[863] Acts xxii. 25.
[864] Ex. xx. 13-17.
[865] Matt. xxi. 43.
[866] Matt. v. 19, 20.
[867] Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.
[868] 1 Cor. vi. 18.
[869] Matt. xii. 31, 32.
[870] Acts. i. 8.
[871] The older editions have, "Quam multum et quantum luctum dederint
Deo (Erasmus alone _ideo_) laudes amatorum vestrorum:" "How much
and how great grief have the praises of your lovers caused to God?"
Migne restored the reading translated above ("Quam multis ... _Deo
laudes_ armatorum vestrorum"), _Deo laudes_ being the cry of the
Circumcelliones. Cp. Aug. in Ps. cxxxii. 6: "A quibus plus timetur _Deo
laudes_ quam fremitus leonis;" and _ib._: "_Deo laudes_ vestrum plorant
homines."
[872] Gen. xxii. 18.
[873] Ps. cxli. 5, from the LXX.
[874] Matt. v. 3-9.
[875] Luke xxiv. 36, 45-47.
[876] Matt. xxii. 39.
[877] Eph. v. 29.
[878] Gal. v. 17.
[879] 2 Tim. iv. 2.
[880] Eph. iv. 1-3.
[881] See Jer. viii. 11.
[882] Ps. xlvi. 9.
[883] Dan. ii. 35.
[884] Eph. ii. 14.
[885] Matt. v. 10.
[886] Matt. xxiii. 13, 15, 23, 24, 27, 28.
[887] Matt. x. 16.
[888] John x. 27.
[889] Luke xxiv. 39, 46, 47.
[890] Matt. vii. 15, 16.
[891] 1 Cor. xi. 19.
[892] John xiii. 34, 35.
[893] 2 Cor. xi. 26.
[894] 1 Cor. xi. 1.
[895] Phil. ii. 20, 21.
[896] 2 Cor. vii. 5.
[897] 1 Cor. xiii. 1-8.
[898] Eph. iv. 2, 3.
[899] Matt. xiii. 38, 39, 30.
[900] Gal. i. 8.
[901] Ps. ci. 5.
[902] Luke ix. 49, 50.
[903] Phil. i. 15-18.
[904] 1 Cor. xiii. 6.
[905] See below, xciv. 217, and _c. Gaudentium_, I. xxv. 28 sqq.
[906] Rom. xiii. 4.
[907] Augustine speaks of the Moor Rogatus, bishop of Cartenna in
Mauritania Cæsariensis, in his ninety-third epistle, to Vincentius,
c. iii. 11. We learn from the eighty-seventh epistle, to Emeritus,
sec. 10, that the followers of Rogatus called the other Donatists
_Firmiani_, because they had been subjected to much cruelty at their
hands under the authority of Firmus.
[908] Optatus of Thaumugade, the friend of Gildo.
[909] Augustine mentions again in his thirty-fifth epistle, to
Eusebius, sec. 3, that Hippo had received the Roman citizenship. His
argument is that, even if not a native of the place, the deacon should
have been safe from molestation wherever Roman laws prevailed.
[910] Emphyteuticam. The land, therefore, was held under the emperors,
and less absolutely in the power of the owner than if it had been
freehold.
[911] Augustine remonstrates with Crispinus on the point, _Epist._ lxvi.
[913] See Ecclus. xv. 16, 17.
[914] Matt. v. 10; 1 Pet. ii. 20.
[915] Acts v. 29.
[916] Prov. xiv. 28.
[917] Luke xxiv. 46, 47.
[918] Acts i. 8.
[919] Ex. xxxii. 28, 31.
[920] Mal. i. 11.
[921] Ps. cxiii. 3.
[922] Ps. l. 14.
[923] 1 John iii. 15.
[924] Matt. iv. 6, 7.
[925] John xviii. 10, 11; Matt. xxvi. 52.
[926] Ps. cxx. 6, 7.
[927] See _Contr. Cresc._ l. III. c. lxvii., l. IV. cc. lx. lxi.
[928] John xii. 24.
[929] Veracissime. Another reading is "feracissime," "most abundantly."
[930] Matt. v. 39.
[931] 2 Cor. xi. 20, 23.
[932] Deut. xix. 21.
[933] 2 Mac. vii.
[934] Dan. iii.
[935] Matt. ii. 16.
[936] Dan. vi.
[937] Matt. xxvii. 26.
[938] 1 Cor. ii. 6-8.
[939] John xvi. 2.
[940] 1 Kings xxi.
[941] Matt. xiv. 8, 9.
[942] Matt. xxvii. 24-26.
[943] Ps. ii.
[944] Matt. xxvii. 24.
[945] Some editions have Varius in the place of Geta, referring to
Aurelius Antoninus Heliogabalus, of whom Lampridius asserts that he
derived the name of Varius from the doubtfulness of his parentage. The
MSS. agree, however, in the reading "Getano," which was a name of the
second son of Severus, the brother of Caracalla.
[946] Optatus defends the cause of Macarius at great length in his
third book against Parmenianus. Of Ursacius he says in the same place:
"You are offended at the times of a certain Leontius, of Ursacius,
Macarius, and others." And Augustine, in his third book against
Cresconius, c. xx., introduces an objection of the Donatists against
himself: "But so soon as Silvanus, bishop of Cirta, had refused to
communicate with Ursacius and Zenophilus the persecutors, he was
driven into exile," Usuardus, deceived by a false story made up by
the Donatists, enters in his Martyrology that a pseudo-martyr Donatus
suffered on the 1st of March, under Ursacius and Marcellinus, to this
effect: "On the same day of the holy martyr Donatus, who suffered under
Ursacius the judge and the tribune Marcellinus."
[947] 1 Kings xxi.
[948] Prov. xviii. 21.
[949] Constitutio quam impetraverunt. Some editions have "quam dederunt
Constantio;" but there is no place for Constantius in this history of
the Donatists, nor was any boon either sought or obtained from him in
their name. The Louvain editors therefore restored "constitutio," which
is the common reading of the MSS.
[950] Matt. vii. 3.
[951] Gen. xx.
[952] Gen. xxvi. 11.
[953] Gen. xlvii.
[954] Gen. xxxix., xli.
[955] Gen. xlii. 15.
[956] Ex. ii. 10.
[957] 1 Sam. xxvii.
[958] 1 Kings xviii. 44-46.
[959] 2 Kings iv. 13.
[960] Dan. iii.-vi.
[961] John xvi. 2.
[962] Phil. iii. 5, 6.
[963] Acts xxiii. 12-33.
[964] The reign of Constantine lasted about thirty-two years, from 306
to 337 A.D. Julian died, after an independent reign, subsequent to the
death of Constantius, of only one year and seven months, at the age of
thirty, in a war against the Persians, in 363 A.D.
[965] Gen. ix. 5.
[966] Ps. ii. 10-12.
[967] Ps. ii. 7, 8.
[968] Isa. ii. 18; Zech. xiii. 2.
[969] Simulacri; and so the MSS. The older editions have "adorandi
simulacra;" but the singular is more forcible in its special reference
to the image on the plain of Dura. Dan. iii.
[970] Dan. ii.-vi.
[971] This is illustrated by the words of Augustine, _Epist. 105, ad
Donatistas_, sec. 7: "Do ye not know that the words of the king were,
'I thought it good to show the signs and wonders that the high God
hath wrought toward me. How great are His signs! and how mighty are
His wonders! His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and His dominion
from generation to generation' (Dan. iv. 2, 3)? Do you not, when you
hear this, answer _Amen_, and by saying this in a loud voice, place
your seal on the king's decree by a holy and solemn act?" In the Gothic
liturgy this declaration was made on Easter Eve (when the third chapter
of Daniel is still read in the Roman Church), and the people answered
"_Amen_."
[972] Nam nemo vivit invitus; et tamen puer ut hoc volens discat,
invitus vapulat. Perhaps a better reading is, "Nam nemo _vult_ invitus;
et tamen puer ut volens discat," etc., leaving out "hoc," which is
wanting in the Fleury MSS.: "No one wishes against his will; and yet a
boy, wishing to learn, is beaten against his will."
[973] Gal. vi. 5.
[974] Luke xxiv. 47.
[975] Ps. cxviii. 8, 9.
[976] Acts xxiii. 12-33.
[977] Acts i. 8.
[978] Matt. xvi. 26.
[979] 1 Pet. ii. 20.
[980] Matt. v. 3.
[981] 2 Cor. vi. 10.
[982] Matt. xvi. 25.
[983] Matt. xix. 29.
[984] 1 Cor. xiii. 3.
[985] Acts i. 8.
[986] See above, c. lxxxiii.
[987] Matt. x. 28.
[988] Ps. lvii. 4.
[989] Job xiv., according to the LXX.
[990] Ps. li. 7.
[991] Ps. cxviii. 8, 9.
[992] Jer. xvii. 5.
[993] Matt. xxiii. 25.
[994] Jer. xv. 15-18, according to the LXX.
[995] 2 Cor. vii. 5.
[996] 2 Cor. xi. 29.
[997] Rev. xvii. 15.
[998] Acts viii. 13.
[999] Col. i. 23.
[1000] Ps. xciii. 1.
[1001] Gildo.
[1002] Ps. cxli. 5, from the LXX.
[1003] Prov. xxvii. 6, from the LXX.
[1004] Ps. cxxxiii.
[1005] Compare _Tract. 15 in Joannem_, n. 27: "Messiah was anointed.
The Greek for 'anointed' is 'Christ,' the Hebrew, Messiah; whence also
in Phoenician we have 'Messe' for 'anoint.' For these languages,
the Hebrew, Phoenician, and Syrian, are closely cognate, as well
as geographically bordering on each other." See also Max Müller's
_Lectures on the Science of Language_, series I. p. 267: "The ancient
language of Phoenicia, to judge from inscriptions, was most closely
allied to Hebrew."
[1006] Col. i. 18.
[1007] Matt. xix. 21.
[1008] Acts iv. 32-35.
[1009] Luke xxiv. 47.
[1010] Gal. v. 19-21.
[1011] Apparently misquoted from 1 Sam. ii. 25.
[1012] Col. iv. 2-4.
[1013] 1 John i. 8.
[1014] Dan. vi. 16.
[1015] Ezek. xiv. 14.
[1016] Dan. ix. 20.
[1017] Lev. xvi.; Heb. ix. 7.
[1018] Acts xiv. 22.
[1019] 1 John ii. 1, 2.
[1020] 1 Tim. iv. 14.
[1021] 1 Tim. v. 22.
[1022] See Rom. i. 32.
[1023] Gal. v. 19-21.
[1024] Matt. xvi. 18.
[1025] Matt. vii. 26.
[1026] Ps. lxi. 2, 3.
[1027] That the Donatists were called at Rome _Montenses_, is observed
by Augustine, _de Hoeresibus_, c. xxix., and _Epist._ liii. 2;
and before him by Optatus, Book II. That they were also called
_Cutzupitani_, or _Cutzupitæ_, we learn from the same epistle, and from
his treatise de _Unitate Ecclesæ_, c. iii.
[1028] Lucilla.
BOOK THIRD.
IN THIS BOOK AUGUSTINE REFUTES THE SECOND LETTER[1029] 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.
CHAP. I.--1. Being able to read, Petilianus, I have read your letter,
in which you have shown with sufficient clearness that, in supporting
the party of Donatus against the Catholic Church, you have neither been
able to say anything to the purpose, nor been allowed to hold your
tongue. What violent emotions did you endure, what a storm of feelings
surged within your heart, on reading the answer which I made, with
all possible brevity and clearness, to that portion of your letter
which alone at that time had come into my hands! For you saw that the
truth which we maintain and defend was confirmed with such strength
of argument, and illustrated with such abundant light, that you could
not find anything which could be said against it, whereby the charges
which we make might be refuted. You observed, also, that the attention
of many who had read it was fixed on you, since they desired to know
what you would say, what you would do, how you would escape from the
difficulty, how you would make your way out of the strait in which the
word of God had encompassed you. Hereupon you, when you ought to have
shown contempt for the opinion of the foolish ones, and to have gone
on to adopt sound and truthful sentiments, preferred rather to do what
Scripture has foretold of men like you: "Thou hast loved evil more than
good, and lying rather than to speak righteousness."[1030] Just as if
I in turn were willing to recompense unto you railing for railing; in
which case, what should we be but two evil speakers, so that those who
read our words would either preserve their self-respect by throwing us
aside with abhorrence, or eagerly devour what we wrote to gratify their
malice? For my own part, since I answer every one, whether in writing
or by word of mouth, even when I have been attacked with insulting
accusations, in such language as the Lord puts in my mouth, restraining
and crushing the stings of empty indignation in the interests of my
hearer or reader, I do not strive to prove myself superior to my
adversary by abusing him, but rather to be a source of health in him by
convicting him of his error.
