have experienced the
labours of this pilgrimage, and some of them are experiencing them,
and others will experience them, even to the end. Again, the mother
who brought forth Cain, and Ham, and Ishmael, and Esau, brought forth
also Dathan and others like him in the same people; and she who gave
birth to them gave birth also to Judas the false apostle, and Simon
Magus, and all the other false Christians who up to this time have
persisted obstinately in their carnal affections, whether they have
been mingled in the unity of the Church, or separated from it in open
schism. But when men of this kind have the gospel preached to them, and
receive the sacraments at the hand of those who are spiritual, it is as
though Rebecca gave birth to them of her own womb, as she did to Esau;
but when they are produced in the midst of the people of God through
the instrumentality of those who preach the gospel not sincerely,[48]
Sarah is indeed the mother, but through Hagar. So when good spiritual
disciples are produced by the preaching or baptism of those who are
carnal, Leah, indeed, or Rachel, gives birth to them in her right as
wife, but from the womb of a handmaid. But when good and faithful
disciples are born of those who are spiritual in the gospel, and either
attain to the development of spiritual age, or do not cease to strive
in that direction, or are only deterred from doing so by want of power,
these are born like Isaac from the womb of Sarah, or Jacob from the
womb of Rebecca, in the new life of the new covenant.
* * * * *
CHAP. XVII.--26. Therefore, whether they seem to abide within, or are
openly outside, whatsoever is flesh is flesh, and what is chaff is
chad, whether they persevere in remaining in their barrenness on the
threshing-floor, or, when temptation befalls them, are carried out as
it were by the blast of some wind. And even that man is always severed
from the unity of the Church which is without a spot or wrinkle,[49]
who associates with the congregation of the saints in carnal obstinacy.
Yet we ought to despair of no man, whether he be one who shows himself
to be of this nature within the pale of the Church, or whether he more
openly opposes it from without. But the spiritual, or those who are
steadily advancing with pious exertion towards this end, do not stray
without the pale; since even when, by some perversity or necessity
among men, they seem to be driven forth, they are more approved than if
they had remained within, since they are in no degree roused to contend
against the Church, but remain rooted in the strongest foundation of
Christian charity on the solid rock of unity. For hereunto belongs what
is said in the sacrifice of Abraham: "But the birds divided he not."[50]
* * * * *
CHAP. XVIII.--27. On the question of baptism, then, I think that I have
argued at sufficient length; and since this is a most manifest schism
which is called by the name of the Donatists, it only remains that on
the subject of baptism we should believe with pious faith what the
universal Church maintains, apart from the sacrilege of schism. And
yet, if within the Church different men still held different opinions
on the point, without meanwhile violating peace, then till some one
clear and simple decree should have been passed by an universal
Council, it would have been right for the charity which seeks for unity
to throw a veil over the error of human infirmity, as it is written,
"For charity shall cover the multitude of sins."[51] For, seeing that
its absence causes the presence of all other things to be of no avail,
we may well suppose that in its presence there is found pardon for the
absence of some missing things.
28. There are great proofs of this existing on the part of the blessed
martyr Cyprian, in his letters,--to come at last to him of whose
authority they carnally flatter themselves they are possessed, whilst
by his love they are spiritually overthrown. For at that time, before
the consent of the whole Church had declared authoritatively, by the
decree of a general Council,[52] what practice should be followed
in this matter, it seemed to him, in common with about eighty of
his fellow-bishops of the African churches, that every man who had
been baptized outside the communion of the Catholic Church should,
on joining the Church, be baptized anew. And I take it, that the
reason why the Lord did not reveal the error in this to a man of such
eminence, was, that his pious humility and charity in guarding the
peace and health of the Church might be made manifest, and might be
noticed, so as to serve as an example of healing power, so to speak,
not only to Christians of that age, but also to those who should come
after. For when a bishop of so important a Church, himself a man of
so great merit and virtue, endowed with such excellence of heart and
power of eloquence, entertained an opinion about baptism different
from that which was to be confirmed by a more diligent searching
into the truth; though many of his colleagues held what was not yet
made manifest by authority, but was sanctioned by the past custom of
the Church, and afterwards embraced by the whole Catholic world; yet
under these circumstances he did not sever himself, by refusal of
communion, from the others who thought differently, and indeed never
ceased to urge on the others that they should "forbear one another
in love, endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
peace."[53] For so, while the framework of the body remained whole,
if any infirmity occurred in certain of its members, it might rather
regain its health from their general soundness, than be deprived of the
chance of any healing care by their death in severance from the body.
And if he had severed himself, how many were there to follow! what a
name was he likely to make for himself among men! how much more widely
would the name of Cyprianist have spread than that of Donatist! But
he was not a son of perdition, one of those of whom it is said, "Thou
castedst them down into destruction;"[54] but he was the son of the
peace of the Church, who in the clear illumination of his mind failed
to see one thing, only that through him another thing might be more
excellently seen. "And yet," says the apostle, "show I unto you a more
excellent way: though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels,
and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling
cymbal."[55] He had therefore imperfect insight into the hidden mystery
of the sacrament. But if he had known the mysteries of all sacraments,
without having charity, it would have been nothing. But as he, with
imperfect insight into the mystery, was careful to preserve charity
with all courage and humility and faith, he deserved to come to the
crown of martyrdom; so that, if any cloud had crept over the clearness
of his intellect from his infirmity as man, it might be dispelled by
the glorious brightness of his blood. For it was not in vain that our
Lord Jesus Christ, when He declared Himself to be the vine, and His
disciples, as it were, the branches in the vine, gave command that
those which bare no fruit should be cut off, and removed from the
vine as useless branches.[56] But what is really fruit, save that new
offspring, of which He further says, "A new commandment I give unto
you, that ye love one another?"[57] This is that very charity, without
which the rest profiteth nothing. The apostle also says: "But the
fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness,
goodness, faith, meekness, temperance;"[58] each of which begins with
charity, and with the rest of the combination forms one unity in a kind
of wondrous cluster.[59] Nor is it again in vain that our Lord added,
"And every branch that beareth fruit, my Father purgeth it, that it may
bring forth more fruit,"[60] but because those who are strong in the
fruit of charity may yet have something which requires purging, which
the Husbandman will not leave untended. Whilst, then, that holy man
entertained on the subject of baptism an opinion at variance with the
true view, which was afterwards thoroughly examined and confirmed after
most diligent consideration, his error was compensated by his remaining
in catholic unity, and by the abundance of his charity; and finally it
was cleared away by the pruning-hook of martyrdom.
* * * * *
CHAP. XIX.--29. But that I may not seem to be uttering these praises
of the blessed martyr (which, indeed, are not his, but rather those of
Him by whose grace he showed himself what he was), in order to escape
the burden of proof, let us now bring forward from his letters the
testimony by which the mouths of the Donatists may most of all be
stopped. For they advance his authority before the unlearned, to show
that in a manner they do well when they baptize afresh the faithful
who come to them. Too wretched are they--and, unless they correct
themselves, even by themselves are they utterly condemned--who choose
in the example set them by so great a man to imitate just that fault,
which only did not injure him, because he walked with constant steps
even to the end in that from which they have strayed who "have not
known the ways of peace."[61] It is true that Christ's baptism is
holy; and although it may exist among heretics or schismatics, yet
it does not belong to the heresy or schism; and therefore even those
who come from thence to the Catholic Church herself ought not to be
baptized afresh. Yet to err on this point is one thing; it is another
thing that those who are straying from the peace of the Church, and
have fallen headlong into the pit of schism, should go on to decide
that any who join them ought to be baptized again. For the former is a
speck on the brightness of a holy soul which abundance of charity[62]
would fain have covered; the latter is a stain in their nether foulness
which the hatred of peace in their countenance ostentatiously brings
to light. But the subject for our further consideration, relating to
the authority of the blessed Cyprian, we will commence from a fresh
beginning.
FOOTNOTES:
[5] This treatise was written about 400 A.D.
[6] _Contra Epist. Parmen._ ii. 14.
[7] Comp. v. 23, and iii. 16, note.
[8] Ps. lxi. 2, 3. Augustine translates from the Septuagint. The
English version is: "From the end of the earth will I cry unto Thee,
when my heart is overwhelmed: lead me to the Rock that is higher than
I. For Thou hast been a shelter for me, and a strong tower from the
enemy."
[9] Eph. ii. 6.
[10] Matt. vii. 15.
[11] Matt. xxiv. 23.
[12] Matt. xi. 24.
[13] The Council of Donatist bishops, held at Bagai in Numidia, A.D.
394. Cp. _Contr. Crescon._ iii. 52, 53.
[14] Quodam modo cardinales Donatistas.
[15] See below, on ii. 9.
[16] Matt. xii. 30.
[17] Mark ix. 38, 39; Luke ix. 50.
[18] Acts x.
[19] Ex. xxxii.
[20] Num. xvi.
[21] 1 Cor. xiii. 2.
[22] 1 Cor. xiii. 1, 2.
[23] John xi. 51.
[24] 1 Sam. xviii. 10.
[25] Acts viii. 13.
[26] Mark i. 24.
[27] Eph. iv. 2, 3.
[28] Acts viii. 13, 21.
[29] 1 Cor. iii. 1-4.
[30] 1 Cor. i. 10-13.
[31] 1 Cor. x. 11. _In figura_; [Greek: tupichôs]; A. V., "for
ensamples."
[32] Gen. xxi. 10.
[33] Gen. xxx. 3.
[34] Mal. i. 2, 3; Gen. xxv. 24.
[35] Matt. xxviii. 19.
[36] John xx. 23.
[37] Song of Sol. vi. 9.
[38] 1 John ii. 11.
[39] Gal. iii. 27.
[40] Wisd. i. 5.
[41] Debebat. It is necessary to depart from the A. V., "owed," as
Augustine founds an argument on the use of the imperfect tense. Gr.
[Greek: ôpheilen].
[42] Matt. xviii. 23-35.
[43] 1 Cor. xv. 46.
[44] 1 Cor. ii. 14.
[45] Gal. iv.
[46] Ps. cxxxix. 16.
[47] So Augustine from the Septuagint: [Greek: epi to biblion sou
pantes graphêsontai]. A.V., "In Thy book were all _my members_ written."
[48] Non caste; [Greek: ouch agnôs]. Phil. i. 16.
[49] In the _Retractations_, ii. 18, Augustine notes on this passage,
that wherever he uses this quotation from the Epistle to the Ephesians,
he means it to be understood of the progress of the Church towards this
condition, and not of her success in its attainment; for at present the
infirmities and ignorance of her members give ground enough for the
whole Church joining daily in the petition, "Forgive us our debts."
[50] Gen. xv. 10.
[51] 1 Pet. iv. 8.
[52] See below, ii. 9.
[53] Eph. iv. 2, 3.
[54] Ps. lxxiii. 18.
[55] 1 Cor. xii. 31, xiii. 1.
[56] John xv. 1, 2.
[57] John xiii. 34.
[58] Gal. v. 22, 23.
[59] Botrum.
[60] John xv. 2.
[61] Rom. iii. 17; from which it has been introduced into the
Alexandrine MS. of the Septuagint at Ps. xiv. 3, as it is quoted by
Migne, and found in the English Prayer-book version of the Psalms.
[62] Charitatis ubera.
BOOK SECOND.
IN WHICH AUGUSTINE PROVES THAT IT IS TO NO PURPOSE THAT THE DONATISTS
BRING FORWARD THE AUTHORITY OF CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR, SINCE IT
IS REALLY MORE OPPOSED TO THEM THAN TO THE CATHOLICS. FOR THAT HE
HELD THAT THE VIEW OF HIS PREDECESSOR AGRIPPINUS, ON THE SUBJECT
OF BAPTIZING HERETICS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WHEN THEY JOIN ITS
COMMUNION, SHOULD ONLY BE RECEIVED ON CONDITION THAT PEACE SHOULD BE
MAINTAINED WITH THOSE WHO ENTERTAINED THE OPPOSITE VIEW, AND THAT THE
UNITY OF THE CHURCH SHOULD NEVER BE BROKEN BY ANY KIND OF SCHISM.
CHAP. I.--1. How much the arguments make for us, that is, for catholic
peace, which the party of Donatus profess to bring forward against us
from the authority of the blessed Cyprian, and how much they prove
against those who bring them forward, it is my intention, with the
help of God, to show in the ensuing book. If, therefore, in the course
of my argument, I am obliged to repeat what I have already said in
other treatises (although I will do so as little as I can), yet this
ought not to be objected to by those who have already read them and
agree with them; since it is not only right that those things which
are necessary for instruction should be frequently instilled into men
of dull intelligence, but even in the case of those who are endowed
with larger understanding, it contributes very much both to make their
learning easier and their powers of teaching readier, where the same
points are handled and discussed in many various ways. For I know how
much it discourages a reader, when he comes upon any knotty question in
the book which he has in hand, to find himself presently referred for
its solution to another which he happens not to have. Wherefore, if I
am compelled, by the urgency of the present questions, to repeat what I
have already said in other books, I would seek forgiveness from those
who know those books already, that those who are ignorant may have
their difficulties removed; for it is better to give to one who has
already, than to abstain from satisfying any one who is in want.