2. For if those who take into consideration what you have written have
any feelings whatsoever, how did it serve you in the cause which is at
issue between us respecting the Catholic communion and the party of
Donatus, that, leaving a matter which was in a certain sense of public
interest, you should have been led by private animosity to attack the
life of an individual with malicious revilings, just as though that
individual were the question in debate? Did you think so badly, I do
not say of Christians, but of the whole human race, as not to suppose
that your writings might come into the hands of some prudent men,
who would lay aside all thoughts of individuals like us, and inquire
rather into the question which was at issue between us, and pay heed,
not to who and what we were, but to what we might be able to advance
in defence of the truth or against error? You should have paid respect
to these men's judgment, you should have guarded yourself against
their censure, lest they should think that you could find nothing to
say, unless you set before yourself some one whom you might abuse by
any means within your power. But one may see by the thoughtlessness
and foolishness of some men, who listen eagerly to the quarrels of
any learned disputants, that while they take notice of the eloquence
wherewith you lavish your abuse, they do not perceive with what truth
you are refuted. At the same time, I think your object partly was
that I might be driven, by the necessity of defending myself, to
desert the very cause which I had undertaken; and that so, while men's
attention was turned to the words of opponents who were engaged not in
disputation, but in quarrelling, the truth might be obscured, which
you are so afraid should come to light and be well known among men.
What therefore was I to do in opposing such a design as this, except to
keep strictly to my subject, neglecting rather my own defence, praying
withal that no personal calumny may lead me to withdraw from it? I will
exalt the house of my God, whose honour I have loved, with the tribute
of a faithful servant's voice, but myself I will humiliate and hold of
no account. "I had rather be a door-keeper in the house of my God, than
to dwell in the tents of unrighteousness."[1031] I will therefore turn
my discourse from you, Petilianus, for a time, and direct it rather to
those whom you have endeavoured to turn away from me by your revilings,
as though my endeavour rather were that men should be converted unto
me, and not rather with me unto God.
* * * * *
CHAP. II.--3. Hear therefore, all ye who have read his revilings, what
Petilianus has vented against me with more anger than consideration.
To begin with, I will address you in the words of the apostle, which
certainly are true, whatever I myself may be: "Let a man so account of
us as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
Moreover, it is required of stewards, that a man be found faithful.
But with me it is a very small matter that I should be judged of you,
or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self." With regard
to what immediately follows, although I do not venture to apply to
myself the words, "For I am conscious of nothing in myself,"[1032] yet
I say confidently in the sight of God, that I am conscious in myself
of none of those charges which Petilianus has brought against my life
since the time when I was baptized in Christ; "yet am I not hereby
justified: but He that judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing
before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the
hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the
hearts; and then shall every man have praise of God. And these things,
brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself; that ye might learn
in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of
you be puffed up for one against another."[1033] "Therefore let no
man glory in men: for all things are yours; and ye are Christ's; and
Christ is God's."[1034] Again I say, "Let no man glory in men;" nay,
oftentimes I repeat it, "Let no man glory in men." If you perceive
anything in us which is deserving of praise, refer it all to His
praise, from whom is every good gift and every perfect gift; for it
is "from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom
is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."[1035] For what have
we which we did not receive? and if we have received it, let us not
boast as though we had not received it.[1036] And in all these things
which you know to be good in us, be ye our followers, at any rate, if
we are Christ's;[1037] but if, on the other hand, you either suspect,
or believe, or see that any evil is in us, hold fast to that saying of
the Lord's, in which you may safely resolve not to desert His Church
because of men's ill deeds: Whatsoever we bid you observe, that observe
and do; but whatsoever evil works you think or know to be in us, those
do ye not.[1038] For this is not the time for me to justify myself
before you, when I have undertaken, neglecting all considerations of
self, to recommend to you what is for your salvation, that no one
should make his boast of men. For "cursed be the man that trusteth in
man."[1039] So long as this precept of the Lord and His apostle be
adhered to and observed, the cause which I serve will be victorious,
even if I myself, as my enemy would fain have thought, am faint and
oppressed in my own cause. For if you cling most firmly to what I
urge on you with all my might, that every one is cursed who places
his trust in man, so that none should make his boast of man, then you
will in no wise desert the threshing-floor of the Lord on account of
the chaff which either is now being dispersed beneath the blast of the
wind of pride, or will be separated by the final winnowing;[1040]
nor will you fly from the great house on account of the vessels made
to dishonour;[1041] nor will you quit the net through the breaches
made in it because of the bad fish which are to be separated on the
shore;[1042] nor will you leave the good pastures of unity, because of
the goats which are to be placed on the left when the Good Shepherd
shall divide the flock;[1043] nor will you separate yourselves by
an impious secession, because of the mixture of the tares, from the
society of that good wheat, whose source is that grain that dies and is
multiplied thereby, and that grows together throughout the world until
the harvest. For the field is the world,--not only Africa; and the
harvest is the end of the world,[1044]--not the era of Donatus.
* * * * *
CHAP. III.--4. These comparisons of the gospel you doubtless recognise.
Nor can we suppose them given for any other purpose, except that no
one should make his boast in man, and that no one should be puffed up
for one against another, or divided one against another, saying, "I am
of Paul," when certainly Paul was not crucified for you, nor were you
baptized in the name of Paul, much less in that of Cæcilianus, or of
any one of us,[1045] that you may learn, that so long as the chaff is
being bruised with the corn, so long as the bad fishes swim together
with the good in the nets of the Lord, till the time of separation
shall come, it is your duty rather to endure the admixture of the bad
out of consideration for the good, than to violate the principle of
brotherly love towards the good from any consideration of the bad.
For this admixture is not for eternity, but for time alone; nor is it
spiritual, but corporal. And in this the angels will not be liable
to err, when they shall collect the bad from the midst of the good,
and commit them to the burning fiery furnace. For the Lord knoweth
those which are His. And if a man cannot depart bodily from those who
practise iniquity so long as time shall last, at any rate, let every
one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity itself.[1046]
For in the meantime he may separate himself from the wicked in life,
and in morals, and in heart and affections, and in the same respects
depart from his society; and separation such as this should always be
maintained. But let the separation in the body be waited for till the
end of time, faithfully, patiently, bravely. In consideration of which
expectation it is said, "Wait on the Lord; be of good courage, and
He shall strengthen thine heart: wait, I say, upon the Lord."[1047]
For the greatest palm of toleration is won by those who, among false
brethren that have crept in unawares, seeking their own, and not the
things of Jesus Christ, yet show that they on their part seek not to
disturb the love which is not their own, but Jesus Christ's, by any
turbulent or rash dissension, nor to break the unity of the Lord's
net, in which are gathered together fish of every kind, till it is
drawn to the shore, that is, till the end of time, by any wicked strife
fostered in the spirit of pride: whilst each might think himself to
be something, being really nothing, and so might lead himself astray,
and wish that sufficient reason might be found for the separation
of Christian peoples in the judgment of himself or of his friends,
who declare that they know beyond all question certain wicked men
unworthy of communion in the sacraments of the Christian religion:
though whatever it may be that they know of them, they cannot persuade
the universal Church, which, as it was foretold, is spread abroad
throughout all nations, to give credit to their tale. And when they
refuse communion with these men, as men whose character they know, they
desert the unity of the Church; whereas they ought rather, if there
really were in them that charity which endureth all things, themselves
to bear what they know in one nation, lest they should separate
themselves from the good whom they were unable throughout all nations
to fill with the teaching of evil alien to them. Whence even, without
discussing the case, in which they are convicted by the weightiest
proofs of having uttered calumnies against the innocent, they are
believed with greater probability to have invented false charges of
giving up the sacred books, when they are found to have themselves
committed the far more heinous crime of wicked division in the Church.
For even, if whatever imputations they have cast of giving up the
sacred books were true, yet they in no wise ought to have abandoned
the society of Christians, who are commended by holy Scripture even to
the ends of the world, on considerations which they have been familiar
with, while these men showed that they were not acquainted with them.
* * * * *
CHAP. IV.--5. Nor would I therefore be understood to urge that
ecclesiastical discipline should be set at naught, and that every one
should be allowed to do exactly as he pleased, without any check,
without a kind of healing chastisement, a lenity which should inspire
fear, the severity of love. For then what will become of the precept
of the apostle, "Warn them that are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded,
support the weak, be patient toward all men; see that none render evil
for evil unto any man?"[1048] At any rate, when he added these last
words, "See that none render evil for evil unto any man," he showed
with sufficient clearness that there is no rendering of evil for evil
when one chastises those that are unruly, even though for the fault of
unruliness be administered the punishment of chastising. The punishment
of chastising therefore is not an evil, though the fault be an evil.
For indeed it is the steel, not of an enemy inflicting a wound, but of
a surgeon performing an operation. Things like this are done within
the Church, and that spirit of gentleness within its pale burns with
zeal towards God, lest the chaste virgin which is espoused to one
husband, even Christ, should in any of her members be corrupted from
the simplicity which is in Christ, as Eve was beguiled by the subtilty
of the serpent.[1049] Notwithstanding, far be it from the servants of
the father of the family that they should be unmindful of the precept
of their Lord, and be so inflamed with the fire of holy indignation
against the multitude of the tares, that while they seek to gather them
in bundles before the time, the wheat should be rooted up together with
them. And of this sin these men would be held to be guilty, even though
they showed that those were true charges which they brought against the
_traditors_ whom they accused; because they separated themselves in a
spirit of impious presumption, not only from the wicked, whose society
they professed to be avoiding, but also from the good and faithful in
all nations of the world, to whom they could not prove the truth of
what they said they knew; and with themselves they drew away into the
same destruction many others over whom they had some slight authority,
and who were not wise enough to understand that the unity of the Church
dispersed throughout the world was on no account to be forsaken for
other men's sins. So that, even though they themselves knew that they
were pressing true charges against certain of their neighbours, yet in
this way a weak brother, for whom Christ died, was perishing through
their knowledge;[1050] whilst, being offended at other men's sins, he
was destroying in himself the blessing of peace which he had with the
good brethren, who partly had never heard such charges, partly had
shrunk from giving hasty credence to what was neither discussed nor
proved, partly, in the peaceful spirit of humility, had left these
charges, whatsoever they might be, to the cognizance of the judges of
the Church, to whom the whole matter had been referred, across the sea.
* * * * *
CHAP. V.--6. Do you, therefore, holy scions of our one Catholic
mother, beware with all the watchfulness of which you are capable,
in due submission to the Lord, of the example of sin and error such
as this. With however great light of learning and of reputation he
may shine, however much he may boast himself to be a precious stone,
who endeavours to lead you after him, remember always that that brave
woman who alone is lovely only to her husband, whom holy Scripture
portrays to us in the last chapter of the Book of Proverbs, is more
precious than any precious stones. Let no one say, I will follow
such an one, for it was even he that made me a Christian; or, I will
follow such an one, for it was even he that baptized me. For "neither
is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth, but God that
giveth the increase."[1051] And "God is love; and he that dwelleth
in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him."[1052] No one also that
preaches the name of Christ, and handles or administers the sacrament
of Christ, is to be followed in opposition to the unity of Christ.
"Let every man prove his own work; and then shall he have rejoicing
in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his
own burden,"[1053]--the burden, that is, of rendering an account; for
"every one of us shall give an account of himself. Let us not therefore
judge one another any more."[1054] For, so far as relates to the
burdens of mutual love, "bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil
the law of Christ. For if a man think himself to be something, when
he is nothing, he deceiveth himself."[1055] Let us therefore "forbear
one another in love, endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in
the bond of peace;"[1056] for no one who gathers outside that peace is
gathering with Christ; but "he that gathereth not with Him scattereth
abroad."[1057]
* * * * *
CHAP. VI.--7. Furthermore, whether concerning Christ, or concerning His
Church, or any other matter whatsoever which is connected with your
faith and life, to say nothing of ourselves, who are by no means to be
compared with him who said, "Though we," at any rate, as he went on to
say, "Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than
that which" ye have received in the lawful and evangelical Scriptures,
"let him be accursed."[1058] While carrying out this principle of
action in our dealings with you, and with all whom we desire to gain
in Christ, and, amongst other things, while preaching the holy Church
which we read of as promised in the epistles of God, and see to be
fulfilled according to the promises in all nations of the world, we
have earned, not the rendering of thanks, but the flames of hatred,
from those whom we desire to have attracted into His most peaceful
bosom; as though we had bound them fast in that party for which they
cannot find any defence that they should make; or as though we so
long before had given injunctions to prophets and apostles that they
should insert in their books no proofs by which it might be shown that
the party of Donatus was the Church of Christ. And we indeed, dear
brethren, when we hear false charges brought against us by those whom
we have offended by preaching the eloquence of truth, and confuting
the vanity of error, have, as you know, the most abundant consolation.
For if, in the matters which they lay to my charge, the testimony of
my conscience does not stand against me in the sight of God, where
no mortal eye can reach, not only ought I not to be cast down, but I
should even rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is my reward in
heaven.[1059] For in fact I ought to consider, not how bitter, but how
false is what I hear, and how true He is in defence of whose name I am
exposed to it, and to whom it is said, "Thy name is as ointment poured
forth."[1060] And deservedly does it smell sweet in all nations, though
those who speak evil of us endeavour to confine its fragrance within
one corner of Africa. Why therefore should we take amiss that we are
reviled by men who thus detract from the glory of Christ, whose party
and schism find offence in what was foretold so long before of His
ascent into the heavens, and of the pouring forth of His name, as of
the savour of ointment: "Be Thou exalted, O God, above the heavens: let
Thy glory be above all the earth?"[1061]
* * * * *
CHAP. VII.--8. Whilst we bear the testimony of God to this and the
like effect against the vain speaking of men, we are forced to undergo
bitter insults from the enemies of the glory of Christ. Let them say
what they will, whilst He exhorts us, saying, "Blessed are they which
are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you,
and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake."
What He says in the first instance, "for righteousness' sake," He has
repeated in the words that He uses afterwards, "for my sake;" seeing
that He "is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification,
and redemption: that, according as it is written, He that glorieth,
let him glory in the Lord."[1062] And when He says, "Rejoice, and be
exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven,"[1063] if I hold in
a good conscience what is said "for righteousness' sake," and "for my
sake," whosoever wilfully detracts from my reputation is against his
will contributing to my reward. For neither did He only instruct me by
His word, without also confirming me by His example. Follow the faith
of the holy Scriptures, and you will find that Christ rose from the
dead, ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of the Father.
Follow the charges brought by His enemies, and you will presently
believe that He was stolen from the sepulchre by His disciples. Why
then should we, while defending His house to the best of the abilities
given us by God, expect to meet with any other treatment from His
enemies? "If they have called the Master of the house Beelzebub, how
much more shall they call them of His household?"[1064] If, therefore,
we suffer, we shall also reign with Him. But if it be not only the
wrath of the accuser that strikes the ear, but also the truth of the
accusation that stings the conscience, what does it profit me if the
whole world were to exalt me with perpetual praise? So neither the
eulogy of him who praises has power to heal a guilty conscience, nor
does the insult of him who reviles wound the good conscience. Nor,
however, is your hope which is in the Lord deceived, even though we
chance to be in secret what our enemies wish us to be thought; for you
have not placed your hope in us, nor have you ever heard from us any
doctrine of the kind. You therefore are safe, whatever we may be, who
have learned to say, "I have trusted in the Lord; therefore I shall not
slide;"[1065] and "In God have I put my trust: I will not be afraid
what man can do unto me."[1066] And to those who endeavour to lead you
astray to the earthly heights of proud men, you know how to answer, "In
the Lord put I my trust: how say ye to my soul, Flee as a bird to your
mountain?"[1067]
* * * * *
CHAP. VIII.--9. Nor is it only you that are safe, whatever we may be,
because you are satisfied with the very truth of Christ which is in
us, in so far as it is preached through us, and everywhere throughout
the world, and because, listening to it willingly, so far as it is set
forth by the humble ministry of our tongue, you also think well and
kindly of us,--for so your hope is in Him whom we preach to you out of
His loving-kindness, which extends over you,--but further, all of you,
who also received the sacrament of holy baptism from our ministering,
may well rejoice in the same security, seeing that you were baptized,
not into us, but into Christ. You did not therefore put on us, but
Christ; nor did I ask you whether you were converted unto me, but unto
the living God; nor whether you believed in me, but in the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost. But if you answered my question with
truthful hearts, you were placed in a state of salvation, not by the
putting away of the filth of the flesh, but by the answer of a good
conscience towards God;[1068] not by a fellow-servant, but by the Lord;
not by the herald, but by the judge. For it is not true, as Petilianus
inconsiderately said, that "the conscience of the giver," or, as he
added, "the conscience of him who gives in holiness, is what we look
for to wash the conscience of the recipient." For when something is
given that is of God, it is given in holiness, even by a conscience
which is not holy. And certainly it is beyond the power of the
recipient to discern whether the said conscience is holy or not holy;
but that which is given he can discern with clearness. That which is
known to Him who is ever holy is received with perfect safety, whatever
be the character of the minister at whose hands it is received. For
unless the words which are spoken from Moses' seat were necessarily
holy, He that is the Truth would never have said, "Whatsoever they bid
you observe, that observe and do." But if the men who uttered holy
words were themselves holy, He would not have said, "Do not ye after
their works: for they say, and do not."[1069] For it is true that in no
way do men gather grapes of thorns, because grapes never spring from
the root of a thorn; but when the shoot of the vine has entwined itself
in a thorn hedge, the fruit which hangs upon it is not therefore looked
upon with dread, but the thorn is avoided, while the grape is plucked.
* * * * *
CHAP. IX.--10. Therefore, as I have often said before, and am desirous
to bring home to you, whatsoever we may be, you are safe, who have God
for your Father and His Church for your mother. For although the goats
may feed in company with the sheep, yet they shall not stand on the
right hand; although the chaff may be bruised together with the wheat,
it shall not be gathered into the barn; although the bad fish may swim
in company with the good within the Lord's nets, they shall not be
gathered into vessels. Let no man make his boast even in a good man:
let no man shun the good gifts of God even in a bad man.
* * * * *
CHAP. X.--11. Let these things suffice you, my beloved Christian
brethren of the Catholic Church, so far as the present business is
concerned; and if you hold fast to this in Catholic affection, so
long as you are one sure flock of the one Shepherd, I am not too much
concerned with the abuse that any enemy may lavish on me, your partner
in the flock, or, at any rate, your watch-dog, so long as he compels
me to bark rather in your defence than in my own. And yet, if it were
necessary for the cause that I should enter on my own defence, I should
do so with the greatest brevity and the greatest ease, joining freely
with all men in condemning and bearing witness against the whole period
of my life before I received the baptism of Christ, so far as relates
to my evil passions and my errors, lest, in defending that period,
I should seem to be seeking my own glory, not His, who by His grace
delivered me even from myself. Wherefore, when I hear that life of
mine abused, in whatever spirit he may be acting who abuses it, I am
not so thankless as to be grieved. However much he finds fault with
any vice of mine, I praise him in the same degree as my physician. Why
then should I disturb myself about defending those past and obsolete
evils in my life, in respect of which, though Petilianus has said much
that is false, he has yet left more that is true unsaid? But concerning
that period of my life which is subsequent to my baptism, to you who
know me I speak unnecessarily in telling of those things which might be
known to all mankind; but those who know me not ought not to act with
such unfairness towards me as to believe Petilianus rather than you
concerning me. For if one should not give credence to the panegyrics of
a friend, neither should one believe the detraction of an enemy. There
remain, therefore, those things which are hidden in a man, in which
conscience alone can bear testimony, which cannot be a witness before
men. Herein Petilianus says that I am a Manichæan, speaking of the
conscience of another man; I, speaking of my own conscience, aver that
I am not. Choose which of us you had sooner believe. Notwithstanding,
since there is not any need even of this short and easy defence on my
part, where the question at issue is not concerning the merits of any
individual, whoever he may be, but concerning the truth[1070] of the
whole Church, I have more also to say to any of you, who, being of the
party of Donatus, have read the evil words which Petilianus has written
about me, which I should not have heard from him if I had had no care
about the loss of your salvation; but then I should have been wanting
in the bowels of Christian love.
* * * * *
CHAP. XI.--12. What wonder is it then, if, when I draw in the grain
that has been shaken forth from the threshing-floor of the Lord,
together with the soil and chaff, I suffer injury from the dust that
rebounds against me; or that, when I am diligently seeking after the
lost sheep of my Lord, I am torn by the briars of thorny tongues? I
entreat you, lay aside for a time all considerations of party feeling,
and judge with some degree of fairness between Petilianus and myself.
I am desirous that you should be acquainted with the cause of the
Church; he, that you should be familiar with mine. For what other
reason than because he dares not bid you disbelieve my witnesses,
whom I am constantly citing in the cause of the Church,--for they
are prophets and apostles, and Christ Himself, the Lord of prophets
and apostles,--whereas you easily give him credit in whatever he may
choose to say concerning me, a man against a man, and one, moreover, of
your own party against a stranger to you? Petilianus therefore reigns
supreme. Whenever he aims any abuse at me, of whatever character it may
be, you all applaud and shout assent. This cause he has found wherein
the victory is possible for him, but only with you for judges. He will
seek for neither proof nor witness; for all that he has to prove in his
words is this, that he lavishes most copious abuse on one whom you most
cordially hate. For whereas, when the testimony of divine Scripture is
quoted in such abundance and in such express terms in favour of the
Catholic Church, he remains silent amidst your grief, he has chosen
for himself a subject on which he may speak amidst applause from you;
and though really conquered, yet, pretending that he stands unmoved,
he may make statements concerning me like this, and even worse than
this. It is enough for me,[1071] in respect of the cause which I am
now pleading, that whatsoever I may be found to be, yet the Church for
which I speak is unconquered.
* * * * *
CHAP. XII.--13. For I am a man of the threshing-floor of Christ: if
a bad man, then part of the chaff; if good, then of the grain. The
winnowing-fan of this threshing-floor is not the tongue of Petilianus;
and hereby, whatever evil he may have uttered, even with truth, against
the chaff of this threshing-floor, this in no way prejudices its grain.
But whereinsoever he has cast any revilings or calumnies against the
grain itself, its faith is tried on earth, and its reward increased
in the heavens. For where men are holy servants of the Lord, and are
fighting with holiness for God, not against Petilianus, or any flesh
and blood like him, but against principalities and powers, and the
rulers of the darkness of this world,[1072] such as are all enemies
of the truth, to whom I would that we could say, "Ye were sometimes
darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord,"[1073]--where the servants
of God, I say, are waging such a war as this, then all the calumnious
revilings that are uttered by their enemies, which cause an evil report
among the malicious and those that are rash in believing, are weapons
on the left hand: it is with such as these that even the devil is
defeated. For when we are tried by good report, whether we resist the
exaltation of ourselves to pride, and are tried by evil report, whether
we love even those very enemies by whom it is invented against us,
then we overcome the devil by the armour of righteousness on the right
hand and on the left. For when the apostle had used the expression,
"By the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,"
he at once goes on to say, as if in explanation of the terms, "By
honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report,"[1074] and so
forth,--reckoning honour and good report among the armour on the right
hand, dishonour and evil report among that upon the left.
* * * * *
CHAP. XIII.--14. If, therefore, I am a servant of the Lord, and a
soldier that is not reprobate, with whatever eloquence Petilianus
stands forth reviling me, ought I in any way to be annoyed that he has
been appointed for me as a most accomplished craftsman of the armour
on the left? It is necessary that I should fight in this armour as
skilfully as possible in defence of my Lord, and should smite with
it the enemy against whom I wage an unseen fight, who in all cunning
strives and endeavours, with the most perverse and ancient craftiness,
that this should lead me to hate Petilianus, and so be unable to
fulfil the command which Christ has given, that we should "love our
enemies."[1075] But from this may I be saved by the mercy of Him who
loved me, and gave Himself for me, so that, as He hung upon the cross,
He said, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do;"[1076]
and so taught me to say of Petilianus, and all other enemies of mine
like him, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
* * * * *
CHAP. XIV.--15. Furthermore, if I have obtained from you, in accordance
with my earnest endeavours, that, laying aside from your minds all
prejudice of party, you should be impartial judges between Petilianus
and myself, I will show to you that he has not replied to what I
wrote, that you may understand that he has been compelled by lack
of truth to abandon the dispute, and also see what revilings he has
allowed himself to utter against the man who so conducted it that he
had no reply to make. And yet what I am going to say displays itself
with such manifest clearness, that, even though your minds were
estranged from me by party prejudice and personal hatred, yet, if
you would only read what is written on both sides, you could not but
confess among yourselves, in your inmost hearts, that I have spoken
truth.