2. What, then, do they venture to say, when their mouth is closed[63]
by the force of truth, with which they will not agree? "Cyprian,"
say they, "whose great merits and vast learning we all know, decreed
in a Council,[64] with many of his fellow-bishops contributing their
several opinions, that all heretics and schismatics, that is, all who
are severed from the communion of the one Church, are without baptism;
and therefore, whosoever has joined the communion of the Church after
being baptized by them must be baptized in the Church." The authority
of Cyprian does not alarm me, because I am reassured by his humility.
We know, indeed, the great merit of the bishop and martyr Cyprian; but
is it in any way greater than that of the apostle and martyr Peter, of
whom the said Cyprian speaks as follows in his epistle to Quintus? "For
neither did Peter, whom the Lord chose first, and on whom He built His
Church,[65] when Paul afterwards disputed with him about circumcision,
claim or assume anything insolently and arrogantly to himself, so as
to say that he held the primacy, and should rather be obeyed of those
who were late and newly come. Nor did he despise Paul because he had
before been a persecutor of the Church, but he admitted the counsel
of truth, and readily assented to the legitimate grounds which Paul
maintained; giving us thereby a pattern of concord and patience, that
we should not pertinaciously love our own opinions, but should rather
account as our own any true and rightful suggestions of our brethren
and colleagues for the common health and weal."[66] Here is a passage
in which Cyprian records what we also learn in holy Scripture, that
the Apostle Peter, in whom the primacy of the apostles shines with
such exceeding grace, was corrected by the later Apostle Paul, when
he adopted a custom in the matter of circumcision at variance with
the demands of truth. If it was therefore possible for Peter in some
point to walk not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, so as
to compel the Gentiles to judaize, as Paul writes in that epistle in
which he calls God to witness that he does not lie; for he says, "Now
the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not;"[67]
and, after this sacred and awful calling of God to witness, he told
the whole tale, saying in the course of it, "But when I saw that they
walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel, I said
unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the
manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the
Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"[68]--if Peter, I say, could compel
the Gentiles to live after the manner of the Jews, contrary to the rule
of truth which the Church afterwards held, why might not Cyprian, in
opposition to the rule of faith which the whole Church afterwards held,
compel heretics and schismatics to be baptized afresh? I suppose that
there is no slight to Cyprian in comparing him with Peter in respect to
his crown of martyrdom; rather I ought to be afraid lest I am showing
disrespect towards Peter. For who can be ignorant that the primacy of
his apostleship is to be preferred to any episcopate in the world? But,
granting the difference in the dignity of their sees, yet they have the
same glory in their martyrdom. And whether it may be the case that the
hearts of those who confess and die for the true faith in the unity of
charity take precedence of each other in different points, the Lord
Himself will know, by the hidden and wondrous dispensation of whose
grace the thief hanging on the cross once for all confesses Him, and
is sent on the selfsame day to paradise,[69] while Peter, the follower
of our Lord, denies Him thrice, and has his crown postponed:[70] for
us it were rash to form a judgment from the evidence. But if any one
were now found compelling a man to be circumcised after the Jewish
fashion, as a necessary preliminary for baptism, this would meet with
much more general repudiation by mankind, than if a man should be
compelled to be baptized again. Wherefore, if Peter, on doing this,
is corrected by his later colleague Paul, and is yet preserved by the
bond of peace and unity till he is promoted to martyrdom, how much more
readily and constantly should we prefer, either to the authority of a
single bishop, or to the Council of a single province, the rule that
has been established by the statutes of the universal Church? For this
same Cyprian, in urging his view of the question, was still anxious to
remain in the unity of peace even with those who differed from him on
this point, as is shown by his own opening address at the beginning of
the very Council which is quoted by the Donatists. For it is as follows:
* * * * *
CHAP. II.--3. "When, on the calends of September, very many bishops
from the provinces of Africa,[71] Numidia, and Mauritania, with their
presbyters and deacons, had met together at Carthage, a great part
of the laity also being present; and when the letter addressed by
Jubaianus to Cyprian, as also the answer of Cyprian to Jubaianus, on
the subject of baptizing heretics, had been read, Cyprian said: 'Ye
have heard, most beloved colleagues, what Jubaianus, our fellow-bishop,
has written to me, consulting my moderate ability concerning the
unlawful and profane baptism of heretics, and what answer I gave
him,--giving a judgment which we have once and again and often
given, that heretics coming to the Church ought to be baptized, and
sanctified with the baptism of the Church. Another letter of Jubaianus
has likewise been read to you, in which, agreeably to his sincere and
religious devotion, in answer to our epistle, he not only expressed his
assent, but returned thanks also, acknowledging that he had received
instruction. It remains that we severally declare our opinion on
this subject, judging no one, nor depriving any one of the right of
communion if he differ from us. For no one of us sets himself up as a
bishop of bishops, or, by tyrannical terror, forceth his colleagues to
a necessity of obeying, inasmuch as every bishop, in the free use of
his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and
can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge another.
But we must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone
has the power both of setting us in the government of His Church, and
of judging of our acts therein.'"
* * * * *
CHAP. III.--4. Now let the proud and swelling necks of the heretics
raise themselves, if they dare, against the holy humility of this
address. Ye mad Donatists, whom we desire earnestly to return to the
peace and unity of the holy Church, that ye may receive health therein,
what have ye to say in answer to this? You are wont, indeed, to bring
up against us the letters of Cyprian, his opinion, his Council; why
do ye claim the authority of Cyprian for your schism, and reject his
example when it makes for the peace of the Church? But who can fail
to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and
New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands
so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the
bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation
whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but
that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being
written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted
if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth,
either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the
matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned
experience of other bishops, or by the authority of Councils; and
further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several
districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt,
to the authority of universal Councils which are formed for the whole
Christian world; and that even of the universal Councils, the earlier
are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual
experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed,
and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any
whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck
through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with
holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity?
* * * * *
CHAP. IV.--5. Wherefore the holy Cyprian, whose dignity is only
increased by his humility, who so loved the pattern set by Peter as to
use the words, "Giving us thereby a pattern of concord and patience,
that we should not pertinaciously love our own opinions, but should
rather account as our own any true and rightful suggestions of our
brethren and colleagues, for the common health and weal,"[72]--he,
I say, abundantly shows that he was most willing to correct his own
opinion, if any one should prove to him that it is as certain that
the baptism of Christ can be given by those who have strayed from the
fold, as that it could not be lost when they strayed; on which subject
we have already said much. Nor should we ourselves venture to assert
anything of the kind, were we not supported by the unanimous authority
of the whole Church,--to which he himself would unquestionably have
yielded, if at that time the truth of this question had been placed
beyond dispute by the investigation and decree of a general Council.
For if he quotes Peter as an example for his allowing himself quietly
and peacefully to be corrected by one junior colleague, how much more
readily would he himself, with the Council of his province, have
yielded to the authority of the whole world, when the truth had been
thus brought to light? For, indeed, so holy and peaceful a soul would
have been most ready to assent to the arguments of any single person
who could prove to him the truth; and perhaps he even did so,[73]
though we have no knowledge of the fact. For it was neither possible
that all the proceedings which took place between the bishops at that
time should have been committed to writing, nor are we acquainted with
all that was so committed. For how could a matter which was involved
in such mists of disputation even have been brought to the full
illumination and authoritative decision of a general Council, had it
not first been known to be discussed for some considerable time in the
various districts of the world, with many discussions and comparisons
of the views of the bishops on every side? But this is one effect of
the soundness of peace, that when any doubtful points are long under
investigation, and when, on account of the difficulty of arriving
at the truth, they produce difference of opinion in the course of
brotherly disputation, till men at last arrive at the unalloyed truth;
yet the bond of unity remains, lest in the part that is cut away there
should be found the incurable wound of deadly error.
* * * * *
CHAP. V.--6. And so it is that often something is imperfectly revealed
to the more learned, that their patient and humble charity, from which
proceeds the greater fruit, may be proved, either in the way in which
they preserve unity, when they hold different opinions on matters of
comparative obscurity, or in the temper with which they receive the
truth, when they learn that it has been declared to be contrary to
what they thought. And of these two we have a manifestation in the
blessed Cyprian of the one, viz. of the way in which he preserved unity
with those from whom he differed in opinion. For he says, "Judging
no one, nor depriving any one of the right of communion if he differ
from us."[74] And the other, viz. in what temper he could receive the
truth when found to be different from what he thought it, though his
letters are silent on the point, is yet proclaimed by his merits. If
there is no letter extant to prove it, it is witnessed by his crown of
martyrdom; if the Council of bishops declare it not, it is declared by
the host of angels. For it is no small proof of a most peaceful soul,
that he won the crown of martyrdom in that unity from which he would
not separate, even though he differed from it. For we are but men;
and it is therefore a temptation incident to men that we should hold
views at variance with the truth on any point. But to come through too
great love for our own opinion, or through jealousy of our betters,
even to the sacrilege of dividing the communion of the Church, and
of founding heresy or schism, is a presumption worthy of the devil.
But never in any point to entertain an opinion at variance with the
truth is perfection found only in the angels. Since then we are men,
yet forasmuch as in hope we are angels, whose equals we shall be in
the resurrection,[75] at any rate, so long as we are wanting in the
perfection of angels, let us at least be without the presumption of
the devil. Accordingly the apostle says, "There hath no temptation
taken you but such as is common to man."[76] It is therefore part
of man's nature to be sometimes wrong. Wherefore he says in another
place, "Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be thus minded: and
if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto
you."[77] But to whom does He reveal it when it is His will (be it in
this life or in the life to come), save to those who walk in the way
of peace, and stray not aside into any schism? Not to such as those
who have not known the way of peace,[78] or for some other cause have
broken the bond of unity. And so, when the apostle said, "And if in
anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you,"
lest they should think that besides the way of peace their own wrong
views might be revealed to them, he immediately added, "Nevertheless,
whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule."[79]
And Cyprian, walking by this rule, by the most persistent tolerance,
not simply by the shedding of his blood, but because it was shed in
unity (for if he gave his body to be burned, and had not charity, it
would profit him nothing[80]), came by the confession of martyrdom to
the light of the angels, and if not before, at least then, acknowledged
the revelation of the truth on that point on which, while yet in error,
he did not prefer the maintenance of a wrong opinion to the bond of
unity.
* * * * *
CHAP. VI.--7. What then, ye Donatists, what have ye to say to this?
If our opinion about baptism is true, yet all who thought differently
in the time of Cyprian were not cut off from the unity of the Church,
till God revealed to them the truth of the point on which they were in
error, why then have ye by your sacrilegious separation broken the bond
of peace? But if yours is the true opinion about baptism, Cyprian and
the others, in conjunction with whom ye set forth that he held such
a Council, remained in unity with those who thought otherwise; why,
therefore, have ye broken the bond of peace? Choose which alternative
ye will, ye are compelled to pronounce an opinion against your schism.
Answer me, wherefore have ye separated yourselves? Wherefore have ye
erected an altar in opposition to the whole world? Wherefore do ye not
communicate with the Churches to which apostolic epistles have been
sent, which you yourselves read and acknowledge, in accordance with
whose tenor you say that you order your lives? Answer me, wherefore
have ye separated yourselves? I suppose in order that ye might not
perish by communion with wicked men. How then was it that Cyprian, and
so many of his colleagues, did not perish? For though they believed
that heretics and schismatics did not possess baptism, yet they chose
rather to hold communion with them when they had been received into the
Church without baptism, although they believed that their flagrant and
sacrilegious sins were yet upon their heads, than to be separated from
the unity of the Church, according to the words of Cyprian, "Judging no
one, nor depriving any one of the right of communion if he differ from
us."
8. If, therefore, by such communion with the wicked the just cannot
but perish, the Church had already perished in the time of Cyprian.
Whence then sprang the origin of Donatus? where was he taught, where
was he baptized, where was he ordained, since the Church had been
already destroyed by the contagion of communion with the wicked? But
if the Church still existed, the wicked could do no harm to the good
in one communion with them. Wherefore did ye separate yourselves?
Behold, I see in unity Cyprian and others, his colleagues, who, on
holding a council, decided that those who have been baptized without
the communion of the Church have no true baptism, and that therefore it
must be given them when they join the Church. But again, behold I see
in the same unity that certain men think differently in this matter,
and that, recognising in those who come from heretics and schismatics
the baptism of Christ, they do not venture to baptize them afresh. All
of these catholic unity embraces in her motherly breast, bearing each
other's burdens by turns, and endeavouring to keep the unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace,[81] till God should reveal to one or other
of them any error in their views. If the one party held the truth,
were they infected by the others, or no? If the others held the truth,
were they infected by the first, or no? Choose which ye will. If there
was contamination, the Church even then ceased to exist; answer me,
therefore, whence came ye forth hither? But if the Church remained, the
good are in no wise contaminated by the bad in such communion; answer
me, therefore, why did ye break the bond?