16. For, in replying to the former part of his writings, which then
alone had come into my hands, without taking any notice of his wordy
and sacrilegious revilings, where he says, "Let those men cast in our
teeth our twice-repeated baptism, who, under the name of baptism,
have polluted their souls with a guilty washing; whom I hold to be so
obscene that no manner of filth is less clean than they; whose lot
it has been, by a perversion of cleanliness, to be defiled by the
water wherein they washed;" I thought that what follows was worthy
of discussion and refutation, where he says, "For what we look for
is the conscience of the giver, that the conscience of the recipient
may thereby be cleansed;" and I asked what means were to be found for
cleansing one who receives baptism when the conscience of the giver is
polluted, without the knowledge of him who is to receive the sacrament
at his hands.[1077]
* * * * *
CHAP. XV.--17. Read now the most profuse revilings which he has poured
forth whilst puffed up with indignation against me, and see whether
he has given me any answer, when I ask what means are to be found for
cleansing one who receives baptism when the conscience of the giver
is polluted, without the knowledge of him who receives the sacrament
at his hands. I beg of you to search minutely, to examine every page,
to reckon every line, to ponder every word, to sift the meaning of
each syllable, and tell me, if you can discover it, where he has made
answer to the question, What means are to be found for cleansing the
conscience of the recipient who is unaware that the conscience of the
giver is polluted?
18. For how did it bear upon the point that he added a phrase which
he said was suppressed by me, maintaining that he had written in the
following terms: "The conscience of him who gives in holiness is
what we look for to cleanse the conscience of the recipient?" For to
prove to you that it was not suppressed by me, its addition in no way
hinders my inquiry, or makes up the deficiency which was found in him.
For in the face of those very words I ask again, and I beg of you to
see whether he has given any answer, If "the conscience of him who
gives in holiness is what we look for to cleanse the conscience of the
recipient," what means are to be found for cleansing the conscience of
the recipient when the conscience of the giver is stained with guilt,
without the knowledge of him who is to receive the sacrament at his
hands? I insist upon an answer being given to this. Do not allow that
any one should be prejudiced by revilings irrelevant to the matter in
hand. If the conscience of him who gives in holiness is what we look
for,--observe that I do not say "the conscience of him who gives,"
but that I added the words, "of him who gives in _holiness_,"--if the
conscience, then, of him who gives in holiness is what we look for,
what means are to be found for cleansing one who receives baptism when
the conscience of the giver is polluted, without the knowledge of him
who is to receive the sacrament at his hands?
* * * * *
CHAP. XVI.--19. Let him go now, and with panting lungs and swollen
throat find fault with me as a mere dialectician. Nay, let him summon,
not me, but the science of dialectics itself, to the bar of popular
opinion as a forger of lies, and let him open his mouth to its widest
against it, with all the noisiest uproar of a special pleader. Let him
say whatever he pleases before the inexperienced, that so the learned
may be moved to wrath, while the ignorant are deceived. Let him call
me, in virtue of my rhetoric, by the name of the orator Tertullus,
by whom Paul was accused;[1078] and let him give himself the name of
Advocate,[1079] in virtue of the pleading in which he boasts his
former power, and for this reason delude himself with the notion that
he is, or rather was, a namesake of the Holy Ghost. Let him, with all
my heart, exaggerate the foulness of the Manichæans, and endeavour to
divert it on to me by his barking. Let him quote all the exploits of
those who have been condemned, whether known or unknown to me; and let
him turn into the calumnious imputation of a prejudged crime, by some
new right entirely his own, the fact that a former friend of mine there
named me in my absence to the better securing of his own defence. Let
him read the titles that have been placed upon my letters by himself or
by his friends, as suited their pleasure, and boast that he has, as it
were, involved me hopelessly in their expressions. When I acknowledge
certain eulogies of bread, uttered in all simplicity and merriment, let
him take away my character with the absurd imputations of poisonous
baseness and madness. And let him entertain so bad an opinion of your
understanding, as to imagine that he can be believed when he declares
that pernicious love-charms were given to a woman, not only with the
knowledge, but actually with the complicity[1080] of her husband. What
the man who was afterwards to ordain me bishop[1081] wrote about me
in anger, while I was as yet a priest, he may freely seek to use as
evidence against me. That the same man sought and obtained forgiveness
from a holy Council for the wrong he thus had done me, he is equally
at liberty to ignore as being in my favour,--being either so ignorant
or so forgetful of Christian gentleness, and the commandment of the
gospel, that he brings as an accusation against a brother what is
wholly unknown to that brother himself, as he humbly entreats that
pardon may in kindness be extended to him.
* * * * *
CHAP. XVII.--20. Let him further go on, in his discourse of many but
manifestly empty words, to matters of which he is wholly ignorant,
or in which rather he abuses the ignorance of the mass of those who
hear him, and from the confession of a certain woman, that she had
called herself a catechumen of the Manichæans, being already a full
member of the Catholic Church, let him say or write what he pleases
concerning their baptism,--not knowing, or pretending not to know,
that the name of catechumen is not bestowed among them upon persons to
denote that they are at some future time to be baptized, but that this
name is given to such as are also called Hearers, on the supposition
that they cannot observe what are considered the higher and greater
commandments, which are observed by those whom they think right to
distinguish and honour by the name of Elect. Let him also maintain
with wonderful rashness, either as himself deceived or as seeking to
deceive, that I was a priest among the Manichæans. Let him set forth
and refute, in whatever sense seems good to him, the words of the
third book of my _Confessions_, which, both in themselves, and from
much that I have said before and since, are perfectly clear to all who
read them. Lastly, let him triumph in my stealing his words, because I
have suppressed two of them, as though the victory were his upon their
restoration.
* * * * *
CHAP. XVIII.--21. Certainly in all these things, as you can learn or
refresh your memory by reading his letter, he has given free scope to
the impulse of his tongue, with all the licence of boasting which he
chose to use, but nowhere has he told us where means are to be found
for cleansing the conscience of the recipient, when that of the giver
has been stained with sin without his knowing it. But amid all his
noise, and after all his noise, serious as it is, too terrible as he
himself supposes it to be, I deliberately, as it is said, and to the
purpose,[1082] ask this question once again: If the conscience of
him who gives in holiness is what we look for, what means are to be
found for cleansing one who receives baptism without knowing that the
conscience of the giver is stained with sin? And throughout his whole
epistle I find nothing said in answer to this question.
* * * * *
CHAP. XIX.--22. For perhaps some one of you will say to me, All these
things which he said against you he wished to have force for this
purpose, that he might take away your character, and through you
the character of those with whom you hold communion, that neither
they themselves, nor those whom you endeavour to bring over to your
communion, may hold you to be of any further importance. But, in
deciding whether he has given no answer to the words of your epistle,
we must look at them in the light of the passage in which he proposed
them for consideration. Let us then do so: let us look at his writings
in the light of that very passage. Passing over, therefore, the passage
in which I sought to introduce my subject to the reader, and to ignore
those few prefatory words of his, which were rather insulting than
relevant to the subject under discussion, I go on to say, "He says,
'What we look for is the conscience of the giver, to cleanse that of
the recipient.' But supposing the conscience of the giver is concealed
from view, and perhaps defiled with sin, how will it be able to cleanse
the conscience of the recipient, if, as he says, 'what we look for is
the conscience of the giver, to cleanse that of the recipient?' For
if he should say that it makes no matter to the recipient what amount
of evil may be concealed from view in the conscience of the giver,
perhaps that ignorance may have such a degree of efficacy as this, that
a man cannot be defiled by the guilt of the conscience of him from
whom he receives baptism, so long as he is unaware of it. Let it then
be granted that the guilty conscience of his neighbour cannot defile
a man so long as he is unaware of it; but is it therefore clear that
it can further cleanse him from his own guilt? Whence then is a man to
be cleansed who receives baptism, when the conscience of the giver is
polluted without the knowledge of him who is to receive it, especially
when he goes on to say, 'For he who receives faith from the faithless
receives not faith but guilt?'"[1083]
* * * * *
CHAP. XX.--23. All these statements in my letter Petilianus set before
himself for refutation. Let us see, therefore, whether he has refuted
them; whether he has made any answer to them at all. For I add the
words which he calumniously accuses me of having suppressed, and,
having done so, I ask him again the same question in an even shorter
form; for by adding these two words he has helped me much in shortening
this proposition. If the conscience of him who gives in holiness is
what we look for to cleanse that of the recipient, and if he who has
received his faith wittingly from one that is faithless, receives not
faith but guilt, where shall we find means to cleanse the conscience of
the recipient, when he has not known that the conscience of the giver
is stained with guilt, and when he receives his faith unwittingly from
one that is faithless? I ask, where shall we find means to cleanse
it? Let him tell us; let him not pass off into another subject; let
him not cast a mist over the eyes of the inexperienced. To end with,
at any rate, after many tortuous circumlocutions have been interposed
and thoroughly worked out, let him at last tell us where we shall find
means to cleanse the conscience of the recipient when the stains of
guilt in the conscience of the faithless baptizer are concealed from
view, if the conscience of him who gives in holiness is what we look
for to cleanse that of the recipient, and if he who has received his
faith wittingly from one that is faithless, receives not faith but
guilt? For the man in question receives it from a faithless man, who
has not the conscience of one who gives in holiness, but a conscience
stained with guilt, and veiled from view. Where then shall we find
means to cleanse his conscience? whence then does he receive his faith?
For if he is neither then cleansed, nor then receives faith, when the
faithlessness and guilt of the baptizer are concealed, why, when these
are afterwards brought to light and condemned, is he not then baptized
afresh, that he may be cleansed and receive faith? But if, while the
faithlessness and guilt of the other are concealed, he is cleansed
and does receive faith, whence does he obtain his cleansing, whence
does he receive faith, when there is not the conscience of one that
gives in holiness to cleanse the conscience of the recipient? Let him
tell us this; let him make reply to this: Whence does he obtain his
cleansing, whence does he receive faith, if the conscience of him that
gives in holiness is what we look for to cleanse the conscience of the
recipient, seeing that this does not exist, when the baptizer conceals
his character of faithlessness and guilt? To this no answer has been
made whatever.
* * * * *
CHAP. XXI.--24. But see, when he is reduced to straits in the argument,
he again makes an attack on me full of mist and wind, that the calm
clearness of the truth may be obscured; and through the extremity of
his want he becomes full of resources, shown not in saying what is
true, but in unbought empty revilings. Hold fast, with the keenest
attention and utmost perseverance, what he ought to answer,--that is,
where means may be found for cleansing the conscience of the recipient
when the stains in that of the giver are concealed,--lest possibly
the blast of his eloquence should wrest this from your hands, and
you in turn should be carried away by the dark tempest of his turgid
discourse, so as wholly to fail in seeing whence he has digressed,
and to what point he should return; and see where the man can wander,
whilst he cannot stand in the matter which he has undertaken. For see
how much he says, through having nothing that he ought to say. He
says "that I slide in slippery places, but am held up; that I neither
destroy nor confirm the objections that I make; that I devise uncertain
things in the place of certainty; that I do not permit my readers to
believe what is true, but cause them to look with increased suspicion
on what is doubtful." He says "that I have the accursed talents of
the Academic philosopher Carneades."[1084] He endeavours to insinuate
what the Academics think of the falseness or the falsehood of human
sensation, showing in this also that he is wholly without knowledge of
what he says. He declares that "it is said by them that snow is black,
whereas it is white; and that silver is black; and that a tower is
round, or free from projections, when it is really angular; that an
oar is broken in the water, while it is whole." And all this because,
when he had said that "the conscience of him that gives," or "of him
that gives in holiness, is what we look for to cleanse the conscience
of the recipient," I said in reply, What if the conscience of the giver
be hidden from sight, and possibly be stained with guilt? Here you
have his black snow, and black silver, and his tower round instead of
angular, and the oar in the water broken while yet whole, in that I
suggested a state of the case which might be conceived, and could not
really exist, that the conscience of the giver might be hidden from
view, and possibly might be stained with guilt!
25. Then he continues in the same strain, and cries out: "What is that
_what if?_ what is that _possibly?_ except the uncertain and wavering
hesitation of one who doubts, of whom your poet says,--
'What if I now return to those who say,
What if the sky should fall?'"[1085]
Does he mean that when I said, What if the conscience of the giver be
hidden from sight, and possibly be stained with guilt? that it is much
the same as if I had said, What if the sky should fall? There certainly
is the phrase What if, because it is possible that it may be hidden
from view, and it is possible that it may not. For when it is not known
what the giver is thinking of, or what crime he has committed, then
his conscience is certainly hidden from the view of the recipient;
but when his sin is plainly manifest, then it is not hidden. I used
the expression, And possibly may be stained with guilt, because it is
possible that it may be hidden from view and yet be pure; and again,
it is possible that it may be hidden from view and be stained with
guilt. This is the meaning of the What if; this the meaning of the
Possibly. Is this at all like "What if the sky should fall?" O how
often have men been convicted, how often have they confessed themselves
that they had consciences stained with guilt and adultery, whilst men
were unwittingly baptized by them after they were degraded by the sin
subsequently brought to light, and yet the sky did not fall! What have
we here to do with Pilus and Furius,[1086] who defended the cause of
injustice against justice? What have we here to do with the atheist
Diagoras,[1087] who denied that there was any God, so that he would
seem to be the man of whom the prophet spoke beforehand, "The fool
hath said in his heart, there is no God?"[1088] What have we here to
do with these? Why were their names brought in, except that they might
make a diversion in favour of a man who had nothing to say? that while
he is at any rate saying something, though needlessly, about these,
the matter in hand may seem to be progressing, and an answer may be
supposed to be made to a question which remains without an answer?
* * * * *
CHAP. XXII.--26. Lastly, if these two or three words, What if, and
Possibly, are so absolutely intolerable, that on their account we
should have aroused from their long sleep the Academics, and Carneades,
and Pilus, and Furius, and Diagoras, and black snow, and the falling
of the sky, and everything else that is equally senseless and absurd,
let them be removed from our argument. For, as a matter of fact, it
is by no means impossible to express what we desire to say without
them. There is quite sufficient for our purpose in what is found a
little later, and has been introduced by himself from my letter: "By
what means then is he to be cleansed who receives baptism when the
conscience of the giver is polluted, and that without the knowledge
of him who is to receive the sacrament?"[1089] Do you acknowledge
that here there is no What if, no Possibly? Well then, let an answer
be given. Give close heed, lest he be found to answer this in what
follows. "But," says he, "I bind you in your cavilling to the faith of
believing, that you may not wander further from it. Why do you turn
away your life from errors by arguments of folly? Why do you disturb
the system of belief in respect of matters without reason? By this
one word I bind and convince you." It was Petilianus that said this,
not I. These words are from the letter of Petilianus; but from that
letter, to which I just now added the two words which he accuses me of
having suppressed, showing that, notwithstanding their addition, the
pertinency of my question, to which he makes no answer, remains with
greater brevity and simplicity. It is beyond dispute that these two
words are, In holiness, and Wittingly: so that it should not be, "The
conscience of him who gives," but "The conscience of him who gives _in
holiness_;" and that it should not be, "He who has received his faith
from one that is faithless," but "He who has _wittingly_ received his
faith from one that is faithless." And yet I had not really suppressed
these words; but I had not found them in the copy which was placed in
my hands. It is possible enough that it was incorrect; nor indeed is it
wholly beyond the possibility of belief that even by this suggestion
Academic fury should be roused against me, and that it should be
asserted that, in declaring the copy to be incorrect, I had said much
the same sort of thing as if I had declared that snow was black. For
why should I repay in kind his rash suggestion, and say that, though he
pretends that I suppressed the words, he really added them afterwards
himself, since the copy, which is not angry, can confirm that mark of
incorrectness, without any abusive rashness on my part?
* * * * *
CHAP. XXIII.--27. And, in the first place, with regard to that first
expression, "Of him who gives in holiness," it does not interfere in
the least with my inquiry, by which he is so much distressed, whether
I use the expression, "If the conscience of him that gives is what
we look for," or the fuller phrase, "If the conscience of him that
gives in holiness is what we look for, to cleanse the conscience of
the recipient," by what means then is he to be cleansed who receives
baptism if the conscience of the giver is polluted, without the
knowledge of him who is to receive the sacrament? And with regard
to the other word that is added, "wittingly," so that the sentence
should not run, "He who has received his faith from one that is
faithless," but "He who has wittingly received his faith from one that
is faithless, receives not faith but guilt," I confess that I had said
some things as though the word were absent, but I can easily afford
to do without them; for they caused more hindrance to the facility of
my argument than they gave assistance to its possibility. For how much
more readily, how much more plainly and shortly, can I put the question
thus: "If the conscience of him who gives in holiness is what we look
for to cleanse the conscience of the recipient," and "if he who has
wittingly received his faith from one that is faithless receives not
faith but guilt," by what means is he cleansed, from whom the stain on
the conscience of him who gives, but not in holiness, is hidden? and
whence does he receive true faith, who is baptized unwittingly by one
that is faithless? Let it be declared whence this shall be, and then
the whole theory of baptism will be disclosed; then all that is matter
of investigation will be brought to light,--but only if it be declared,
not if the time be consumed in evil-speaking.
* * * * *
CHAP. XXIV.--28. Whatever, therefore, he finds in these two
words,--whether he brings calumnious accusations about their
suppression, or boasts of their being added,--you perceive that it in
no way hinders my question, to which he can find no answer that he
can make; and therefore, not wishing to remain silent, he takes the
opportunity of making an attack upon my character,--retiring, I should
have said, from the discussion, except that he had never entered on it.
For just as though the question were about me, and not about the truth
of the Church, or of baptism, therefore he says that I, by suppressing
these two words, have argued as though it were no stumblingblock in the
way of my conscience that I have ignored what he calls the sacrilegious
conscience of him who polluted me. But if this were so, the addition of
the word "wittingly," which is thus introduced, would be in my favour,
and its suppression would tell against me. For if I had wished that
my defence should be urged on the ground that I should be supposed to
have been unacquainted with the conscience of the man that baptized me,
then I would accept Petilianus as having spoken in my behalf, since he
does not say in general terms, "He that has received his faith from one
that is faithless," but "He that has wittingly received his faith from
one that is faithless, receives not faith but guilt;" so that hence
I might boast that I had received not guilt, but faith, since I could
say I did not receive it wittingly from one that was faithless, but was
unacquainted with the conscience of him that gave it. See, therefore,
and reckon carefully, if you can, what an amount of superfluous words
he wastes on the one phrase, "I was unacquainted with," which he
declares that I have used; whereas I never used it at all,--partly
because the question under discussion was not concerning me, so that I
should need to use it; partly because no fault was apparent in him that
baptized me, so that I should be forced to say in my defence that I had
been unacquainted with his conscience.
* * * * *
CHAP. XXV.--29. And yet Petilianus, to avoid answering what I have
said, sets before himself what I have not, and draws men's attention
away from the consideration of his debt, lest they should exact
the answer which he ought to make. He constantly introduces the
expressions, "I have been unacquainted with," "I say," and makes
answer, "But if you were unacquainted with;" and, as though convicting
me, so that it should be out of my power to say, "I was unacquainted
with," he quotes Mensurius, Cæcilianus, Macarius, Taurinus, Romanus,
and declares that "they had acted in opposition to the Church of God,
as I could not fail to know, seeing that I am an African, and already
well advanced in years:" whereas, so far as I hear, Mensurius died
in the unity of the communion of the Church, before the faction of
Donatus separated itself therefrom; whilst I had read the history of
Cæcilianus, that they themselves had referred his case to Constantine,
and that he had been once and again acquitted by the judges whom that
emperor had appointed to try the matter, and again a third time by the
sovereign himself, when they appealed to him. But whatever Macarius
and Taurinus and Romanus did, either in their judicial or executive
functions, in behalf of unity as against their pertinacious madness,
it is beyond doubt that it was all done in accordance with the laws,
which these same persons made it unavoidable should be passed and put
in force, by referring the case of Cæcilianus to the judgment of the
emperor.
30. Among many other things which are wholly irrelevant, he says that
"I was so hard hit by the decision of the proconsul Messianus, that I
was forced to fly from Africa." And in consequence of this falsehood
(to which, if he was not the author of it, he certainly lent malicious
ears when others maliciously invented it), how many other falsehoods
had he the hardihood not only to utter, but actually to write with
wondrous rashness, seeing that I went to Milan before the consulship of
Banto, and that, in pursuance of the profession of rhetorician which
I then followed, I recited a panegyric in his honour as consul on
the first of January, in the presence of a vast assembly of men; and
after that journey I only returned to Africa after the death of the
tyrant Maximus: whereas the proconsul Messianus heard the case of the
Manichæans after the consulship of Banto, as the day of the chronicles
inserted by Petilianus himself sufficiently shows. And if it were
necessary to prove this for the satisfaction of those who are in doubt,
or believe the contrary, I could produce many men, illustrious in their
generation, as most sufficient witnesses to all that period of my life.
* * * * *
CHAP. XXVI.--31. But why do we make inquiry into these points? Why do
we both suffer and cause unnecessary delay? Are we likely to find out
by such a course as this what means we are to use for cleansing the
conscience of the recipient, who does not know that the conscience of
the giver is stained with guilt? whence the man is to receive faith
who is unwittingly baptized by one that is faithless?--the question
which Petilianus had proposed to himself to answer in my epistle,
then going on to say anything else he pleased except what the matter
in hand required. How often has he said, "If ignorant you were,"--as
though I had said, what I never did say, that I was unacquainted with
the conscience of him who baptized me. And he seemed to have no other
object in all that his evil-speaking mouth poured forth, except that
he should appear to prove that I had not been ignorant of the misdeeds
of those among whom I was baptized, and with whom I was associated
in communion, understanding fully, it would seem, that ignorance
did not convict me of guilt. See then that if I were ignorant, as
he has repeated so often, beyond all doubt I should be innocent of
all these crimes. Whence then should I receive faith, seeing that I
was baptized unwittingly by one that was faithless? For he has not
repeated "If ignorant you were" so often without purpose, but simply
to prevent my being reputed innocent, esteeming beyond all doubt that
no man's innocence is violated if he unwittingly receives his faith
from one that is faithless, and is not acquainted with the stains on
the conscience of him that gives, but not in holiness. Let him say,
therefore, by what means such men are to be cleansed, whence they are
to receive not guilt but faith. But let him not deceive you. Let him
speak; let him not, while uttering much, say nothing; or rather, let
him not say much while saying nothing. Next, to urge a point which
occurs to me, and must not be passed over,--if I am guilty because I
have not been ignorant, to use his own phraseology, and I am proved not
to have been ignorant, because I am an African, and already advanced in
years, let him grant that the youths of other nations throughout the
world are not guilty, who had no opportunity either from their race, or
from that age you bring against me, of knowing the points that are laid
to our charge, be they true, or be they false; and yet they, if they
have fallen into your hands, are rebaptized without any considerations
of such a kind.
* * * * *
CHAP. XXVII.--32. But this is not what we are now inquiring. Let him
rather answer (what he wanders off into the most irrelevant matter in
order to avoid answering) by what means the conscience of the recipient
is cleansed who is unacquainted with the stain on the conscience of
the giver, if the conscience of one that gives in holiness is what we
look for to cleanse the conscience of the recipient? and from what
source he receives faith who is unwittingly baptized by one that is
faithless, if he that has wittingly received his faith from one that
is faithless, receives not faith but guilt? Omitting, therefore, his
revilings, which he has cast at me without any sound consideration, let
us still notice that he does not say what we demand in what follows.
But I should like to look at the garrulous mode in which he has set
this forth, as though he were sure to overwhelm us with confusion.
"But let us return," he says, "to that argument of your fancy, whereby
you seem to have represented to yourself in a form of words the persons
you baptize. For since you do not see the truth, it would have been
more seemly to have imagined what was probable." These words of his
own, Petilianus put forth by way of preface, being about to state the
words that I had used. Then he went on to quote: "Behold, you say, the
faithless man stands ready to baptize, but he who is to be baptized
knows nothing of his faithlessness."[1090] He has not quoted the whole
of my proposition and question; and presently he begins to ask me in
his turn, saying, "Who is the man, and from what corner has he started
up, that you propose to us? Why do you seem to see a man who is the
produce of your imagination, in order to avoid seeing one whom you are
bound to see, and to examine and test most carefully? But since I see
that you are unacquainted with the order of the sacrament, I tell you
this as shortly as I can: you were bound both to examine your baptizer,
and to be examined by him." What is it, then, that we were waiting for?
That he should tell us by what means the conscience of the recipient is
to be cleansed, who is unacquainted with the stain on the conscience of
him that gives but not in holiness, and whence the man is to receive
not guilt but faith, who has received baptism unwittingly from one that
is faithless. All that we have heard is that the baptizer ought most
diligently to be examined by him who wishes to receive not guilt but
faith, that the latter may make himself acquainted with the conscience
of him that gives in holiness, which is to cleanse the conscience of
the recipient. For the man that has failed to make this examination,
and has unwittingly received baptism from one that is faithless, from
the very fact that he did not make the examination, and therefore did
not know of the stain on the conscience of the giver, was incapacitated
from receiving faith instead of guilt. Why therefore did he add what he
made so much of adding,--the word _wittingly_, which he calumniously
accused me of having suppressed? For in his unwillingness that the
sentence should run, "He who has received his faith from one that is
faithless, receives not faith but guilt," he seems to have left some
hope to the man that acts unwittingly. But now, when he is asked whence
that man is to receive faith who is baptized unwittingly by one that is
faithless, he has answered that he ought to have examined his baptizer;
so that, beyond all doubt, he refuses the wretched man permission even
to be ignorant, by not finding out from what source he may receive
faith, unless he has placed his trust in the man that is baptizing him.