9. Or is it perhaps that schismatics, when received without baptism,
bring no infection, but that it is brought by those who deliver up
the sacred books?[82] For that there were _traditors_ of your number
is proved by the clearest testimony of history. And if you had then
brought true evidence against those whom you were accusing, you would
have proved your cause before the unity of the whole world, so that
you would have been retained whilst they were shut out. And if you
endeavoured to do this, and did not succeed, the world is not to blame,
which trusted the judges of the Church rather than the beaten parties
in the suit; whilst, if you would not urge your suit, the world again
is not to blame, which could not condemn men without their cause being
heard. Why, then, did you separate yourselves from the innocent? You
cannot defend the sacrilege of your schism. But this I pass over. But
so much I say, that if the _traditors_ could have defiled you, who
were not convicted by you, and by whom, on the contrary, you were
beaten, much more could the sacrilege of schismatics and heretics,
received into the Church, as you maintain, without baptism, have
defiled Cyprian. Yet he did not separate himself. And inasmuch as the
Church continued to exist, it is clear that it could not be defiled.
Wherefore, then, did you separate yourselves, I do not say from the
innocent, as the facts proved them, but from the _traditors_, as they
were never proved to be? Are the sins of _traditors_, as I began to
say, heavier than those of schismatics? Let us not bring in deceitful
balances, to which we may hang what weights we will, and how we will,
saying to suit ourselves, "This is heavy and this is light;" but let
us bring forward the sacred balance out of holy Scripture, as out
of the Lord's treasure-house, and let us weigh them by it, to see
which is the heavier; or rather, let us not weigh them for ourselves,
but read the weights as declared by the Lord. At the time when the
Lord showed, by the example of recent punishment, that there was
need to guard against the sins of olden days, and an idol was made
and worshipped, and the prophetic book was burned by the wrath of a
scoffing king, and schism was attempted, the idolatry was punished
with the sword,[83] the burning of the book by slaughter in war and
captivity in a foreign land,[84] schism by the earth opening, and
swallowing up alive the leaders of the schism, while the rest were
consumed with fire from heaven.[85] Who will now doubt that that was
the worse crime which received the heavier punishment? If men coming
from such sacrilegious company, without baptism, as you maintain, could
not defile Cyprian, how could those defile you who were not convicted
but supposed betrayers of the sacred books?[86] For if they had not
only given up the books to be burned, but had actually burned them with
their own hands, they would have been guilty of a less sin than if
they had committed schism; for schism is visited with the heavier, the
other with the lighter punishment, not at man's discretion, but by the
judgment of God.
* * * * *
CHAP. VII.--10. Wherefore, then, have ye severed yourselves? If there
is any sense left in you, you must surely see that you can find no
possible answer to these arguments. "We are not left," they say, "so
utterly without resource, but that we can still answer, It is our will.
'Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master
he standeth or falleth.'"[87] They do not understand that this was
said to men who were wishing to judge, not of open facts, but of the
hearts of other men. For how does the apostle himself come to say so
much about the sins of schisms and heresies? Or how comes that verse in
the Psalms, "If of a truth ye love justice, judge uprightly, O ye sons
of men?"[88] But why does the Lord Himself say, "Judge not according
to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment,"[89] if we may not
judge any man? Lastly, why, in the case of those _traditors_, whom they
have judged unrighteously, have they themselves ventured to pass any
judgments at all on another man's servants? To their own master they
were standing or falling. Or why, in the case of the recent followers
of Maximianus, have they not hesitated to bring forward the judgment
delivered with the infallible voice, as they aver, of a general
Council, in such terms as to compare them with those first schismatics
whom the earth swallowed up alive? And yet some of them, as they cannot
deny, they either condemned though innocent, or received back again
in their guilt. But when a truth is urged which they cannot gainsay,
they mutter a truly wholesome murmuring: "It is our will: 'Who art
thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth
or falleth.'" But when a weak sheep is espied in the desert, and the
pastor who should reclaim it to the fold is nowhere to be seen, then
there is setting of teeth, and breaking of the weak neck: "Thou wouldst
be a good man, wert thou not a _traditor_. Consult the welfare of thy
soul; be a Christian." What unconscionable madness! When it is said
to a Christian, "Be a Christian," what other lesson is taught, save a
denial that he is a Christian? Was it not the same lesson which those
persecutors of the Christians wished to teach, by resisting whom the
crown of martyrdom was gained? Or must we even look on crime as lighter
when committed with threatening of the sword than with treachery of the
tongue?
11. Answer me this, ye ravening wolves, who, seeking to be clad in
sheep's clothing,[90] think that the letters of the blessed Cyprian
are in your favour. Did the sacrilege of schismatics defile Cyprian,
or did it not? If it did, the Church perished from that instant, and
there remained no source from which ye might spring. If it did not,
then by what offence on the part of others can the guiltless possibly
be denied, if the sacrilege of schism cannot defile them? Wherefore,
then, have ye severed yourselves? Wherefore, while shunning the
lighter offences, which are inventions of your own, have ye committed
the heaviest offence of all, the sacrilege of schism? Will ye now
perchance confess that those men were no longer schismatics or heretics
who had been baptized without the communion of the Church, or in some
heresy or schism, because by coming over to the Church, and renouncing
their former errors, they had ceased to be what formerly they were? How
then was it, that though they were not baptized, their sins remained
not on their heads? Was it that the baptism was Christ's, but that it
could not profit them without the communion of the Church; yet when
they came over, and, renouncing their past error, were received into
the communion of the Church by the laying on of hands, then, being
now rooted and founded in charity, without which all other things are
profitless, they began to receive profit for the remission of sins and
the sanctification of their lives from that sacrament, which, while
without the pale of the Church, they possessed in vain?
12. Cease, then, to bring forward against us the authority of Cyprian
in favour of repeating baptism, but cling with us to the example of
Cyprian for the preservation of unity. For this question of baptism had
not been as yet completely worked out, but yet the Church observed the
most wholesome custom of correcting what was wrong, not repeating what
was already given, even in the case of schismatics and heretics: she
healed the wounded part, but did not meddle with what was whole. And
this custom, coming, I suppose, from apostolical tradition (like many
other things which are held to have been handed down under their actual
sanction, because they are preserved throughout the whole Church,
though they are not found either in their letters, or in the Councils
of their successors),--this most wholesome custom, I say, according to
the holy Cyprian, began to be what is called amended by his predecessor
Agrippinus. But, according to the teaching which springs from a more
careful investigation into the truth, which, after great doubt and
fluctuation, was brought at last to the decision of a general Council,
we ought to believe that it rather began to be corrupted than to
receive correction at the hands of Agrippinus. Accordingly, when so
great a question forced itself upon him, and it was difficult to decide
the point, whether remission of sins and man's spiritual regeneration
could take place among heretics or schismatics, and the authority of
Agrippinus was there to guide him, with that of some few men who shared
in his misapprehension of this question, having preferred attempting
something new to maintaining a custom which they did not understand how
to defend; under these circumstances, considerations of probability
forced themselves into the eyes of his soul, and barred the way to the
thorough investigation of the truth.
* * * * *
CHAP. VIII.--13. Nor do I think that the blessed Cyprian had any
other motive in the free expression and earlier utterance of what he
thought in opposition to the custom of the Church, save that he should
thankfully receive any one that could be found with a fuller revelation
of the truth, and that he should show forth a pattern for imitation,
not only of diligence in teaching, but also of modesty in learning;
but that, if no one should be found to bring forward any argument by
which those considerations of probability should be refuted, then he
should abide by his opinion, with the full consciousness that he had
neither concealed what he conceived to be the truth, nor violated the
unity which he loved. For so he understood the words of the apostle:
"Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If
anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his
peace."[91] "In which passage he has taught and shown, that many things
are revealed to individuals for the better, and that we ought not each
to strive pertinaciously for what he has once imbibed and held, but
if anything has appeared better and more useful, he should willingly
embrace it."[92] At any rate, in these words he not only advised those
to agree with him who saw no better course, but also exhorted any
who could to bring forward arguments by which the maintenance of the
former custom might rather be established; that if they should be of
such a nature as not to admit of refutation, he might show in his own
person with what sincerity he said "that we ought not each to strive
pertinaciously for what he has once imbibed and held, but that, if
anything has appeared better and more useful, he should willingly
embrace it."[92] But inasmuch as none appeared, except such as simply
urged the custom against him, and the arguments which they produced in
its favour were not of a kind to bring conviction to a soul like his,
this mighty reasoner was not content to give up his opinions, which,
though they were not true, as he was himself unable to see, were at
any rate not confuted, in favour of a custom which had truth on its
side, but had not yet been confirmed. And yet, had not his predecessor
Agrippinus, and some of his fellow-bishops throughout Africa, first
tempted him to desert this custom, even by the decision of a Council,
he certainly would not have dared to argue against it. But, amid the
perplexities of so obscure a question, and seeing everywhere around
him a strong universal custom, he would rather have put restraint upon
himself by prayer and stretching forth his mind towards God, so as to
have perceived or taught that for truth which was afterwards decided by
a general Council. But when he had found relief amid his weariness in
the authority of the former Council[93] which was held by Agrippinus,
he preferred maintaining what was in a manner the discovery of his
predecessors, to expending further toil in investigation. For, at the
end of his letter to Quintus, he thus shows how he has sought repose,
if one may use the expression, for his weariness, in what might be
termed the resting-place of authority.[94]
* * * * *
CHAP. IX.--14. "This moreover," says he, "Agrippinus, a man of
excellent memory, with the rest, bishops with him, who at that time
governed the Church of the Lord in the province of Africa and Numidia,
did, when by common counsel duly weighed, establish and confirm;
whose sentence, being both religious and legitimate and salutary
in accordance with the Catholic faith and Church, we also have
followed."[95] By this witness he gives sufficient proof how much more
ready he would have been to bear his testimony, had any Council been
held to discuss this matter which either embraced the whole Church, or
at least represented our brethren beyond the sea. But such a Council
had not yet been held, because the whole world was bound together by
the powerful bond of custom; and this was deemed sufficient to oppose
to those who wished to introduce what was new, because they could
not comprehend the truth. Afterwards, however, while the question
became matter for discussion and investigation amongst many on either
side, the new practice was not only invented, but even submitted to
the authority and power of a general Council,--after the martyrdom
of Cyprian, it is true, but before we were born.[96] But that this
was indeed the custom of the Church, which afterwards was confirmed
by a general Council, in which the truth was brought to light, and
many difficulties cleared away, is plain enough from the words of the
blessed Cyprian himself in that same letter to Jubaianus, which was
quoted as being read in the Council.[97] For he says, "But some one
asks, What then will be done in the case of those who, coming out of
heresy to the Church, have already been admitted without baptism?"
where certainly he shows plainly enough what was usually done, though
he would have wished it otherwise; and in the very fact of his quoting
the Council of Agrippinus, he clearly proves that the custom of the
Church was different. Nor indeed was it requisite that he should seek
to establish the practice by this Council, if it was already sanctioned
by custom; and in the Council itself some of the speakers expressly
declare, in giving their opinion, that they went against the custom
of the Church in deciding what they thought was right. Wherefore let
the Donatists consider this one point, which surely none can fail to
see, that if the authority of Cyprian is to be followed, it is to be
followed rather in maintaining unity than in altering the custom of
the Church; but if respect is paid to his Council, it must at any rate
yield place to the later Council of the universal Church, of which he
rejoiced to be a member, often warning his associates that they should
all follow his example in upholding the coherence of the whole body.
For both later Councils are preferred among later generations to those
of earlier date; and the whole is always, with good reason, looked upon
as superior to the parts.
* * * * *
CHAP. X.--15. But what attitude do they assume, when it is shown
that the holy Cyprian, though he did not himself admit as members of
the Church those who had been baptized in heresy or schism, yet held
communion with those who did admit them, according to his express
declaration, "Judging no one, nor depriving any one of the right of
communion if he differ from us?"[98] If he was polluted by communion
with persons of this kind, why do they follow his authority in the
question of baptism? But if he was not polluted by communion with
them, why do they not follow his example in maintaining unity? Have
they anything to urge in their defence except the plea, "We choose
to have it so?" What other answer have any sinful or wicked men to
the discourse of truth or justice,--the voluptuous, for instance, the
drunkards, adulterers, and those who are impure in any way, thieves,
robbers, murderers, plunderers, evil-doers, idolaters,--what other
answer can they make when convicted by the voice of truth, except "I
choose to do it;" "It is my pleasure so?" And if they have in them a
tinge of Christianity, they say further, "Who art thou that judgest
another man's servant?"[99] Yet these have so much more remains of
modesty, that when, in accordance with divine and human law, they
meet with punishment for their abandoned life and deeds, they do not
style themselves martyrs; while the Donatists wish at once to lead
a sacrilegious life and enjoy a blameless reputation, to suffer
no punishment for their wicked deeds, and to gain a martyr's glory
in their just punishment. As if they were not experiencing the
greater mercy and patience of God, in proportion as "executing His
judgments upon them by little and little, He giveth them place of
repentance,"[100] and ceases not to redouble His scourgings in this
life; that, considering what they suffer, and why they suffer it, they
may in time grow wise; and that those who have received the baptism of
the party of Maximianus in order to preserve the unity of Donatus, may
the more readily embrace the baptism of the whole world in order to
preserve the peace of Christ; that they may be restored to the root,
may be reconciled to the unity of the Church, may see that they have
nothing left for them to say, though something yet remains for them to
do; that for their former deeds the sacrifice of loving-kindness may be
offered to a long-suffering God, whose unity they have broken by their
wicked sin, on whose sacraments they have inflicted such a lasting
wrong. For "the Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, plenteous
in mercy and truth."[101] Let them embrace His mercy and long-suffering
in this life, and fear His truth in the next. For He willeth not the
death of a sinner, but rather that he should turn from his way and
live;[102] because He bends His judgment against the wrongs that have
been inflicted on Him. This is our exhortation.