* * * * *
CHAP. XXVIII.--33. This is what we look upon with horror in your party;
this is what the sentence of God condemns, crying out with the utmost
truth and the utmost clearness, "Cursed be the man that trusteth in
man."[1091] This is what is most openly forbidden by holy humility and
apostolic love, as Paul declares, "Let no man glory in men."[1092] This
is the reason that the attack of empty calumnies and of the bitterest
invectives grows even fiercer against us, that when human authority is
as it were overthrown, there may remain no ground of hope for those to
whom we administer the word and sacrament of God in accordance with the
dispensation entrusted unto us. We make answer to them: How long do you
rest your support on man? The venerable society of the Catholic Church
makes answer to them: "Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from Him cometh
my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; He is my defence;
I shall not be greatly moved."[1093] For what other reason have they
had for removing from the house of God, except that they pretended
that they could not endure those vessels made to dishonour, from which
the house shall not be free until the day of judgment? whereas all
the time they rather appear, by their deeds and by the records of the
time, to have themselves been vessels of this kind, while they threw
the imputation in the teeth of others; of which said vessels made
unto dishonour, in order that no one should on their account remove
in confusion of mind from the great house, which alone belongs to the
great Father of our family, the servant of God, one who was good and
faithful, or was capable of receiving faith in baptism, as I have
shown above, expressly says, "Truly my soul waiteth upon God" (on God,
you see, and not on man): "from Him cometh my salvation" (not from
man). But Petilianus would refuse to ascribe to God the cleansing and
purifying of a man, even when the stain upon the conscience of him who
gives, but not in holiness, is hidden from view, and any one receives
his faith unwittingly from one that is faithless, "I tell you this,"
he says, "as shortly as I can: you were bound both to examine your
baptizer, and to be examined by him."
* * * * *
CHAP. XXIX.--34. I entreat of you, pay attention to this: I ask where
the means shall be found for cleansing the conscience of the recipient,
when he is not acquainted with the stain upon the conscience of him
that gives but not in holiness, if the conscience of him that gives
in holiness is waited for to cleanse the conscience of the recipient?
and from what source he is to receive faith, who is unwittingly
baptized by one that is faithless, if whosoever has received his faith
wittingly from one that is faithless, receives not faith but guilt?
and he answers me, that both the baptizer and the baptized should be
subjected to examination. And for the proof of this point, out of
which no question arises, he adduces the example of John, in that he
was examined by those who asked him who he claimed to be,[1094] and
that he also in turn examined those to whom he says, "O generation of
vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?"[1095] What
has this to do with the subject? What has this to do with the question
under discussion? God had vouchsafed to John the testimony of most
eminent holiness of life, confirmed by the previous witness of the
noblest prophecy, both when he was conceived, and when he was born. But
the Jews put their question, already believing him to be a saint, to
find out which of the saints he maintained himself to be, or whether he
was himself the saint of saints, that is, Christ Jesus. So much favour
indeed was shown to him, that credence would at once have been given to
whatever he might have said about himself. If, therefore, we are to
follow this precedent in declaring that each several baptizer is now to
be examined, then each must also be believed, whatever he may say of
himself. But who is there that is made up of deceit, whom we know that
the Holy Spirit flees from, in accordance with the Scripture,[1096]
who would not wish the best to be believed of him, or who would
hesitate to bring this about by the use of any words within his reach?
Accordingly, when he shall have been asked who he is, and shall have
answered that he is the faithful dispenser of God's ordinances, and
that his conscience is not polluted with the stain of any crime, will
this be the whole examination, or will there be a further more careful
investigation into his character and life? Assuredly there will. But it
is not written that this was done by those who asked John who he was in
the desert of Jordan.
* * * * *
CHAP. XXX.--35. Accordingly this precedent is wholly without bearing
on the matter in hand. We might rather say that the declaration of
the apostle sufficiently inculcates this care, when he says, "Let
these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon,
being found blameless."[1097] And since this is done anxiously and
habitually in both parties, by almost all concerned, how comes it
that so many are found to be reprobates subsequently to the time of
having undertaken this ministry, except that, on the one hand, human
care is often deceived, and, on the other hand, those who have begun
well occasionally deteriorate? And since things of this sort happen so
frequently as to allow no man to hide them or to forget them, what is
the reason that Petilianus now teaches us insultingly, in a few words,
that the baptizer ought to be examined by the candidate for baptism,
since our question is, by what means the conscience of the recipient is
to be cleansed, when the stain on the conscience of him that gives, but
not in holiness, has been concealed from view, if the conscience of one
that gives in holiness is what we look for to cleanse the conscience of
the recipient. "Since I see," he says, "that you are unacquainted with
the order of the sacrament, I tell you this as shortly as I can: you
were bound both to examine your baptizer, and to be examined by him."
What an answer to make! He is surrounded in so many places by such
a multitude of men that have been baptized by ministers who, having
in the first instance seemed righteous and chaste, have subsequently
been convicted and degraded in consequence of the disclosure of their
faults; and he thinks that he is avoiding the force of this question,
in which we ask by what means the conscience of the recipient is to be
cleansed, when he is unacquainted with the stain upon the conscience
of him that gives but not in holiness, if the conscience of one that
gives in holiness is what we look for to cleanse the conscience of the
recipient,--he thinks, I say, that he is avoiding the force of this
question, by saying shortly that the baptizer ought to be examined.
Nothing is more unfortunate than not to be consistent with truth, by
which every one is so shut in, that he cannot find a means of escape.
We ask from whom he is to receive faith who is baptized by one that is
faithless? The answer is, "He ought to have examined his baptizer." Is
it therefore the case that, since he does not examine him, and so even
unwittingly receives his faith from one that is faithless, he receives
not faith but guilt? Why then are those men not baptized afresh, who
are found to have been baptized by men that are detected and convicted
reprobates, while their true character was yet concealed?
* * * * *
CHAP. XXXI.--36. "And where," he says, "is the word that I added,
_wittingly?_ so that I did not say, He that has received his faith from
one that is faithless; but, He that has received his faith _wittingly_
from one that is faithless, receives not faith but guilt." He therefore
who received his faith unwittingly from one that was faithless,
received not guilt but faith; and accordingly I ask from what source
he has received it? And being thus placed in a strait, he answers, "He
ought to have examined him." Granted that he ought to have done so;
but, as a matter of fact, he did not, or he was not able: what is your
verdict about him? Was he cleansed, or was he not? If he was cleansed,
I ask from what source? For the polluted conscience of him that gave
but not in holiness, with which he was unacquainted, could not cleanse
him. But if he was not cleansed, command that he be so now. You give no
such orders, therefore he was cleansed. Tell me, by what means? Do you,
at any rate, tell me what Petilianus has failed to tell. For I propose
to you the very same words which he was unable to answer. "Behold, the
faithless man stands ready to baptize; but he who is to be baptized
knows nothing of his faithlessness: what do you think that he will
receive,--faith, or guilt?"[1098] This is sufficient as a constant form
of question: answer, or search diligently to find what he has answered.
You will find abuse that has already been convicted. He finds fault
with me, as though in derision, maintaining that I ought to suggest
what is probable for consideration, since I cannot see the truth. For,
repeating my words, and cutting my sentence in two, he says, "Behold,
you say, the faithless man stands ready to baptize; but he who is to
be baptized knows nothing of his faithlessness." Then he goes on to
ask, "Who is the man, and from what corner has he started up, that you
propose to us?" Just as though there were some one or two individuals,
and such cases were not constantly occurring everywhere on either
side! Why does he ask of me who the man in question is, and from what
corner he has started up, instead of looking round, and seeing that
the churches are few and far between, whether in cities or in country
districts, which do not contain men detected in crimes, and degraded
from the ministry? While their true character was concealed, while they
wished to be thought good, though really bad, and to be reputed chaste,
though really guilty of adultery, so long they were involved in deceit;
and so the Holy Spirit, according to the Scripture, was fleeing from
them.[1099] It is from the crowd, therefore, of these men who hitherto
concealed their character that the faithless man whom I suggested
started up. Why does he ask me whence he started up, shutting his eyes
to all this crowd, from which sufficient noise arises to satisfy the
blind, if we take into consideration none but those who might have been
convicted and degraded from their office?
* * * * *
CHAP. XXXII.--37. What shall we say of what he himself advanced in his
epistle, that "Quodvultdeus, having been convicted of two adulteries,
and cast out from among you, was received by those of our party?"[1100]
What then (I would speak without prejudice to this man, who proved his
case to be a good one, or at least persuaded men that it was so), when
such men among you, being as yet undetected, administer baptism, what
is received at their hands,--faith, or guilt? Surely not faith, because
they have not the conscience of one who gives in holiness to cleanse
the conscience of the recipient. But yet not guilt either, in virtue
of that added word: "For he that has received his faith _wittingly_
from one that is faithless, receives not faith but guilt." But when
men were baptized by those of whom I speak, they were surely ignorant
what sort of men they were. Furthermore, not receiving faith from their
baptizers, who had not the conscience of one that gives in holiness,
and not receiving guilt, because they were baptized not knowing but
in ignorance of their faults, they therefore remained without faith
and without guilt. They are not, therefore, in the number of men of
such abandoned character. But neither can they be in the number of
the faithful, because, as they could not receive guilt, so neither
could they receive faith from their baptizers. But we see that they
are reputed by you in the number of the faithful, and that no one of
you declares his opinion that they ought to be baptized, but all of
you hold valid the baptism which they have already received. They have
therefore received faith; and yet they have not received it from those
who had not the conscience of one that gives in holiness, to cleanse
the conscience of the recipient. Whence then did they receive it? This
is the point from which I make my effort; this is the question that I
press most earnestly; to this I do most urgently demand an answer.
* * * * *
CHAP. XXXIII.--38. See now how Petilianus, to avoid answering this
question, or to avoid being proved to be incapable of answering it,
wanders off vainly into irrelevant matter in abuse of us, accusing
us and proving nothing; and when he chances to make an endeavour to
resist, with something like a show of fighting for his cause, he is
everywhere overcome with the greatest ease. But yet he nowhere gives
an answer of any kind to this one question which we ask: If the
conscience of one that gives in holiness is what we look for to cleanse
the conscience of the recipient, by what means is he to be cleansed
who received baptism while the conscience of the giver was polluted,
without the knowledge of him who was to receive it? for in these words,
which he quoted from my epistle, he set me forth as asking a question,
while he showed himself as giving no answer. For after saying what I
have just now recited, and when, on being brought into a great strait
on every side, he had been compelled to say that the baptizer ought to
be examined by the candidate for baptism, and the candidate in turn by
the baptizer; and when he had tried to fortify this statement by the
example of John, in hopes that he might find auditors either of the
greatest negligence or of the greatest ignorance, he then went on to
advance other testimonies of Scripture wholly irrelevant to the matter
in hand, as the saying of the eunuch to Philip, "See, here is water;
what doth hinder me to be baptized?"[1101] "inasmuch as he knew," says
he, "that those of abandoned character were prevented;" arguing that
the reason why Philip did not forbid him to be baptized was because he
had proved, in his reading of the Scriptures, how far he believed in
Christ,--as though he had prohibited Simon Magus. And again, he urges
that the prophets were afraid of being deceived by false baptism, and
that therefore Isaiah said, "Lying water that has not faith,"[1102] as
though showing that water among faithless men is lying; whereas it is
not Isaiah but Jeremiah that says this of lying men, calling the people
in a figure water, as is most clearly shown in the Apocalypse.[1103]
And again, he quotes as words of David, "Let not the oil of the sinner
anoint my head," when David has been speaking of the flattery of the
smooth speaker deceiving with false praise, so as to lead the head
of the man praised to wax great with pride. And this meaning is made
manifest by the words immediately preceding in the same psalm. For he
says, "Let the righteous smite me, it shall be a kindness; and let him
reprove me: but the oil of the sinner shall not break my head."[1104]
What can be clearer than this sentence? what more manifest? For he
declares that he had rather be reproved in kindness with the sharp
correction of the righteous, so that he may be healed, than anointed
with the soft speaking of the flatterer, so as to be puffed up with
pride.
* * * * *
CHAP. XXXIV.--39. Petilianus quotes also the warning of the Apostle
John, that we should not believe every spirit, but try the spirits
whether they are of God,[1105] as though this care should be bestowed
in order that the wheat should be separated from the chaff in this
present world before its time, and not rather for fear that the wheat
should be deceived by the chaff; or as though, even if the lying spirit
should have said something that was true, it was to be denied, because
the spirit whom we should abominate had said it. But if any one thinks
this, he is mad enough to contend that Peter ought not to have said,
"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,"[1106] because the
devils had already said something to the same effect.[1107] Seeing,
therefore, that the baptism of Christ, whether administered by an
unrighteous or a righteous man, is nothing but the baptism of Christ,
what a cautious man and faithful Christian should do is to avoid the
unrighteousness of man, not to condemn the sacraments of God.