* * * * *
CHAP. XI.--16. For this reason, then, we hold them to be enemies,
because we speak the truth, because we are afraid to be silent,
because we fear to shrink from pressing our point with all the force
that lies within our power, because we obey the apostle when he says,
"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke,
exhort."[103] But, as the gospel says, "They love the praise of men
more than the praise of God;"[104] and while they fear to incur blame
for a time, they do not fear to incur damnation for ever. They see,
too, themselves what wrong they are doing; they see that they have no
answer which they can make, but they overspread the inexperienced with
mists, whilst they themselves are being swallowed up alive,--that is,
are perishing knowingly and wilfully. They see that men are amazed, and
look with abhorrence on the fact that they have divided themselves into
many schisms, especially in Carthage,[105] the capital and most noted
city of all Africa; they have endeavoured to patch up the disgrace
of their rags. Thinking that they could annihilate the followers of
Maximianus, they pressed heavily on them through the agency of Optatus
the Gildonian;[106] they inflicted on them many wrongs amid the
cruellest of persecutions. Then they received back some, thinking that
all could be converted under the influence of the same terror; but they
were unwilling to do those whom they received the wrong of baptizing
afresh those who had been baptized by them in their schism, or rather
of causing them to be baptized again within their communion by the very
same men by whom they had been baptized outside, and thus they at once
made an exception to their own impious custom. They feel how wickedly
they are acting in assailing the baptism of the whole world, when they
have received the baptism of the followers of Maximianus. But they fear
those whom they have themselves rebaptized, lest they should receive no
mercy from them, when they have shown it to others; lest these should
call them to account for their souls when they have ceased to destroy
those of other men.
* * * * *
CHAP. XII.--17. What answer they can give about the followers of
Maximianus whom they have received, they cannot divine. If they say,
"Those we received were innocent," the answer is obvious, "Then you
had condemned the innocent." If they say, "We did it in ignorance,"
then you judged rashly (just as you passed a rash judgment on the
_traditors_), and your declaration was false that "you must know that
they were condemned by the truthful voice of a general Council."[107]
For indeed the innocent could never be condemned by a voice of truth.
If they say, "We did not condemn them," it is only necessary to cite
the Council, to cite the names of bishops and states alike. If they
say, "The Council itself is none of ours," then we cite the records
of the proconsular province, where more than once they quoted the
same Council to justify the exclusion of the followers of Maximianus
from the basilicas, and to confound them by the din of the judges and
the force of their allies. If they say that Felicianus of Musti, and
Prætextatus of Assavæ, whom they afterwards received, were not of the
party of Maximianus, then we cite the records in which they demanded,
in the courts of law, that these persons should be excluded from the
Council which they held against the party of Maximianus. If they say,
"They were received for the sake of peace," our answer is, "Why then
do ye not acknowledge the only true and full peace? Who urged you,
who compelled you to receive a schismatic whom you had condemned, to
preserve the peace of Donatus, and to condemn the world unheard, in
violation of the peace of Christ?" Truth hems them in on every side.
They see that there is no answer left for them to make, and they think
that there is nothing left for them to do; they cannot find out what
to say. They are not allowed to be silent. They had rather strive
with perverse utterance against truth, than be restored to peace by a
confession of their faults.
* * * * *
CHAP. XIII.--18. But who can fail to understand what they may be saying
in their hearts? "What then are we to do," say they, "with those whom
we have already rebaptized?" Return with them to the Church. Bring
those whom you have wounded to be healed by the medicine of peace;
bring those whom you have slain to be brought to life again by the life
of charity. Brotherly union has great power in propitiating God. "If
two of you," says our Lord, "shall agree on earth as touching anything
that they shall ask, it shall be done for them."[108] If for two men
who agree, how much more for two communities? Let us throw ourselves
together on our knees before the Lord. Do you share with us our unity;
let us share with you your contrition; and let charity cover the
multitude of sins.[109] Seek counsel from the blessed Cyprian himself.
See how much he considered to depend upon the blessing of unity, from
which he did not sever himself to avoid the communion of those who
disagreed with him; how, though he considered that those who were
baptized outside the communion of the Church had no true baptism, he
was yet willing to believe that, by simple admission into the Church,
they might, merely in virtue of the bond of unity, be admitted to a
share in pardon. For thus he solved the question which he proposed to
himself in writing as follows to Jubaianus: "But some will say, 'What
then will become of those who, in times past, coming to the Church from
heresy, were admitted without baptism?' The Lord is able of His mercy
to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those
who, being out of simplicity admitted to the Church, have in the Church
fallen asleep."[110]
* * * * *
CHAP. XIV.--19. But which is the worse, not to be baptized at all,
or to be twice baptized, it is difficult to decide. I see, indeed,
which is more repugnant and abhorrent to men's feelings; but when I
have recourse to that divine balance, in which the weight of things
is determined, not by man's feelings, but by the authority of God, I
find a statement by our Lord on either side. For He said to Peter,
"He who is washed has no need of washing a second time;"[111] and to
Nicodemus, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God."[112] What is the purport of the more
secret determination of God, it is perhaps difficult for men like us to
learn; but as far as the mere words are concerned, any one may see what
a difference there is between "has no need of washing," and "cannot
enter into the kingdom of heaven." The Church, lastly, herself holds as
her tradition, that without baptism she cannot admit a man to her altar
at all; but since it is allowed that one who has been rebaptized may
be admitted after penance, surely this plainly proves that his baptism
is considered valid. If, therefore, Cyprian thought that those whom he
considered to be unbaptized yet had some share in pardon, in virtue
of the bond of unity, the Lord has power to be reconciled even to the
rebaptized by means of the simple bond of unity and peace, and by this
same compensating power of peace to mitigate His displeasure against
those by whom they were rebaptized, and to pardon all the errors which
they had committed while in error, on their offering the sacrifice of
charity, which covereth the multitude of sins; so that He looks not
to the number of those who have been wounded by their separation, but
to the greater number who have been delivered from bondage by their
return. For in the same bond of peace in which Cyprian conceived
that, through the mercy of God, those whom he considered to have been
admitted to the Church without baptism, were yet not severed from the
gifts of the Church, we also believe that through the same mercy of God
the rebaptized can earn their pardon at His hands.