40. Assuredly in all these things Petilianus gives no answer to the
question, If the conscience of one that gives in holiness is what we
look for to cleanse the conscience of the recipient, by what means is
he to be cleansed who receives baptism, when the conscience of the
giver is polluted without the knowledge of the proposed recipient? A
certain Cyprian, a colleague of his from Thubursicubur, was caught in
a brothel with a woman of most abandoned character, and was brought
before Primianus of Carthage, and condemned. Now, when this man
baptized before he was detected and condemned, it is manifest that he
had not the conscience of one that gives in holiness, so as to cleanse
the conscience of the recipient. By what means then have they been
cleansed, who at this day, after he has been condemned, are certainly
not washed again? It was not necessary to name the man, save only to
prevent Petilianus from repeating, "Who is the man, and from what
corner has he started up, that you propose to us?" Why did not your
party examine that baptizer, as John, in the opinion of Petilianus, was
examined? Or was the real fact this, that they examined him so far as
man can examine man, but were unable to find him out, as he long lay
hid with cunning falseness?
* * * * *
CHAP. XXXV.--Was the water administered by this man not lying? or is
the oil of the fornicator not the oil of the sinner? or must we hold
what the Catholic Church says, and what is true, that that water and
that oil are not his by whom they were administered, but His whose name
was then invoked? Why did they who were baptized by that hypocrite,
whose sins were concealed, fail to try the spirit, to prove that it was
not of God? For the Holy Spirit of discipline was even then fleeing
from the hypocrite.[1108] Was it that He was fleeing from him, but
at the same time not deserting His sacraments, though ministered by
him? Lastly, since you do not deny that those men have been already
cleansed, whom you take no care to have cleansed now that he is
condemned, see whether, after shedding over the subject so many mists
in so many different ways, Petilianus, after all, in any place gives
any answer to the question by what means these men have been cleansed,
if what we look for to cleanse the conscience of the recipient is the
conscience of one that gives in holiness, such as the man who was
secretly unclean could not have had.
41. Making, then, no answer to this which is so urgently asked of him,
and, in the next place, even seeking for himself a latitude of speech,
he says, "Since both prophets and apostles have been cautious enough
to fear these things, with what face do you say that the baptism of
the sinner is holy to those who believe with a good conscience?" Just
as though I or any Catholic maintained that that baptism was of the
sinner which is administered or received with a sinner to officiate,
instead of being His in virtue of belief in whose name the candidate
is baptized! Then he goes off to an invective against the traitor
Judas, saying against him whatever he can, quoting the testimony of the
prophets uttered concerning him so long a time before, as though he
would steep the Church of Christ dispersed throughout the world, whose
cause is involved in this discussion, in the impiety of the traitor
Judas,--not considering what this very thing should have recalled to
his mind, that we ought no more to doubt that that is the Church of
Christ which is spread abroad throughout the world, since this was
prophesied with truth so many years before, than we ought to doubt
that it was necessary that Christ should be betrayed by one of His
disciples, because this was prophesied in like manner.
* * * * *
CHAP. XXXVI.--42. But after this, when Petilianus came to that
objection of ours, that they allowed the baptism of the followers of
Maximianus, whom they had condemned,[1109]--although in the statement
of this question he thought it right to use his own words rather than
mine; for neither do we assert that the baptism of sinners is of profit
to us, seeing that we maintain it to belong not only to no sinners,
but to no men whatsoever, in that we are satisfied that it is Christ's
alone,--having put the question in this form, he says, "Yet you
obstinately aver that it is right that the baptism of sinners should
be of profit to you, because we too, according to your statement,
maintained the baptism of criminals whom we justly condemned." When he
came to this question, as I said before, even all the show of fight
which he had made deserted him. He could not find any way to go, any
means of escape, any path by which, either through subtle watching or
bold enterprise, he could either secretly steal away, or sally forth
by force. "Although this," he says, "I will demonstrate in my second
book, how great the difference is between those of our party and those
of yours whom you call innocent, yet, in the meantime, first extricate
yourselves from the offences with which you are acquainted in your
colleagues, and then seek out the mode of dealing with those whom we
cast out." Would any one, any man upon the earth, give an answer like
this, save one who is setting himself against the truth, against which
he cannot find any answer that can be made? Accordingly, if we too were
to use the same words: In the meantime, first extricate yourselves
from the offences with which you are acquainted in your colleagues,
and then bring up against us any charge connected with those whom you
hold to be wicked amongst us,--what is the result? Have we both won
the victory, or are we both defeated? Nay, rather He has gained the
victory for His Church and in His Church, who has taught us in His
Scriptures that no man should glory in men, and that he that glorieth
should glory in the Lord.[1110] For behold in our case, who assert with
the eloquence of truth that the man who believes is not justified by
him by whom he is baptized, but by Him of whom it is written, "To him
that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted
for righteousness,"[1111] since we do not glory in men, and strive, when
we glory, to glory in the Lord in virtue of His own gift, how wholly
safe are we, whatever fault or charge Petilianus may have been able to
prove concerning certain men of our communion! For among us, whatever
wicked men are either wholly undetected, or, being known to certain
persons, are yet tolerated for the sake of the bond of unity and peace,
in consideration of other good men to whom their wickedness is unknown,
and before whom they could not be convicted, in order that the wheat
may not be rooted up together with the tares, yet they so bear the
burden of their own wickedness, that no one shares it with them except
those who are pleased with their unrighteousness. Nor indeed have we
any apprehension that those whom they baptize cannot be justified,
since they believe in Him that justifieth the ungodly, that their faith
may be counted for righteousness.[1111]
* * * * *
CHAP. XXXVII.--43. Furthermore, according to our tenets, neither he of
whom Petilianus said that he was cast forth by us for the sin of the
men of Sodom, another being appointed in his place, and that afterwards
he was actually restored to our college,--talking all the time without
knowing what he was saying,--nor he whom he declares to have been
penitent among you, in whatever degree their respective cases do or
do not admit of any defence, can either of them prejudice the Church,
which is spread abroad throughout all nations, and increases in the
world until the harvest. For if they were really wicked members of it
that you accuse, then they were already not in it, but among the chaff;
but if they are good, while you defame their character with unrighteous
accusations, they are themselves being tried like gold, while you
burn after the similitude of chaff. Yet the sins of other men do not
defile the Church, which is spread abroad throughout the whole world,
according to most faithful prophecies, waiting for the end of the world
as for its shore, on which, when it is landed, it will be freed from
the bad fish, in company with which the inconvenience of nature might
be borne without sin within the same nets of the Lord, so long as it
was not right to be impatiently separated from them. Nor yet is the
discipline of the Church on this account neglected by constant and
diligent and prudent ministers of Christ, in whose province crimes are
in such wise brought to light that they cannot be defended on any plea
of probability. Innumerable proofs of this may be found in those who
have been bishops or clergy of the second degree of orders, and now,
being degraded, have either gone abroad into other lands through shame,
or have gone over to you yourselves or to other heresies, or are known
in their own districts; of whom there is so great a multitude dispersed
throughout the earth, that if Petilianus, bridling for a time his
rashness in speaking, had taken them into consideration, he would never
have fallen into so manifestly false and groundless a misconception,
as to think that we ought to join in what he says: None of you is free
from guilt, where no one that is guilty is condemned.
* * * * *
CHAP. XXXVIII.--44. For, to pass over others dwelling in different
quarters of the earth,--for you will scarcely find any place in which
this kind of men is not represented, from whom it may appear that
overseers and ministers are wont to be condemned even in the Catholic
Church,--we need not look far to find the example of Honorius of
Milevis. But take the case of Splendonius, whom Petilianus ordained
priest after he had been condemned in the Catholic Church, and
rebaptized by himself, whose condemnation in Gaul, communicated to us
by our brethren, our colleague Fortunatus caused to be publicly read
in Constantina, and whom the same Petilianus afterwards cast forth on
experience of his abominable deceit. From the case of this Splendonius,
when was there a time when he might not have been reminded after what
fashion wicked men are degraded from their office even in the Catholic
Church? I wonder on what precipice of rashness his heart was resting
when he dictated those words in which he ventured to say, "No one of
you is free from guilt, where no one that is guilty is condemned."
Wherefore the wicked, being bodily intermingled with the good, but
spiritually separated from them in the Catholic Church, both when they
are undetected through the infirmity of human nature, and when they
are condemned from considerations of discipline, in every case bear
their own burden. And in this way those are free from danger who are
baptized by them with the baptism of Christ, if they keep free from
share in their sins either by imitation or consent; seeing that in
like manner, if they were baptized by the best of men, they would not
be justified except by Him that justifieth the ungodly: since to those
that believe on Him that justifieth the ungodly their faith is counted
for righteousness.
* * * * *
CHAP. XXXIX.--45. But as for you, when the case of the followers of
Maximianus is brought up against you, who, after being condemned by
the sentence of a Council of 310 bishops;[1112] after being utterly
defeated in the same Council, quoted in the records of so many
proconsuls, in the chronicles of so many municipal towns; after being
driven forth from the basilicas of which they were in possession, by
the order of the judges, enforced by the troops of the several cities,
were yet again received with all honour by you, together with those
whom they had baptized outside the pale of your communion, without any
question respecting their baptism,--when confronted, I say, with their
case, you can find no reply to make. Indeed, you are vanquished by an
expressed opinion, not indeed true, but proceeding from yourselves,
by which you maintain that men perish for the faults of others in
the same communion of the sacraments, and that each man's character
is determined by that of the man by whom he is baptized,--that he is
guilty if his baptizer is guilty, innocent if he is innocent. But if
these views are true, there can be no doubt that, to say nothing of
innumerable others, you are destroyed by the sins of the followers
of Maximianus, whose guilt your party, in so large a Council, has
exaggerated even to the proportions of the sin of those whom the earth
swallowed up alive. But if the faults of the followers of Maximianus
have not destroyed you, then are these opinions false which you
entertain; and much less have certain indefinite unproved faults of the
Africans been able to destroy the entire world. And accordingly, as
the apostle says, "Every man shall bear his own burden;"[1113] and the
baptism of Christ is no one's except Christ's; and it is to no purpose
that Petilianus promises that he will take as the subject of his second
book the charges which we bring concerning the followers of Maximianus,
entertaining too low an opinion of men's intellects, as though they do
not perceive that he has nothing to say.
* * * * *
CHAP. XL.--46. For if the baptism which Prætextatus and Felicianus
administered in the communion of Maximianus was their own, why was
it received by you in those whom they baptized as though it were the
baptism of Christ? But if it is truly the baptism of Christ, as indeed
it is, and yet could not profit those who had received it with the
guilt of schism, what do you say that you could have granted to those
whom you have received into your body with the same baptism, except
that, now that the offence of their accursed division is wiped out
by the bond of peace, they should not be compelled to receive the
sacrament of the holy laver as though they had it not, but that, as
what they had was before for their destruction, so it should now begin
to be of profit to them? Or if this is not granted to them in your
communion, because it could not possibly be that it should be granted
to schismatics among schismatics, it is at any rate granted to you in
the Catholic communion, not that you should receive baptism as though
it were lacking in you, but that the baptism which you have actually
received should be of profit to you. For all the sacraments of Christ,
if not combined with the love which belongs to the unity of Christ,
are possessed not unto salvation, but unto judgment. But since it is
not a true verdict, but your verdict, "that through the baptism of
certain _traditors_ the baptism of Christ has perished from the world
in general," it is with good reason that you cannot find any answer
to make respecting the recognition of the baptism of the followers of
Maximianus.
47. See therefore, and remember with the most watchful care, how
Petilianus has made no answer to that very question, which he proposes
to himself in such terms as to seem to make it a starting-point from
which to say something. For the former question he has dismissed
altogether, and has not wished to speak of it to us, because I suppose
it was beyond his power; nor is he at any time, up to the very end
of his volume, going to say anything about it, though he quoted it
from the first part of my epistle as though it were a matter calling
for refutation. For even though he has added the two words which he
accused me of having suppressed, as though they were the strongest
bulwarks of his position, he yet lies wholly defenceless, unable to
find any answer to make when he is asked, If the conscience of one that
gives in holiness is what we look for to cleanse the conscience of the
recipient, where are we to find means for cleansing the conscience of
the man who is unacquainted with the conscience of him that gives,
but not in holiness? and if it be the case that any one who has
received his faith from one that is faithless, receives not faith but
guilt, from what source is he to receive not guilt but faith, who is
unwittingly baptized by one that is faithless? To this question it has
long been manifest from what he says that he has made no answer.