* * * * *
CHAP. XV.--20. Since the Catholic Church, both in the time of the
blessed Cyprian and in the older time before him, contained within her
bosom either some that were rebaptized or some that were unbaptized,
either the one section or the other must have won their salvation only
by the force of simple unity. For if those who came over from the
heretics were not baptized, as Cyprian asserts, they were not rightly
admitted into the Church; and yet he himself did not despair of their
obtaining pardon from the mercy of God in virtue of the unity of the
Church. So again, if they were already baptized, it was not right to
rebaptize them. What, therefore, was there to aid the other section,
save the same charity that delighted in unity, so that what was hidden
from man's weakness, in the consideration of the sacrament, might not
be reckoned, by the mercy of God, as a fault in those who were lovers
of peace? Why, then, while ye fear those whom ye have rebaptized,
do ye grudge yourselves and them the entrance to salvation? There
was at one time a doubt upon the subject of baptism; those who held
different opinions yet remained in unity. In course of time, owing to
the certain discovery of the truth, that doubt was taken away. The
question which, unsolved, did not frighten Cyprian into separation
from the Church, invites you, now that it is solved, to return once
more within the fold. Come to the Catholic Church in its agreement,
which Cyprian did not desert while yet disturbed with doubt; or if now
you are dissatisfied with the example of Cyprian, who held communion
with those who were received with the baptism of heretics, declaring
openly that we should "neither judge any one, nor deprive any one of
the right of communion if he differ from us,"[113] whither are ye
going, ye wretched men? What are ye doing? You are bound to fly even
from yourselves, because you have advanced beyond the position where
he abode. But if neither his own sins nor those of others could stand
in his way, on account of the abundance of his charity and his love of
brotherly kindness and the bond of peace, do you return to us, where
you will find much less hindrance in the way of either us or you from
the fictions which your party have invented.
FOOTNOTES:
[63] Præfocantur.
[64] The Council of Carthage, September 1, A.D. 256, in which
eighty-seven African bishops declared in favour of rebaptizing
heretics. The opinions of the bishops are quoted and answered by
Augustine, one by one, in Books vi. and vii.
[65] Matt. xvi. 18.
[66] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxi.
[67] Gal. i. 20.
[68] Gal. ii. 14.
[69] Luke xxiii. 40-43.
[70] Matt. xxvi. 69-75.
[71] That is, the proconsular province of Africa, or Africa Zeugitana,
answering to the northern part of the territory of Tunis.
[72] See above, c. i. 2.
[73] Bede asserts that this was the case, Book viii. qu. 5.
[74] See above, c. ii. 3.
[75] Matt. xxii. 30.
[76] 1 Cor. x. 13.
[77] Phil. iii. 15.
[78] Rom. iii. 17; see on i. 19, 29.
[79] Phil. iii. 16.
[80] 1 Cor. xiii. 3.
[81] Eph. iv. 3.
[82] Traditores sanctorum librorum.
[83] Ex. xxxii.
[84] Jer. xxxvi.
[85] Num. xvi.
[86] Non convicti sed conficti traditores.
[87] Rom. xiv. 4.
[88] Ps. lviii. 1; though slightly varied from the LXX.: si vere
justitiam diligitis; for [Greek: ei alêthôs ara dikaiosynên laleite]
[89] John vii. 24.
[90] Matt. vii. 15.
[91] 1 Cor. xiv. 29, 30.
[92] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxi.
[93] The former Council of Carthage was held by Agrippinus early in the
third century, the ordinary date given being 215 A.D.
[94] Tanquam lectulo auctoritatis.
[95] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxi.
[96] The general Council, on whose authority Augustine relies in many
places in this work, was either that of Arles, in 314 A.D., or of
Nicæa, in 325 A.D., both of them being before his birth, in 354 A.D.
He quotes the decision of the same council, _contra Parmenianum_,
ii. 13, 30; _de Hoeresibus_, 69; _Ep._ xliii. 7, 19. Migne brings
forward the following passages in favour of its being the Council of
Arles to which Augustine refers, since in them he ascribes the decision
of the controversy to "the authority of the whole world." _Contra
Parmenianum_, iii. 4, 21: "They condemned," he says, "some few in
Africa, by whom they were in turn vanquished by the judgment of the
whole world;" and he adds, that "the Catholics trusted ecclesiastical
judges like these in preference to the defeated parties in the suit."
_Ib._ 6, 30: He says that the Donatists, "having made a schism in the
unity of the Church, were refuted, not by the authority of 310 African
bishops, but by that of the whole world." And in the sixth chapter
of the first book of the same treatise, he says that the Donatists,
after the decision at Arles, came again to Constantine, and there were
defeated "by a final decision," _i.e._ at Milan, as is seen from _Ep._
xliii. 7, 20, in the year 316 A.D.
[97] See above, ch. ii. 3.
[98] See above, ch. ii. 3.
[99] Rom. xiv. 4.
[100] Wisd. xii. 10.
[101] Ps. ciii. 8. "And truth" is not found in the A. V., nor in
the Roman version of the LXX. The Alexandrian MS. adds [Greek: kai
alêtheinos].
[102] Ezek. xxiii. 11.
[103] 2 Tim. iv. 2.
[104] John xii. 43.
[105] He is alluding to that chief schism among the Donatists, which
occurred when Maximianus was consecrated bishop of Carthage, in
opposition to Primianus, 394 A.D.
[106] Optatus, a Donatist bishop of Thaumugade in Numidia, was
called Gildonianus from his adherence to Gildo, Count of Africa, and
generalissimo of the province under the elder Theodosius. On his death,
in 395 A.D., Gildo usurped supreme authority, and by his aid Optatus
was enabled to oppress the Catholics in the province, till, in 398
A.D., Gildo was defeated by his brother Maxezel, and destroyed himself,
and Optatus was put in prison, where he died soon afterwards. He is
not to be confounded with Optatus, Bishop of Milevis, the strenuous
opponent of the Donatists.
[107] The Council of Bagai. See above, I. v. 7.
[108] Matt. xviii. 19.
[109] 1 Pet. iv. 8.
[110] Cypr. _Ep._ lxxiii. to Jubaianus.
[111] John xiii. 10. "Qui lotus est, non habet necessitatem iterum
lavandi." The Latin, with the A.V., loses the distinction between
[Greek: ho leloumenos], "he that has _bathed_," and [Greek: niptein],
to _wash_; and further introduces the idea of repetition.
[112] John iii. 5.
[113] See above, c. ii. 3.
BOOK THIRD.
AUGUSTINE UNDERTAKES THE REFUTATION OF THE ARGUMENTS WHICH MIGHT BE
DERIVED FROM THE EPISTLE OF CYPRIAN TO JUBAIANUS, TO GIVE COLOUR TO
THE VIEW THAT THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST COULD NOT BE CONFERRED BY HERETICS.