48. In the next place, he has gone on, with calumnious mouth, to abuse
monasteries and monks, finding fault also with me, as having been the
founder of this kind of life.[1114] And what this kind of life really
is he does not know at all, or rather, though it is perfectly well
known throughout all the world, he pretends that he is unacquainted
with it. Then, asserting that I had said that Christ was the baptizer,
he has also added certain words from my epistle as though I had
set this forth as my own sentiment, when I had really quoted it as
his and yours, as I will presently show clearly to the best of my
ability.[1115] Then he has endeavoured to show us, in many unnecessary
words, that Christ does not baptize, but that baptism is administered
in His name, at once in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost; of which Trinity itself he has said, either because
it was what he wished, or because it was all that he could say, that
"Christ is the centre of the Trinity." In the next place, he has taken
occasion of the names of the sorcerers Simon and Barjesus to vent
against us what insults he thought fit. Then he goes on, keeping in
guarded suspense the case of Optatus of Thamugas, that he might not be
steeped in the odium that arose from it, denying that either he or his
party could have passed judgment upon him, and actually intimating in
respect of him, that he was crushed in consequence of suggestions from
myself.
* * * * *
CHAP. XLI.--49. Lastly, he has ended his epistle with an exhortation
and warning to his own party, that they should not be deceived by us,
and with a lamentation over those of our party, that we had made them
worse than they had been before. Having therefore carefully considered
and discussed these points, as appears with sufficient clearness
from the words of the epistle which he wrote, Petilianus has made no
answer at all to the position which I advanced to begin with in my
epistle, when I asked, Supposing it to be true, as he asserts, that
the conscience of one that gives--or rather, to add what he considers
so great a support to his argument--that the conscience of one that
gives in holiness is what we look for to cleanse the conscience of the
recipient, by what means he who receives baptism is to be cleansed,
when, if the conscience of the giver is polluted, it is without the
knowledge of the proposed recipient? Whence it is not surprising that
a man resisting in the cause of falsehood, pressed hard in the straits
of the truth that contradicts it, should have chosen rather to gasp
forth mad abuse, than to walk in the path of that truth which cannot be
overcome.
50. And now I would beg of you to pay especial attention to the next
few words, that I may show you clearly what he has been afraid of in
not answering this, and that I may bring into the light what he has
endeavoured to shroud in obscurity. It certainly was in his power, when
we asked by what means he is to be cleansed, who receives baptism when
the conscience of the giver is polluted without the knowledge of the
proposed recipient, to answer with the greatest ease, From our Lord
God; and at any rate to say with the utmost confidence, God wholly
cleanses the conscience of the recipient, when he is unacquainted with
the stain upon the conscience of him that gives but not in holiness.
But when a man had already been compelled by the tenets of your sect
to rest the cleansing of the recipient on the conscience of the giver,
in that he had said, "For the conscience of him that gives," or "of
him that gives in holiness, is looked for to cleanse the conscience of
the recipient," he was naturally afraid lest any one should seem to
be better baptized by a wicked man who concealed his wickedness, than
by one that was genuinely and manifestly good; for in the former case
his cleansing would depend not on the conscience of one that gave in
holiness, but on the most excellent holiness of God Himself. With this
apprehension, therefore, that he might not be involved in so great an
absurdity, or rather madness, as not to know where he could make his
escape, he was unwilling to say by what means the conscience of the
recipient should be cleansed, when he does not know of the stain upon
the conscience of him that gives but not in holiness; and he thought it
better, by making a general confusion with his quarrelsome uproar, to
conceal what was asked of him, than to give a reply to his question,
which should at once discomfit him; never, however, thinking that our
letter could be read by men of such good understanding, or that his
would be read by those who had read ours as well, to which he has
professed to make an answer.
* * * * *
CHAP. XLII.--51. For what I just now said is put with the greatest
clearness in that very epistle of mine, in answering which he has said
nothing; and I would beg of you to listen for a few moments to what he
there has done. And although you are partisans of his, and hate us,
yet, if you can, bear it with equanimity. For in his former epistle, to
the first portion of which--the only portion which had then come into
our hands--I had in the first instance made my reply, he had so rested
the hope that is found in baptism in the baptizer, as to say, "For
everything consists of an origin and root; and if anything has not a
head, it is nothing." Since then Petilianus had said this, not wishing
anything to be understood by the origin and root and head of baptizing
a man, except the man by whom he might be baptized, I made a comment,
and said: "We ask, therefore, in a case where the faithlessness of
the baptizer is undetected, if then the man whom he baptizes receives
faith and not guilt? if then the baptizer is not his origin and root
and head, who is it from whom he receives faith? where is the origin
from which he springs? where is the root of which he is a shoot? where
the head which is his starting-point? Can it be that, when he who is
baptized is unaware of the faithlessness of his baptizer, it is then
Christ who is the origin and root and head?" This therefore I say and
exclaim now also, as I did there as well: "Alas for human rashness and
conceit! Why do you not allow that it is always Christ who gives faith,
for the purpose of making a man a Christian by giving it? Why do you
not allow that Christ is always the origin of the Christian, that the
Christian always plants his root in Christ, that Christ is the Head
of the Christian? Will it then be urged that, even where spiritual
grace is dispensed to those that believe by the hands of a holy and
faithful minister, it is still not the minister himself who justifies,
but that One of whom it is said, 'He justifieth the ungodly?'[1116]
But unless we admit this, either the Apostle Paul was the head and
origin of those whom he had planted, or Apollos the root of those whom
he had watered, rather than He who had given them faith in believing;
whereas the same Paul says, 'I have planted, Apollos watered; but God
gave the increase. So that neither is he that planteth anything, nor
he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.'[1117] Nor was the
apostle himself their root, but rather He who says, 'I am the vine,
ye are the branches.'[1118] How, too, could he be their head, when he
says that 'we, being many, are one body in Christ,'[1119] and expressly
declares in many passages that Christ Himself is the Head of the whole
body? Wherefore, whether a man receive the sacrament of baptism from a
faithful or a faithless minister, his whole hope is in Christ, that he
fall not under the condemnation, that 'Cursed is he that placeth his
hope in man!'"[1120]
* * * * *
CHAP. XLIII.--52. These things, I think, I put with clearness and truth
in my former epistle, when I made answer to Petilianus. These things I
have also now quoted, intimating and commending to you the truth that
our faith rests on something else altogether than man, and that we
believe that the Lord Christ is the cleanser and the justifier of men
that believe in Him that justifieth the ungodly, that their faith may
be counted unto them for righteousness, whether the man who administers
the baptism be righteous, or such an impious and deceitful man as the
Holy Spirit flees. Then I went on to point out what absurdity would
follow were it otherwise, and I said, as I say now: "Otherwise, if each
man is born again in spiritual grace of the same sort as he by whom
he is baptized, and if, when he who baptizes him is manifestly a good
man, then he himself gives faith, he is himself the origin and root and
head of him who is being born; whilst, when the baptizer is faithless
without its being known, then the baptized person receives faith from
Christ, then he derives his origin from Christ, then he is rooted in
Christ, then he boasts in Christ as his head; in that case all who are
baptized should wish that they might have faithless baptizers, and
be ignorant of their faithlessness. For however good their baptizers
might have been, Christ is certainly beyond comparison better still,
and He will then be the Head of the baptized if the faithlessness of
the baptizer shall escape detection. But if it be perfect madness to
hold such a view (for it is Christ always that justifieth the ungodly,
by changing his ungodliness into Christianity; it is from Christ always
that faith is received; Christ is always the origin of the regenerate,
and the Head of the Church), what weight then will those words have,
which thoughtless readers value by their sound, without inquiring what
their inner meaning is?"[1121] This much I said at that time; this is
written in my epistle.
* * * * *
CHAP. XLIV.--53. Then a little after, as he had said, "This being so,
brethren, what perversity must that be, that he who is guilty by reason
of his own faults should make another free from guilt, whereas the
Lord Jesus Christ says, 'Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit,
but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit: do men gather grapes of
thorns?'[1122] and again, 'A good man, out of the good treasure of
the heart, bringeth forth good things: and an evil man, out of the
evil treasure, bringeth forth evil things,'"[1123]--by which words
Petilianus showed with sufficient clearness, that the man who baptizes
is to be looked on as the tree, and he who is baptized as the fruit:
to this I had answered, If the good tree is the good baptizer, and his
good fruit he whom he has baptized, then any one who has been baptized
by a bad man, even if his wickedness be not manifest, cannot by any
possibility be good, for he is sprung from an evil tree. For a good
tree is one thing; a tree whose quality is concealed, but yet bad, is
another. What else did I wish to be understood by those words, except
what I had stated a little above, that the tree and its fruit do not
represent him that baptizes and him that is baptized; but that the man
ought to be received as signified by the tree, his works and his life
by the fruit, which are always good in the good man, and evil in the
evil man, lest this absurdity should follow, that a man should be bad
when baptized by a bad man, even though his wickedness were concealed,
being, as it were, the fruit of a tree whose quality was unknown, but
yet bad? To which he has answered nothing whatsoever.
* * * * *
CHAP. XLV.--54. But that neither he nor any one of you might say
that, when any one of concealed bad character is the baptizer, then
he whom he baptizes is not his fruit, but the fruit of Christ, I went
on immediately to point out what a foolish error is consequent also
on that opinion; and I repeated, though in other words, what I had
said shortly before: If, when the quality of the tree is concealed,
but evil, any one who may have been baptized by it is born, not of
it, but of Christ, then they are justified with greater holiness who
are baptized by wicked men, whose wickedness is concealed, than they
who are baptized by men that are genuinely and manifestly good.[1124]
Petilianus then, being hemmed in by these embarrassing straits, said
nothing about the earlier part on which these remarks depended, and in
his answer so quoted this absurd consequence of his error as though I
had stated it as my own opinion, whereas it was really stated in order
that he might perceive the amount of evil consequent on his opinion,
and so be forced to alter it. Imposing, therefore, this deceit on those
who hear and read his words, and never for a moment supposing that
what we have written could be read, he begins a vehement and petulant
invective against me, as though I had thought that all who are baptized
ought to wish that they might have as their baptizers men who are
faithless, without knowing this themselves, since, however good the men
might be whom they had to baptize them, Christ is incomparably better,
who will then be the head of the person baptized, if the faithless
baptizer conceal his true character. As though, too, I had thought
that those were justified with greater holiness who are baptized by
evil men, whose character is concealed, than those who are baptized by
men that are genuinely and manifestly good; when this marvellous piece
of madness was only mentioned by me as following necessarily on the
opinion of those who think with Petilianus, that a man, when baptized,
bears the same relation to his baptizer as fruit does to the tree from
which it springs,--good fruit springing from a good tree, evil fruit
from an evil tree,--seeing that they, when they are bidden by me to
answer whose fruit they think a man that is baptized to be when he is
baptized by one of secretly bad character, since they do not venture
to rebaptize him, are compelled to answer, that then he is not the
fruit of that man of secretly bad character, but that he is the fruit
of Christ. And so they are followed by a consequence contrary to their
inclination, which none but a madman would entertain,--that if a man is
the fruit of his baptizer when he is baptized by one that is genuinely
and manifestly good, but when he is baptized by one of secretly bad
character, he is then not his fruit, but the fruit of Christ,--it
cannot but follow that they are justified with greater holiness who are
baptized by men of secretly bad character, than those who are baptized
by men who are genuinely and manifestly good.
* * * * *
CHAP. XLVI.--55. Now, seeing that when Petilianus attributes this to
me as though it were my opinion, he makes it an occasion for a serious
and vehement invective against me, he at any rate shows, by the very
force of his indignation, how great a sin it is in his opinion to
entertain such views; and, accordingly, whatever he has wished it to
appear that he said against me for holding this opinion will be found
to have been really said against himself, who is proved to entertain
the view. For he shows herein by how great force on the side of truth
he is overcome, when he cannot find any other door of escape except
to pretend that it was I who entertained the views which really are
his own. Just as if those whom the apostle confutes for maintaining
that there was no resurrection from the dead, were to wish to bring an
accusation against the same apostle, on the ground that he said, "Then
is Christ not risen," and to maintain that the preaching of the apostle
was vain, and the faith of those who believed in it was also vain, and
that false witnesses were found against God in those who had said that
He raised up Christ from the dead. This is what Petilianus wished to
do to me, never expecting that any one could read what I had written,
which he could not answer, though very anxious that men should believe
him to have answered it. But just as, if any one had done this to the
apostle, the whole calumnious accusation would have recoiled on the
head of those who made it so soon as the entire passage in his epistle
was read, and the preceding words restored, on which any one who reads
them must perceive that those which I have quoted depend, in the same
way, so soon as the preceding words of my epistle are restored, the
accusation which Petilianus brings against me is cast back with all the
greater force upon his own head, from which he had striven to remove it.